A10 Replacement

[Samson]

time for a harrier?

 

http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_headlin...ewsItem_id=3462

207478[/snapback]

 

Yes, but its already on the way with the F35 Marine Variant.

[Samson]

Getting back to the UAVs.

 

After considerable thought on this I belive the "weapon pod" appraoch is best.

 

Small UAVs (IE Fire Scout Mule or Moller 200 sized VTOL) with a forward C&C making them basicaly organic to the forces they are supporting.

 

Various wepon pods specializing in various munitions.

 

Lower to the ground a UAV equiped with 25mm OCSW only and some light armor. A direct fire support UAV.

 

Next level up a "Netfire" UAV with Viperstrike, ATGMS, and maybe even SDBs.

 

Way up you of course can have the bomb trucks of whatever variety is available.

[Chris Werb]

I'm starting to wonder if the ultimate CAS aircraft wouldn't be a large, long-endurance, relatively high flying cargo-blimp outfitted with an excellent sensor and comms suite and a huge cargo of assorted air to ground weapons. You could even put AMRAAMs on it and use it as a SAM battery (the US is already developing aerostats to guide surface launched SAMs).

 

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.c...e.cfm?DocID=521

[Samson]

I'm starting to wonder if the ultimate CAS aircraft wouldn't be a large, long-endurance, relatively high flying cargo-blimp outfitted with an excellent sensor and comms suite and a huge cargo of assorted air to ground weapons.  You could even put AMRAAMs on it and use it as a SAM battery (the US is already developing aerostats to guide surface launched SAMs).

 

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.c...e.cfm?DocID=521

207605[/snapback]

 

I think that could be part of the layer.

 

I still think there is a role for a <1000 foot UAV with a 25mm AGL and resistance to small arms.

[Burncycle360]

I'm starting to wonder if the ultimate CAS aircraft wouldn't be a large, long-endurance, relatively high flying cargo-blimp outfitted with an excellent sensor and comms suite and a huge cargo of assorted air to ground weapons. You could even put AMRAAMs on it and use it as a SAM battery (the US is already developing aerostats to guide surface launched SAMs).

 

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.c...e.cfm?DocID=521

 

Put Aegis on it and give it SM-2ER

[Ivanhoe]

Put Aegis on it and give it SM-2ER 

207618[/snapback]

 

Man, talk about straight to Japanese cartoon serials!

[FormerBlue]

Regards the rear basing versus forward control of UAVs. There is a middle ground. The UAV could be launched from the base and then vectored into the AOR. At that point control could be passed to the FAC. After munitions and/or fuel are expended it could be sent home again.

[Chris Werb]

Man, talk about straight to Japanese cartoon serials!

207687[/snapback]

 

And it's already happening (sort of! )

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage...111&ti=0&sc=400

[Jim Martin]

Behold, the rebirth of the barrage balloon...

 

And it's already happening (sort of! )

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage...111&ti=0&sc=400

207757[/snapback]

[Smitty]

I'm starting to wonder if the ultimate CAS aircraft wouldn't be a large, long-endurance, relatively high flying cargo-blimp outfitted with an excellent sensor and comms suite and a huge cargo of assorted air to ground weapons.  You could even put AMRAAMs on it and use it as a SAM battery (the US is already developing aerostats to guide surface launched SAMs).

 

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.c...e.cfm?DocID=521

207605[/snapback]

 

Seems like transit time to theater would be huge, not to mention its visual signature.

 

I think I'd prefer a HALE UAV like this concept (StrikeStar),

 

https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay1996/sp...st/vol3ch13.pdf

 

24 hours of endurance at a 3700 nm radius. 400kt transit speed. Stealthy. 80kft loiter altitude, 4000lbs of munitions or sensors.

 

80kft would mean a big range boost for winged SDBs or JDAMs, plus altitude and stealth would render it immune to all but the highest-end IADS.

