USAF's vision: A common bomber/gunship airframe

[Cromwell]

What the hell is wrong with what they've got? Thde SF community is well served by all 4 branches of US forces.

[A2Keltainen]

Thde SF community is well served by all 4 branches of US forces.

 

I wonder if the SOF community would say that if you asked them? My guess is; no.

 

Besides the constant conflicts between the SOF community and the rest of the military, there are also internal conflicts in the SOF community, like the never ending conflict between the "Ranger mafia" and the "SF mafia" in Army SOF, and the newer conflict between "the JSOC mafia" and the "regular SOCOM mafia" in the SOF community at large.

[Chris Werb]

the Air Force is cutting hard in the next few years.

 

My guess is that you'll see wholesale disbandments of ANG combat squadrons. There is no way the vast numbers of increasingly obsolete aircraft they operate will all be upgraded or replaced.

[Jim Martin]

So ironic, we used to have dozens of ANG squadrons, all with up-to-date interceptors; a network of SAM sites across the country; what was it, 12 active dute Army divisions?

 

Now the money is paying for illegal immigrants to have babies in American emergency rooms, and St. Louis can't afford a f***ing squadron of F-15s.

[Guest pfcem]

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002978.html

 

Pimp My Gunship - 1: Get Smart

 

Does a slow, Vietnam-era gunship have a place on the modern battlefield? Can you upgrade the old warhorse into a 21st century charger?

 

The fixed-wing gunship idea goes back to barnstorming flyers who invented to the ‘pylon turn,’ pointing one wing at an object such as a pylon on the ground as they turned around it (...there is quite a story behind this one). By extension, if you have weapons firing out of one side of the plane they can maintain accurate fire on a fixed point even though the plane is moving at relatively high speed. The idea worked well in Vietnam, and now the latest version of the gunship is the AC-130U Spectre, packing a 105-mm howitzer, a 25mm 1,800-round-a-minute Gatling gun and a 40mm Bofors gun. It can provide impressively accurate fire support; this video from Iraq apparently shows one destroying moving vehices outside a mosque without hitting the building.

 

To F-22 Raptor enthusiasts who think air power should be supersonic and stealthy, the Spectre might look like a dinosaur. It’s slow and noisy and has to come in close to the target, making it vulnerable to portable SAMs. But the old-style Spectre could be the basis for an ultra-modern gunship, according to Bill Elliot of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. His Future AC-130 Gunship Integrated Weapons Systems Concept is the cutting edge of close air support.

 

The basic idea is to upgrade from dumb, short-range munitions to smart long-range ones. Out goes the 105-mm howitzer in favor of a 120mm smoothbore – you’d call it a mortar, except that a downward-firing mortar is weird. Add to it racks of smart Viper Strike glide bombs. And instead of relying on onboard sensors, the Spectre will be able to launch its own fleet of drones to locate and designate targets. This increases the range at which targets can be engaged from 3 miles to 15 miles or more, so opponents will no longer be able to hear the Spectre coming before it strikes.

 

Pallet-loaded Dominator UCAV/munitions might also be a useful addition to the mix; in fact, the Future Spectre could be a veritable Arsenal Aircraft carrying a range of weapons and drones depending on the mission.

 

Instead of short-range, high-volume firepower, it will be delivering long-range precision strikes. Both Viper Strike and the XM395 120mm smoothbore rounds can be laser guided, with designation can come from the aircraft itself, from accompanying drones or from ground troops. Targets under hard cover can be destroyed rather than just suppressed, with "top floor, third window from the left" precision.

 

There are plenty of other ammunition options for the 120mm smoothbore - it can fire a full range of mortar rounds. This includes developments like the M971 cargo round, which can saturate an area the size of a football pitch with bomblets, a gun-launched UAV, and even non-lethal rounds delivering CS gas and flash-bangs for crowd control. New monopack containers reduce the packaging weight by 60% and significantly increase the amount which can be carried. This should greatly increase the versatility of the Spectre. But it is the precision strike which will make the biggest difference, greatly increasing the chances of single-shot kills and so extending the number of targets that can be engaged.

 

Instead of orbiting around a fixed point and firing at a sngle target, the upgraded Spectre will be able to tackle multiple targets at dispersed locations simultaneously. And the accuracy of that fire will be enough to destroy targets under cover rather than suppressing them, as well as preventing 'friendly fire' accidents and collateral damage. In effect, Bill Eliot is bringing 'smart bombs' to the gunship, which could increase its effectiveness as much as precision-guided bombs have for strike aircraft.

