Best Air Support ?

[Loachman]

LM, talking with the senior engineer down in ft.Worth about this little beasty, its genesis was pretty much making a smoother 212 with about another 20 or 30 kts for the guys at PHI to fly out to the rigs in the Gulf with... :

Too cheap to use decently-sized pipes.

 

[Sf2]

EDIT

Best discussed over a beer instead of on the interweb.

 

[Garry]

Iraq and Aghanistan modern war?

Sure, for the four days it took to complete the mission.

We're now an "occupying force".

Low grade conflicts are made for the A-10, AC-130, etc- places where we have air superiority. I'm not sure if we'll ever see another real WWII style conflict (hope to heck we don't) .

I can guarantee you that all of the tools available to the modern commander are NOT being used in today's conflicts.

Cheers-Garry

 

[geo]

If those tools were designed to fight a conventional war against an army of troops in uniform, good chance that no, they are not... but, doctrine & tactics designed to deal with an insurgency are as pertinent today as they were back then ............
Brits... Malaysia,  Palestine
US......Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos
Rus..... Chechnya, Afghanistan.

 

[Garry]

This is not the direction I wanted to go, and I don't want to hijack this thread- but out of the wars you just talked about, iirc none of them were won- Iraq and Afghanistan wars were won...and now the uprising, counter-insurgency, Syrian, Iranian, and Pakistani-sponsored attacks- whatever you want to call them- are on.

Never forgetting that the battle doesn't be huge to forever the affect the guys that fought it, but our guys are in a terrible position. Has to be easier when the enemy is behind a line and wears a uniform- as least you know who to attack, and who to leave alone.....

And maybe even tougher on the average civvy in both Iraq and A'Stan- they either suport the buggers that are fighting their own war on their turf, or fight for their country- and which side is "right"?? The foreign guys who are different but nice, or the guys that are harsh but at least look and talk like them..

God Bless our guys for doing what they can to keep the Terrorists busy and away from my family.

Good hunting guys.

..and God Bless them again for helping those folk on the other side of the world.

PS- Merry Christmas!

 

[a_majoor]

Thinking back to history, the British used air power to police Iraq and various other parts of the Empire in the 1920's and 30's. Since they were operating in a permissive environment against ground targets, flying around in fabric biplanes wasn't a disadvantage at all.

The use of air power in a tactical role has always required the combination of loiter time, protection and firepower or weapons load. Fast air hasn't been very good in a tactical role since the pilot simply dosn't have the time to see the target, set up the engagement and so on. On the other hand, the airplane needs fighter like performance for protection and also to keep the enemy from being able to predict patterns (the AC-130 is restricted from flying during the daylight hours because it is so vulnerable to ground fire). WWII era fighter planes seem to have reached that "sweet spot", and even as late as the Viet Nam war the venerable "Skyraider" (Nicknamed the SPAD by the troops) was one of the best and most popular CAS platforms available. Certainly the troops could apprieciate an airplane where the pilot could see both them and the target, as opposed to (say) an F-105 "Thud" screaming overhead at 500mph releasing its ordinance.

Since Skyraiders arn't available anymore, some modern equivalent needs to be looked at. I would think that a primary trainer has most of the characteristics we are looking for (the A-37 "Dragonfly" was such a beast in the Viet Nam war), at least in terms of a fixed wing CAS platform. Since it should already be in service as the primary trainer, issues like logistics and support would be lessened, and indeed they would be cheaper since there would be a bulk buy of airframes.

 

[rampage800]

To play Devils Advocate on that Vietnam era a/c didn't have the pods they do today (LANTIRN, SNIPER, etc) or JDAMs and relied solely on talk-ons. Most of the a/c can do what they need to from 20 000+ ft with exception to some a/c which like to operate out of the weeds and are primarily designed to do so, Warthogs come to mind.
In the situation you describe with the F-105  ripping over like that, well that sounds like a Low Level run to me, meaning High Threat from En AD and it is still utilized (to a lesser degree) but the old Skyraider would be totally useless in that situation (unless you wanted some work for the CSAR guys). Once again if the plane can do the same job way high up and 10NM back why risk the a/c ?
The problem with slow is they are exactly that, slow, and have a greater chance of getting shot up/down which is exactly why Spectres only work at night. I don't know where you draw the line between the 2 but I'm just chucking that out there.
Anyhow..........