[pluto77189]

Unmanned CAS aircraft are easy to do in simplicity. the predator is an

example. Replacing the A-10 with an unmanned aircraft isn't going to

work any time soon.

 

The A-10's biggest asset is the pilot. It's role dictates a lot of situational

awareness and hands on flying. Any time I see A-10 pilots interviewed,

they say they love it because they get to FLY the thing.

 

Camera and display technology isn't up to par with eyeball levels. IF the

JSF's helmet mounted display actually works the way it's supposed to,

then things might be different. ith current technology, I can't see it

happening any time soon.

 

Also, the aircraft will need to be large enough to house a large caliber

gun with a high rate of fire. A bushmaster type gun wouldn't suffice, the

rof's too slow. For a fixed wing aircraft to have any chance of putting

enough rounds on target, the thing needs to be spewing rounds out like

crazy.

 

UCAV's for CAS is fine, in a limited role. Replacing the A-10 would

require a similarly designed, manned aircraft. I wish they would replace

it with a similar aircraft. Hell, I wish they would starty making them

again, though with the latest in technology stuck in there for good

measure.

[Chris Werb]

Unmanned CAS aircraft are easy to do in simplicity.  the predator is an

example.  Replacing the A-10 with an unmanned aircraft isn't going to

work any time soon.

 

UCAVs are already arguably replacing A-10s in some roles.

 

The A-10's biggest asset is the pilot.  It's role dictates a lot of situational

awareness and hands on flying.  Any time I see A-10 pilots interviewed,

they say they love it because they get to FLY the thing.

 

Humans are not good at multitasking. Flying the aircraft detracts from operating the weapon systems and operating weapon systems detracts from situational awareness.  This is particularly so if you're well inside the threat envelope and are trying to stay alive.

 

Camera and display technology isn't up to par with eyeball levels.  IF the

JSF's helmet mounted display actually works the way it's supposed to,

then things might be different.  ith current technology, I can't see it

happening any time soon.

 

Human eyeballs aren't very well stabilised, have no magnification, can't range accurately and only operate on optical wavelengths.  UAVs can stay over a target for a very long time and take less notice of threat systems as no friendly lives are directly at risk.  In the past A-10s have (for whatever reason) opened fire from extreme range without correctly identifying their targets - the British Army being one recipient.

 

Also, the aircraft will need to be large enough to house a large caliber

gun with a high rate of fire.  A bushmaster type gun wouldn't suffice, the

rof's too slow.  For a fixed wing aircraft to have any chance of putting

enough rounds on target, the thing needs to be spewing rounds out like

crazy.

 

Guns are useful but not mandatory anymore.  In many scenarios, spewing large numbers of very powerful rounds is not as useful as putting one round where you need it.

 

UCAV's for CAS is fine, in a limited role.  Replacing the A-10 would

require a similarly designed, manned aircraft.  I wish they would replace

it with a similar aircraft.  Hell, I wish they would starty making them

again, though with the latest in technology stuck in there for good

measure.

 

It boils down to whether fixed wing CAS (and the A-10s other roles) are deemed to warrant replacing with an analagous concept or with another concept or concepts.  You can argue that some of the A-10s missions have already been partly taken over by highly reactive, accurate and long ranged artillery, and others by battlefield helicopters - the CAS and BAI roles certainly have been eroded by other fixed wing platforms with PGMs.  The A-10C (which a lot of the time operate at medium altitude like a UCAV with a pilot rather than a traditional CAS plane) is going to be around for a long time, by which time unmanned technologies will have advanced dramatically.  It would be a brave or foolish person to state the A-10 will not have a manned replacement, but I think the odds are heavily against it.

[Smitty]

Unmanned CAS aircraft are easy to do in simplicity.  the predator is an

example.  Replacing the A-10 with an unmanned aircraft isn't going to

work any time soon.

 

Well, I didn't mean to reopen the manned vs. unmanned debate here, though I agree with what Chris said. I was specifically referring to his cargo-blimp concept. I'd rather see an armed HALE UAV instead. Not quite the same capacity or endurance, but it makes up for it in transit speeds and optical low observables.

