A10 Replacement

[swerve]

This is an interesting idea, but I have a feeling marrying a long-endurance UAV with a relatively short-endurance tactical aircraft isn't an ideal match. I think a bizjet or small airliner would be preferable.  Maybe even multitask aircraft like the 737-based MMA, future JSTARS or tanker.

187086[/snapback]

 

 

???

 

Long-endurance? 90% of UAVs aren't long endurance. There are many more mini-UAVs, e.g. the 3kg German Aladin, or the Dragon Eye, than Global Hawks, Predators, etc. And there are also relatively high-speed short-endurance tactical UAVs. So why do you speak as if all UAVs are long endurance?

 

Long-endurance UAVs are too slow to work with fighters. The plan is to use faster, stealthy, armed UAVs in this role. They'll have other UAVs for the slow-flying long endurance roles, e.g. the Euromale & Eurohawk (RQ-4B airframe with EADS sensors) for long-range/long endurance recce. The latter, or a variant thereof, is part of the TIPS NATO ground surveillance solution, to work with A321s.

[Smitty]

For the same reasons artillery or mortars doesn't do you any good in most real squad level gunfights, they happen at 20-60m.  Supporting arms will do more damage to you than the enemy will.

 

If you're calling in air to kill AFVs that're 20-60m from you, you're in deep trouble.

 

Fuck AAA.  SEAD is going to be massive because it'll be the only thing going on until troops make contact.  MANPADS may be an issue, best dealt with using blinding lasers or other directed energy weapons(microwaves, etc etc)

 

SEAD's good at hitting radar directed SAMs, not the odd ZU-23.

 

The proven way of dealing with MANPADs (and any air defenses) is to stay outside their envelope.

 

Targetting errors are fact of life.  Best have enough ordnance to be able to hit lots of things many times.  Plus

 

Viper Strike and APKWS are small and light enough to carry in large numbers.

 

This and laser designators for every grunt?  Fuck that useless weight.  Also I have use BFT, OK for vehicles, never have enough batteries for troops, that's also more weight.  S/F....Ken M

 

Personal BFT or it's equivalent is coming as part of the Objective Force (assuming that ever makes it out of the lab). Laser designators may never make it to the individual soldier level, but laser pointers probably will, and may be almost as good, assuming airborne optics can pick them up.

[Smitty]

???

 

Long-endurance? 90% of UAVs aren't long endurance. There are many more mini-UAVs, e.g. the 3kg German Aladin, or the Dragon Eye, than Global Hawks, Predators, etc. And there are also relatively high-speed short-endurance tactical UAVs. So why do you speak as if all UAVs are long endurance?

 

Ahh ok. I thought you were talking about the GHawk/Predator/Hunter style UAV.

[swerve]

Ahh ok.  I thought you were talking about the GHawk/Predator/Hunter style UAV.

 

That's long been a gap in the armoury of most W. European countries, though one that's now being filled. Lots of short-range tactical UAVs in service.

 

UAVs to accompany fighters are in an early stage of development. Technology demonstrators, that sort of thing. If the concept is ever fielded, it won't be for years.

[EchoFiveMike]

Long-endurance? 90% of UAVs aren't long endurance. There are many more mini-UAVs, e.g. the 3kg German Aladin, or the Dragon Eye, than Global Hawks, Predators, etc. And there are also relatively high-speed short-endurance tactical UAVs. So why do you speak as if all UAVs are long endurance?

Umm, no. Most UAV's currently in development or deployed are long endurance, expecially relative to manned aircraft. Even Bde level systems have on station times measured in hours, whereas unrefueled manned attack aircraft are measured in minutes. Magnify by manned aircraft launch and recovery requirements from fixed airfields, contrasted with STOL/VTOL abilities for many UAV's.

 

If you're calling in air to kill AFVs that're 20-60m from you, you're in deep trouble.

 

No shit, if you haven't noticed, there is no heavy threat at present. The US can utterly crush ANY conventional threat so fast it'll blow your mind. That's not the problem. LIC is the problem.

 

SEAD's good at hitting radar directed SAMs, not the odd ZU-23.

The proven way of dealing with MANPADs (and any air defenses) is to stay outside their envelope.