 

[a_majoor]

There are so many factors in play this topic can be spun in almost any direction. If you are just looking to plant ordinance on target, we could launch an ICBM (at one extreme), and there are plans to do just that with US Trident SLBM's packing conventional warheads.....

B-52's or other bombers can send PGM's on targets from great hights and distances, but this seems to be a bit of a waste of a resource to use this as CAS. If we just want airborn firepower, I suppose you could make a case for fitting an M-777 to the Goodyear blimp.....

One thing which seems to be required based on this thread is that the A/C is also able to escort transport aircraft or helicopters, which does speak to an attack helicopter or ground attack aircraft. Although an A-10 is "the" plane to have, production ceased many years ago, so we might look for more BAe Hawks for fixed wing CAS, and an inexpensive scout/attack helicopter (MD-500?) for helicopter support. Like everything else, we should be looking for the most versatile solution possible within our limited resources.

 

[geo]

Most versatile solution for CAS?
Has to be, when required, low & slow while providing protection to the crew
Fast enough to deliver needed resources right this instant
Ability to linger over an active battlefield

Planes?  A10, Harrier.... Predator drone?

Helicopter?  Cobra / SuperCobra as presently used by USMC - less technical & gee-whiz than the Apache.

 

[vonGarvin]

B-52's, Cloud Station or Nuclear Zeppelins are fine for delivering ordnance as A_Majoor says, but he does hit a key point.  For CLOSE air support, there are some requirements:
It must be highly responsive to the ground element.  As stated, there must be an ability to linger and to communicate, in real time, with the FAC.
It must be able to identify the target with the Mk I Eyeball.  There is no sense in programming a 10 figure grid reference into the thing, as by the time those buttons are pushed, the target may very well move out of harm's way. 
From this ability to identify with the Mk I Eyeball, it must be able to slow down enough to see the target.  It must also be low enough to see the target.
From this slow and low flying, it means that it is probably susceptible to ground small arms fire.  Therefore, it must be heavily protected, at least around the cockpit.

To my army mind, there are some planes in service, and retired, that fit this bill.  A-10 Thunderbolt.  Apache Longbow.  AH-1 Cobra.  Heck, even the Ju-87 Divebomber, the so-called Stuka of WW II fame.

*Disclaimer:  "Stuka" is an acronym for "Sturzkampfflugzeug", or Dive bomber.  The Ju-87 certainly was the most famous (or infamous) due to its high pitched wailing siren as it dived (an attack on the moral plane as it delivered its physical plane weaponry).  Why dive bomb?  Given the technology available at the time, dive bombing was one way to ensure accuracy.

 

[geo]

If you're going to resurect the Stuka then I would suggest that something like the Typhoon of same said era is an even better fit.  Single seater AND heavily armoured for pilot protection.

 

[a_majoor]

The WWII Hs 129 packed a 75mm cannon from a PzKW MK IV, so there is plenty of competition for "most airborn firepower" (A B-25 Mitchell with a 75mm cannon and 4 X .50 HMG's in the nose should be pretty close to the top of the list, although there was also an improbable ME-262 jet fighter conversion with a PAK 50 anti tank gun stuck in the nose.....)

Moving into the thinking "outside the box" territory, we might look at a "compound aircraft" similar in concept to the AH-56 Cheyenne, which is considerably faster than a conventional helicopter, giving the pilot the ability to dash to targets or attack like a fixed wing aircraft if conditions allow. I also stumbled across another "out of the box" design for a very manoeuvrable fixed wing design. If the design is scaled up and a turboprop engine is substituted for power, this might be a STOL close support contender. http://www.esotec.co.nz/hb/HTML/HomePage2_F.html

 

[rz350]

How about the Su-25KM. Its an Su-25 with Israeli made avionics that are NATO compatible. I suggest it since the A-10 seems to be the preferred CAS plane, and the Su-25 is closest thing that is still in serial production.