[EchoFiveMike]

UCAV's are expendable, manned aircraft are not. The "protect the aircraft at all costs" mentality creates problems for the guys on the ground. One example being the over control of indirect fire assets.

 

A large kinetic energy cannon is not needed for CAS. Something throwing a big HE shell is better. Something like the 35/1000 rechambered for 50x330 Supershot and firing HEDP would be great, but that would require an aircraft similar in size to the A-10. A small UCAV could easily carry a 25mm ACSW and that would provide a great deal of firepower and would be very resistant to AAA simply due to it's small size.

 

Mk 1 eyeball is crap for finding things on the ground, which is where the attention is properly focussed. Sure, eyeball is good for finding aircraft in motion vs a blue sky background, but that's not relevant to the discussion. Thermals combined with motion cueing software is the best game going.

 

I'd rather see an armed HALE UAV instead. Not quite the same capacity or endurance, but it makes up for it in transit speeds and optical low observables.

 

This is the wrong paradigm. Lack of endurance means the things are going to be on the ground when they're needed, which means they'll never get there in time. If it's not in the air, less than 5 minutes away, it's useless. Also it eliminates the very useful ISR function of the UAV. You're trying to spot insurgent activity which is defined by a narrow time window of vulnerability, thus you're going to see lots of time in the air looking for activity within a comparatively small area. S/F....Ken M

[Smitty]

This is the wrong paradigm.  Lack of endurance means the things are going to be on the ground when they're needed, which means they'll never get there in time.  If it's not in the air, less than 5 minutes away, it's useless.  Also it eliminates the very useful ISR function of the UAV.  You're trying to spot insurgent activity which is defined by a narrow time window of vulnerability, thus you're going to see lots of time in the air looking for activity within a comparatively small area.  S/F....Ken M

207995[/snapback]

 

Well, 24 hours at a 3700nm radius ain't bad for endurance. At 500nm (say Kuwait to Baghdad), it's more like 40 hours on station.

 

Flying high requires a lot more out of the sensor package, but it also means larger area coverage, potentially reducing the absolute number of airframes to cover the same area.

 

In austere conditions, where you don't have a large forward presense, you could load the high-fliers with droppable, semi-expendable low-fliers like the Top Cover UAV (200kg, 24hr endurance at 5000ft with EO, IR and/or SAR).

 

I'm not saying a HALE UAV is the end-all, be-all. I just think it's more flexible than a large, cargo-blimp. OTOH, I think aerostats have a lot of interesting capabilities, but mostly on the ISR side.

[EchoFiveMike]

OK, then I'm thinking of the wrong critter. I thought you were talking about the high speed stealthy jet UCAV's controlled from a master ship manned aircraft the USAF has been pimping. Define HALE. S/F....Ken M

[pluto77189]

What I was referring to is replacign the A10, and its capabilities.

Dropping bombs on target, putting death where it needs to go - those

are all better done by UCAV's. the CAs mission will be done with an

increasingly larger amount of UCAV's and other JDAM armed high

flying planes - but the A10's ability to do what it does, however

antiquated, is something that a UCAV can't do right now.

 

With current technology, no UAV can have the same situational

awareness of a pilot with good eyes.

 

"A small UCAV could easily carry a 25mm ACSW and that would

provide a great deal of firepower and would be very resistant to AAA

simply due to it's small size."

 

True, but a small UCAV couldn't do any real damage with such a

weapon unless the ROF was high, or it was turret mounted like a

mini-AC130. Fixed forward firing weapons on aircraft need to be rapid

firing in order to hit small, distant objects enough to do damage.

 

I believe the ideal aircraft would be large enough to mount such a

weapon in a "ball turret" configuration, sensors galore, stabilization, etc.

THAT would be nasty as anything. Imagine a small(er), quiet aircraft

able to rain (and sustain it) hell on target like an AC-130?