No, it's not proven; it's a half assed method that sacrifices effectiveness for risk mitigation. Also, ZSU's are dead meat. If you can't hide in plain sight(IOW look like civvies), you're dead. The most survivable future air defense platform is going to be based on a Kia Bongo truck.

 

Viper Strike and APKWS are small and light enough to carry in large numbers.

 

Define large numbers. Last time I checked, you're looking at maybe 8-12 Viper Strikes on a Predator B, which is a Div level or higher asset. The little Bde level(ought to be Bn level) UAV's are going to carry 2-4 Viper strike, which is enough to break up a squad sized ambush, at best. Now, I see a 40mm AGL as a better weapon than a full fledged cannon for something like this, expecially since we can't use cluster weapons due to political pussification.

 

Personal BFT or it's equivalent is coming as part of the Objective Force (assuming that ever makes it out of the lab). Laser designators may never make it to the individual soldier level, but laser pointers probably will, and may be almost as good, assuming airborne optics can pick them up.

 

Personal BFT is a ways away, because milspec hardware is way too heavy when all you really need is a damned encrypted cell phone. Laser designators can easily be made as part of the IR/green laser aimer on the rifle, BUT the commo architecture isn't here because of our silly assed procurment methods. Once the commo architecture is right, then everythgin else can work. Until that point, you're wasting money and time. S/F....Ken M

[swerve]

Umm, no.  Most UAV's currently in development or deployed are long endurance, expecially relative to manned aircraft.  Even Bde level systems have on station times measured in hours, whereas unrefueled manned attack aircraft are measured in minutes.  Magnify by manned aircraft launch and recovery requirements from fixed airfields, contrasted with STOL/VTOL abilities for many UAV's.

 

I'm not talking about types, but total numbers. The short range tactical UAVs have been produced in much larger numbers than the larger, long endurance ones. e.g. over 700 Pointers built so far, over 300 Ravens in US inventory, 300 Dragon Eyes ordered. What's their time on station? Published data talk of tens of minutes, not hours, & that within 10-15km from base. These are the overwhelming majority of UAVs. Same in most other countries.

[EchoFiveMike]

I'm not talking about types, but total numbers. The short range tactical UAVs have been produced in much larger numbers than the larger, long endurance ones. e.g. over 700 Pointers built so far, over 300 Ravens in US inventory, 300 Dragon Eyes ordered. What's their time on station? Published data talk of tens of minutes, not hours, & that within 10-15km from base. These are the overwhelming majority of UAVs. Same in most other countries.

 

Right, but we have more squads than we have divisions right? We still haven't gone that far wrong yet. Dragon Eye has 45 minute mission time, about 55-60 minute time before the battery dies flat and the data link goes dead. All the squad level UAV gear is purely a recon platform and a very austere one at that. That's the point, they're cheap, easy and most importantly LIGHT WEIGHT. That fits the T/E and our very conservative view of employment; it's not a technical or tactical limitation excepting real light infantry work, which we don't do except perhaps in A-stan, to a small degree. We're pounding the UAV square peg into the (obsolescent)manned aircraft/USAF round hole. Given the realities of the war in Iraq, company and Bn level units might very well find Predator class UAV's extremely useful because companies are now responsible for what was formerly considered a Bn or Bde sized AO. Bn's could very easily support Predator class UAV's but they are not supplied with them because of the traditional limited scope of a Bn AO. I suspect that it's mainly because doing so would largely obviate Rgt/Bde level commands, and that would result in an career crisis for the senior officer corps.

 

 

I find it quite insane that at the same time we're pushing all services to be lightweight and more expeditionary because of the orgasmic glee over the success of the small unit/Godlike intel/omnipotent commo/instant firesupport model, yet we are not doing anything serious to actually equip the troops for that role. S/F....Ken M

[Smitty]

No shit, if you haven't noticed, there is no heavy threat at present.  The US can utterly crush ANY conventional threat so fast it'll blow your mind.  That's not the problem.  LIC is the problem.

 

True, but I was responding to a statement about taking out AFVs.

 

 

No, it's not proven; it's a half assed method that sacrifices effectiveness for risk mitigation.  Also, ZSU's are dead meat.  If you can't hide in plain sight(IOW look like civvies), you're dead.  The most survivable future air defense platform is going to be based on a Kia Bongo truck.