 

[28402 engineers]

has anyone ever considered the Eurpcopter Tiger HAP ? or maybe even the Aussie version ARH? what about that Italian AH, the A129?
even the South African Rooivalk might be good. it all depends on how much money the government is willing to spend. In my opinion, it will take some kind of disaster like a Leo being destroyed from above, or (when/if we buy them) a Chinook gets blown out of the air, then the government will spring for an AH or Attack plane of some sort.

my 2 cents

regards,
Matt

 

[rampage800]

B-52's or other bombers can send PGM's on targets from great heights and distances, but this seems to be a bit of a waste of a resource to use this as CAS. If we just want airborn firepower, I suppose you could make a case for fitting an M-777 to the Goodyear blimp.....

But that is exactly what CAS is ; CAS is air action against hostile tgts which are in close proximity to Fr forces and which require the detailed integration of each air msn with the fire and movement of those forces.

If we're talking escorts and stuff like that, well that's a whole other issue, I don't have an issue with our need for AH or even A-10s but seeing how they don't make them anymore.........A-10s that is
As for HS's remarks about seeing the tgt, yea I agree totally(even though the pilot doesn't have to, ie. Type 2 controls)but he can see the tgt through his pod as opposed to coming right down low to see him,why would you not use your optics and technology on board, they obviously use it at night when the old Mk 1 eyeball isn't working so well, all's I'm saying is they don't put all these stand off distances on different munitions so the pilot can come down nice and low to see whats going on. Sure theres going to be times when he has no choice ie High Threat, Bent Pod, etc, etc. The other point brought up about the tgt moving, well that just depends what the a/c checks in with, maybe hes only got JDAMs, then maybe you set up a trigger point, maybe he's carrying GBU-12s then you can use your LTM, it just depends on the situation.......Anyhow I'm not trying to get in a war of words here and I admittingly haven't read the whole 15 pages of this topic but seeing how I didn't think a 777 on a blimp would work I decided to add a little more here.

 

[Kirkhill]

But that is exactly what CAS is ; CAS is air action against hostile tgts which are in close proximity to Fr forces and which require the detailed integration of each air msn with the fire and movement of those forces.

And ultimately isn't that what Close Support of any type is?  The ability to engage hostile targets in close proximity to Fr forces?  Regardless of platform?  It seems to me it isn't the platform, nor the means of delivery,  but the size of the explosion and the speed with which the support can be delivered once a call from the Fr force has been received.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not sure if already mentioned, how does the hawk trainer rate as a ground attack aircraft?

 

[hoist-monkey]

Do we own the hawks?
I thought they were on lease for training NATO pilots.

They are a sexy little plane though.

The Red Arrows use them and the look like they handle like a little sports car.

 

[Inch]

Do we own the hawks?
I thought they were on lease for training NATO pilots.

They are a sexy little plane though.

The Red Arrows use them and the look like they handle like a little sports car.

We do not own them. Bombardier owns them and uses them for NFTC in Moose Jaw and Cold Lake.

I have my doubts about it as ground attack, it's small and wouldn't carry much in the way of ordnance. It doesn't even have a gun fitted.

 

[a_majoor]

The Hawk is designed to carry a small weapons load both to train pilots and for smaller air forces to use as attack aircraft. We use the Hawk 100 series, but there are later versions with improved performance capable of better performance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Hawk

General characteristics
Crew: 2: student, instructor
Length: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 9.94 m (32 ft 7 in)
Height: 3.98 m (13 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 16.70 m² (179.64 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,480 kg (9,880 lb)
Useful load: 3,000 kg (6,600 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 9,100 kg (20,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Adour Mk.951 turbofan with FADEC, 29 kN (6,500 lbf)
Performance
Never exceed speed: 1.2 Mach
Maximum speed: .84 Mach (1,028 km/h, 638 mph) at altitude
Range: 2,520 km (1,360 nm, 1,565 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,565 m (44,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 47 m/s (9,300 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.47
Armament
Note: all armament is optional.
1× 30 mm ADEN cannon, in centreline pod
Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on five hardpoints, including:
4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or ASRAAM on wing pylons and wingtip rails
1,500 lb (680 kg), limited to one centreline and two wing pylons (Hawk T.1)