 

I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to mount such a thing on a predator, or

predator B, albeit with a 5.56 or .308 cal MG, trained to the camera

turret. Circle that sucker around, and when they see the bastards run,

lay into them like.

[Richard Young]

Why a big gun? Why even approximate the A10? A Predator B will carry up to 24 Viper Strikes, each with a near zero m CEP, and it can loiter over the battlefield for 24+ hours. Plus they only cost around $7-10mil each.

 

The reason for a gun is the economics of war. We already have enough trouble getting Apache pilots to refrain from pumping a $60,000 missle into a $10,000 truck - you want a gun to engage logistics vehicles, air defense, personnel, buildings, and other targets you wich to destroy or supress, but aren't worth expending a missle on. Ideally, the gun would be of sufficient power to serve as a secondary anti-armor weapon when the missles are expended, or if you are inside the minimum range of the missle system. Suprise happens in war, sometimes by accident, sometimes by ambush.

Edited August 16, 2005 by Richard Young

[Smitty]

OK, then I'm thinking of the wrong critter.  I thought you were talking about the high speed stealthy jet UCAV's controlled from a master ship manned aircraft the USAF has been pimping.  Define HALE.  S/F....Ken M

208016[/snapback]

 

HALE = High-Altitude Long Endurance

 

https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay1996/sp...st/vol3ch13.pdf (StrikeStar)

 

Think Darkstar on steroids, or a stealthy, enlarged Global Hawk.

 

With a modular bay for sensors or munitions, or a combination, the individual airframe wouldn't be terribly expensive (a lot less than a GHawk).

 

Basically it's a long-loiter, long-range, stealthy Rent-a-Pylon.

[Smitty]

The reason for a gun is the economics of war.  We already have enough trouble getting Apache pilots to refrain from pumping a $60,000 missle into a $10,000 truck - you want a gun to engage logistics vehicles, air defense, personnel, buildings, and other targets you wich to destroy or supress, but aren't worth expending a missle on.  Ideally, the gun would be of sufficient power to serve as a secondary anti-armor weapon when the missles are expended, or if you are inside the minimum range of the missle system.  Suprise happens in war, sometimes by accident, sometimes by ambush.

208060[/snapback]

 

When discussing economics, you have to look at more than just the munition cost. You need to take into account the total system cost including costs for platform, O&M, pilot training, etc..

 

Plus you have to guess at indirect costs due to attrition during the lifetime of the system. A more expensive, larger, fixed gun-armed aircraft that has to put itself into a predictable dive at low altitude to fire its gun is more likely to be shot down than a smaller UAV orbiting at higher altitude.

 

In addition, a manned aircraft that gets shot down puts additional, costly assets at risk during CSAR, plus will need to risk SEAD/DEAD assets to prep the battlefield and tanking assets to improve its loiter. A UAV never requres CSAR, and can get by with less SEAD/DEAD because no pilot is at risk.

 

So it's not as simple as comparing the cost of a few dozen 30mm rounds to a Hellfire or Viper Strike.

[EchoFiveMike]

Well, last week the US Army contracted to buy 11 Warrior UCAV systems, which is an upgraded Predator. It's a heavy fuel engined critter that has 12 birds per system along with 5 base stations, plus accessories. It's looking like the US Army is going to deploy this at the BCT level, with the ability to push down to Bn level. The bird can carry 4 Hellfires and I'm assuming this can be traded out for a greater number of Viper Strikes. Full delivery is by early-middle 2009.

 

Looks pretty good so far. Now for a dedictaed Bn level bird. S/F....Ken M

[pluto77189]

Well, last week the US Army contracted to buy 11 Warrior UCAV systems, which is an upgraded Predator.  It's a heavy fuel engined critter that has 12 birds per system along with 5 base stations, plus accessories.  It's looking like the US Army is going to deploy this at the BCT level, with the ability to push down to Bn level.  The bird can carry 4 Hellfires and I'm assuming this can be traded out for a greater number of Viper Strikes.  Full delivery is by early-middle 2009. 