 

Well, somehow Al Qaeda hid small AAA, and even 122/152mm guns in plain sight during Anaconda.

 

 

Define large numbers.  Last time I checked, you're looking at maybe 8-12 Viper Strikes on a Predator B, which is a Div level or higher asset.  The little Bde level(ought to be Bn level) UAV's are going to carry 2-4 Viper strike, which is enough to break up a squad sized ambush, at best.  Now, I see a 40mm AGL as a better weapon than a full fledged cannon for something like this, expecially since we can't use cluster weapons due to political pussification. 

 

Up to 24 on a Predator B. 2 on a Hunter. 4-6 on a Fire Scout or Predator A.

 

Unfortunately, little Bde or Bn UAVs aren't going to be able to carry much of anything, including guns.

 

IMHO, OCSW has more going for it as a fixed mount. A 40mm GL would work on a helo UAV in a turret.

[EchoFiveMike]

True, but I was responding to a statement about taking out AFVs.

??? You quoted and replied to my statement about squad level firefights at close range.

 

Well, somehow Al Qaeda hid small AAA, and even 122/152mm guns in plain sight during Anaconda.

 

The more I read about Anaconda the more I think it was a giant goatfuck with far too many chiefs and not near enough Indians and nobody(chiefs) talked to each other. It was also very early in the GWOT and everyone was still very busy pulling their heads out of their 3rd point of contact. Honestly, as far as I can tell from the open source stuff the Anaconda mission had far less tactical ISR prep work for the combat troops(the staff types, the CIA and the sneaky folks were all doing lots of nifty stuff) than most anything we did on a Bn level in Iraq. Anaconda is a good example of a battle fought by a military that is transitioning from a peacetime to a wartime mentality, everyone trying to get into the fight, as well as trying to fight on the cheap.

 

We had Hunter's at the BCT level IIRC, we had a remote terminal so we could see but not control; tasking was via chat. Good system; they belong at the Bn level IMO. Much the same can be said of IGnat, it's a similar system, with longer loiter time IIRC. Of course that goes back to my "cunning scheme" to eliminate Bde/Rgt level command. It seems that FireScout has a 200lb payload for 110mile range(600lb max), that's a Mk 47AGL and 150+ rds; OCSW would be even more ammo. S/F....Ken M

Edited June 25, 2005 by EchoFiveMike

[Samson]

Another possiblity would be a sort of "weapon pod" approach. Swarm of smaller UAVs each with a specialized weapon.

 

Something like the Dragonfly UMR-1

 

http://www.trekaero.com/Trek_VTOL_Dragonfly_Vehicles.htm

 

450 pounds of payload.

 

So you could have a OCSW with a good ammo load, a 30mm with a smalish ammo load, or a number of bombs, submunitions, what have you.

 

 

 

A similar vehicle design from Moller International, faster then the UMR-1 IIRC.

 

 

 

A swarm of the little robotic weapon pod aircraft might be more effective then putting a lot of eggs in one basket, ie a larger UAV or manned attack craft.

 

If these things used the same ammo/fuel as the ground forces they could stage forward and be right near where the action will likely be.

 

Or they could spread out and cover convoys, etc...

Edited June 24, 2005 by Samson

[Smitty]

???  You quoted and replied to my statement about squad level firefights at close range.

Err..

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=186545

Sampson: "Something that can take out AFVs from the air would be ideal, and its a major bonus if that same gun can plaster an area with HEDP or what have you."

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=186648

Smitty: "Why bother with a gun run on an IFV when you can use a Maverick, GBU-12, Hellfire or WCMD from the safety of altitude and standoff range?"

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=186783

E5M: "For the same reasons artillery or mortars doesn't do you any good in most real squad level gunfights, they happen at 20-60m. Supporting arms will do more damage to you than the enemy will."

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=187096

Smitty: "If you're calling in air to kill AFVs that're 20-60m from you, you're in deep trouble."

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=187317

E5M: "No shit, if you haven't noticed, there is no heavy threat at present. The US can utterly crush ANY conventional threat so fast it'll blow your mind. That's not the problem. LIC is the problem"

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=187393

Smitty: "True, but I was responding to a statement about taking out AFVs."