 

Looks pretty good so far.  Now for a dedictaed Bn level bird.  S/F....Ken M

208426[/snapback]

 

These aren't the predator B, are they? Those larger, turboprop versions

with the different tail layout?

 

The way they designed the predator B, it reminded me of something.

 

then it occurred to me that the military seems to be makign a deliberate

effort to make UCAV's look more and more like something that's going

to turn on us...

 

Predator B's look like the flying Hunter Killers in the terminator movies.

They even named the things "Hunter Killer".

 

Perhaps the only thing scarier (to the enemy) than the roar of the avenger

cannon in the distance is the idea of flying death droids. Esentially, things

you can destroy, but you can't kill. There's a pschological factor in that.

These things are out to kill you, and they have no life to lose, therefore,

YOU have nothing to gain in killing them, other than saving yourself. It's

got to be SCARY to fight a robot for that fact alone.

 

I'm so glad I'm on our side.

[Smitty]

Well, last week the US Army contracted to buy 11 Warrior UCAV systems, which is an upgraded Predator.  It's a heavy fuel engined critter that has 12 birds per system along with 5 base stations, plus accessories.  It's looking like the US Army is going to deploy this at the BCT level, with the ability to push down to Bn level.  The bird can carry 4 Hellfires and I'm assuming this can be traded out for a greater number of Viper Strikes.  Full delivery is by early-middle 2009. 

 

Looks pretty good so far.  Now for a dedictaed Bn level bird.  S/F....Ken M

208426[/snapback]

 

Inter-service rivalries aside, but doesn't it seem to be a bit duplicative of USAF capabilities?

 

Plus, Predator doesn't do JATO or semi-prepared takeoffs (to my knowledge), so it'll be tied to airfields. Doesn't seem like the best asset for a mobile BCT or Bn.

 

Fire Scout or A-160 Hummingbird would appear more appropriate, IMHO.

[EchoFiveMike]

Inter-service rivalries aside, but doesn't it seem to be a bit duplicative of USAF capabilities?

Yes, I'm sure the Army is trying to destroy the Key West agreement. I completely agreee with them. The pilots may be great, most I've known are, but the USAF leadership needs to be dragged into the street and shot in the head. USAF needs to focus on their strengthes and stop defending rice bowls. USAF should be SAC, air supremecy and strategic ISR, with all it's attendant support. Transpo and CAS should be part of the US Army, therefore they can best procure the tools to support their mission. Interservice bullshit is killing the US Army, reference C130/C17 based limits on ground warfare systems.

 

Plus, Predator doesn't do JATO or semi-prepared takeoffs (to my knowledge), so it'll be tied to airfields. Doesn't seem like the best asset for a mobile BCT or Bn.

 

Bn level, sure, I can buy that. I think everyone vastly overestimates the deployability of a meaningful BCT infrastructure. Meaningful being something more than just a glorified Bn COC with a few additional radios and just an additional level of staff. BCT HQ's have a fairly giant footprint(by my austere USMC standards, which I think are far more valid), so since you're moving a giant circus anyways, why not just add 8 truck loads of GRP matting for an expeditionary airfield to support the few cases where your organic engineers can't just improve an existing roadway? S/F....Ken M

[Colin]

I worked with UAV’s (called RPV’s back then) in Suffield Alberta, fairly basic, had a TV camera with a range finder on it, we used it to fire indirect arty fire and it worked fairly well.

 

I would like to see a fairly cheap UAV with basic package of a laser rangefinder, camera possibly a TI that could loiter over the field and the operator right at Battalion or lower. Aircraft flies a roughly random pattern within a set of coordinates at a set altitude, so the operator is searching for targets and not flying, unless needed. Keep it simple and workable and keep it near the fight.

 

This was the sort of idea behind the fly peanut.