 

I see now that you were taking the discussion in a different direction from my original reply.

The more I read about Anaconda the more I think it was a giant goatfuck with far too many chiefs and not near enough Indians and nobody(chiefs) talked to each other. 

Seems that way. The chain-of-command was a nightmare.

Of course that goes back to my "cunning scheme" to eliminate Bde/Rgt level command.  It seems that FireScout has a 200lb payload for 110mile range(600lb max), that's a Mk 47AGL and 150+ rds; OCSW would be even more ammo.  S/F....Ken M

187418[/snapback]

Agreed about Fire Scout. IMHO, it's about as small a gun platform as you're going to get. Hunter won't cut it.

 

Unfortunately a gun-armed Fire Scout will have to contend with the low end of the AAA spectrum - the same low end that shot up Chinooks and Apaches in Anaconda - RPGs and HMGs.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Smitty

[Simon Tan]

Risk adverse with UAVs? *Thud*

 

In An Loc the NVA had AAA battalions ringing the city and yet the FACs in O-2s, AH-1s, AC-119s, TA-37s, CH-47s and all that 'low survivability' stuff went in, got chewed up some and did the mission.

 

Stop freaking gold plating everything and you'll find that something less than wondrous is better than nothing wonderful.

 

When people start regarding war as a dangerous business, they'll be in a better position to prosecute it.

 

Arg!!!!!!

 

Simon

[Smitty]

In An Loc the NVA had AAA battalions ringing the city and yet the FACs in O-2s, AH-1s, AC-119s, TA-37s, CH-47s and all that 'low survivability' stuff went in, got chewed up some and did the mission.

 

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that an aircraft or UAV that gets shot down (or significantly shot up) today won't be performing its mission tomorrow. There's not an endless supply of these things, you know, especially in theater.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Smitty

[Panzermann]

But especially drones you could design to be simple and cheap, so that you can use them in a bit of a throw away manner, as you got enough supply of them because they are so cheap, it does not matter that much if they get shot down.

[Smitty]

But especially drones you could design to be simple and cheap, so that you can use them in a bit of a throw away manner, as you got enough supply of them because they are so cheap, it does not matter that much if they get shot down.

187591[/snapback]

 

Yes, this is an interesting possibility. But by necessity they'll have limited functionality and capability. You wouldn't want to give them expensive sensor suites or weapons.

[Chris Werb]

[quote name='Simon Tan' date='Fri 24 Jun 2005 0346']Risk adverse with UAVs? *Thud*[/quote]

I know I'm being picky but I think you mean 'averse' as in 'aversion':

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=averse"]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=averse[/url]

[Simon Tan]

Can't speeel. There's actually a great replacement for the A-10.....the A-10C!!!!!

Tacair ain't broke.....the way it is used is. You give the flyboys (not their GOs) a mission and they will perform it. The Pussy Factor comes from the command chain.

[nowfel]

This is an interesting idea, but I have a feeling marrying a long-endurance UAV with a relatively short-endurance tactical aircraft isn't an ideal match. I think a bizjet or small airliner would be preferable.  Maybe even multitask aircraft like the 737-based MMA, future JSTARS or tanker.

These are not long-endurance intel gathering or patrol UAVs but big penetration/strike UCAVs acting as unmanned wingmen and controlled by the W/O of the lead aircraft.

 

Something like the French, Swedish, Spanish, Greek, Italian and Swiss nEUROn tech demonstrator which was unveiled in mock-up form at Le Bourget. First flight isn't planned before 2009.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2005 by nowfel

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The most underrated CAS platform in the US inventory is the B-52H. In its current (OEF/OIF) configuration with weapons such as JDAM and WCMD as well as the Combat Track II system, it has been highly successful. As it gets upgraded with AMI, CONECT, LITENING AT/ISR and SDB, it is going to be an incredibly effective CAS platform as long as the fighter and high altitude SAM threat is low. Picture an Death Star tightly networked with the guys on the ground. This nonsense that CAS is some sort of contest where you get style points for flying low, or flying an airplane dedicated to the mission is ridiculous. This is 2005, not 1950, and the tactics have changed as the threat and technology have evolved. CAS is a mission, not an airframe. There are no (zero) dedicated CAS aircraft in the US inventory -- certainly not the A-10A.

 

As far as I know, the only American weapons-carrying military aircraft that have not been used for CAS during OEF or OIF are the B-2A, P-3C and S-3B. The P-3C has been used for land surveillance and the S-3B has been used a tanker for Hornets conducting CAS, so even they are in the fight.

[EchoFiveMike]

I would say that the real advantage of the BUFF is it's time on station. Other than that, it's no better or worse than any other bomb truck. S/F....Ken M

[Chris Werb]

There are no (zero) dedicated CAS aircraft in the US inventory -- certainly not the A-10A.

 

When was the last time the US employed a truly dedicated fixed-wing CAS aircraft? Right now I can't think of one and I'm thinking back as far as World War one. The closest I can get is the Korean war era AU-1 (uparmoured Corsair variant), but even that may have been intended for other missions.

[Guest kilroy]

hi guys, I am new here, from Slovakia... so I want to say hello and add some comments to A10 replacement:

 

I think that US (or any other coutry) needs a CAS or better say COIN/CAS aircraft. (COIN - counter insurgency - Like Bronco or Dragonfly)

 

To the armor:

 

Huge clash of armored forces is not a thread these days, but i think, that the need for well armed and ARMORED airplane is still here. Most adversaries that we (as a western world) will face in the future will be guerilla type forces with limited AA capabilities - mostly MGs, some AA cannons, shoulder fired missiles. That means, that possible A10 replacement must be able to deal with groundfire ranging from 7.62 to 37mm and with some SAMs. While you can use ECM to counter incoming SAMs, you need an armored and clever build plane to survive multiple hits by gunfire.

 

To the weapons:

 

Current Avenger cannon seems to be ok, but what about downsizing to 25mm (or 27mm - Mauser Bk-27) and keep just 4 barrels or even 2 or 1 barrel? I think it will lower the weight and against less-armored targets it is still ok.

 

wide range of ATGM, non-guided rockets, smart bombs and some futuristic stuff which is still in the labs.

 

Propulsion:

 

Jet or propeler? normal takeoff or STOL or VTOL? I know that we live in 2005, but i will consider also old fashioned propeler propulsion with hight tech propelers. These plames could reach topspeed 800+ kmh and thats quite enough, are high-maneuverable and I think that it saves also a lot of fuel. To the takeoff - I will prefer VTOL.

 

If equipped with hi-tech sensors etc - these planes or UAVs can be quite effective against various threads ranging from huge tank battles to counter insurgency.

 

The result can be a plane lighter and better prepared fot future battlefields that is current A10 but keeping the full firepower of its predecessor.

[Burncycle360]

E5M, I seem to recall you saying something about the BUFF about how inefficient communications makes it not as effective as it could be at fleeting targets. (forgive me if I'm wrong or misquoted). What would be the best way to go about fixing something like this so that the time from the target of opportunity presenting itself to the bomb on target is as minimized as possible, assuming she was already on station in the AO and waiting for a call?

Edited June 27, 2005 by Burncycle360

[Ivanhoe]

This nonsense that CAS is some sort of contest where you get style points for flying low, or flying an airplane dedicated to the mission is ridiculous. This is 2005, not 1950, and the tactics have changed as the threat and technology have evolved.

 

Ken, you're beating a dead straw horse again. Despite all the Buck Rogers gear, we are still in an age of visual scan and ID. Hell, we had blue-on-blue deaths in ODS from Apache fire because of the lack of an integrated air-ground IFF system. In terms of scanning, identifying, and targeting, closer is better. And CAS takes place far closer to friendlies in reality than doctrine maintains. Even if the B-52 fleet downsizes to GPS or laser guided 100 pounders, that's a pretty course tool for a close fight.

 

B-52s, B-1Bs, F-15Es, F-16s, all have their place in the CAS portfolio, but there are a lot of CAS missions badly served by the fast movers and heavies. What saved the Rangers in Mogadishu was, to a substantial extent, helo gun runs. I have yet to see any description of a bomber munition that would have helped in Mog (barring the obvious Douhet solution).

[Simon Tan]

Dedicated CAS platfrom - AC-130, delivering rifled goodness every night.

With Spooky on station and cealred to fire, you just have to point the target spot out with a PEQ-4 and watch it vanish.