 

Eliot quotes a memo from the Secretary of Defense:

 

"We need more weapon systems like the AC-130, where the ordnance can be directed in a more precise wayâ€

 

What better solution than an upgraded AC-130? The Future Spectre is still doing the same job as before, providing close air support to those who need it most, but doing it better. But it would be the heart of a network which includes drones, munitions and ground troops. It will continue to provide the persistence, firepower and high precision that has earned the Spectre its reputation. And it will be able to do it all from a range that greatly reduces risk to the aircraft.

 

It may not be the vision of those who want to conduct airstrikes from mach 1 and 50,000 feet, but when things get messy on the ground, then a gunship with smart weapons looks like a very good investment.

 

***

 

Text in blue indicate links to additional info in the defensetech.org article.

[Swift Sword]

The B-52 is a horrible gun platform. Lets assume we try to apply the AC-47/AC-130 concept to the Buff, and use gun systems contemporary to the Buff. Its fuselage is too narrow for the gun carriages to have a full recoil travel; shortening the tackles' reach will greatly increase the peak loads on the bulkhead blocks, shortening the structural life. Plus, with all that wing anhedral and sweep, much of the field of fire would be blocked.

393066[/snapback]

 

Ivanhoe,

 

The gun mounting arrangement of the "conventional gunship" might not lend itself well to the B52 fuselage, but does it have to use the "conventional" mounting in the first place?

 

A B52 gunship might be feasible if the guns were mounted vertically firing out of the bottom. The guns could be made to be mouted to be "slewed" even.

 

Under such circumstances, it could fly small orbits at high altitudes beyond the range of local air defence. The B52 already carries anti aircraft defence mechanisms which is handy.

 

It would not be the first time that a bomber was fitted with guns firing downwards: IIRC, a B57 was fitted with a mini gun or two firing downwards but I do not know enough about it to really comment.

 

If we were given a budget and an airframe to develop a B52 gunship and barked up the vertical mounting scheme tree, there is potential for recoilless guns to wholey or partially ameliorate structural issues and control issues.

 

For instance, how about the 35 mm Mauser RMK30 for the automatic cannon component of a hypothetical B52 gunship weapons mix? Multiple units would assure withering fire or perhaps a Gatling type rotary barrel cluster might be developed with the venturi above the firing barrel.

 

For the bigger guns, we can think a little further outside of the box: perhaps a double ended, recoilless application of the Metalstorm principle? Existing, off the shelf precision guided 155 mm artillery shells might be stacked in banks of downward firing tubes with counteracting masses stacked firing in the opposite direction simultaneously. This solves the travel issues and stress issues resulting from using the existing 105 mm gunship system.

 

To give local infantry more control over fires, a B52 gunship might have wing mounted pods loaded with 120 mm PGMMs that can be independently called from orbiting gunships using local resources to "paint" the targets. Using off the shelf components can keep the costs and logtrain down. Essentially, these would be using mortar shells as small, readily available "smart bombs" dropped from a rack; no barrel or charge required.

 

Such a system would allow very localized distribution of ordnance under control of the people calling for the fires without having to work the requests upwards through the "system"

 

Wing mouned pods and bombbay inserts might be developed with various weapon mixes to allow a B52 to be readily retasked for a gunship role at a moments notice which would be handy indeed.

 

Just a few thoughts about possibilities; what do you think?

 

Regards,

 

William

Edited November 24, 2006 by Swift Sword

[BansheeOne]

I've thought on this thread before that when a gunship becomes a launch platform for small guided ammunitions, the difference to a bomber would essentially disappear.

[Marek Tucan]

Ivanhoe,

 

It would not be the first time that a bomber was fitted with guns firing downwards:  IIRC, a B57 was fitted with a mini gun or two firing downwards but I do not know enough about it to really comment.

396423[/snapback]

 

Even before - not sure whether Tu-2 (more likely) or Pe-2 were fitted with a special weapons - a battery of PPSh SMG's in the bomb bay facing down and intended for massed troop concentrations strafing. Probably didn't work all that well back then

[Swift Sword]

Even before - not sure whether Tu-2 (more likely) or Pe-2 were fitted with a special weapons - a battery of PPSh SMG's in the bomb bay facing down and intended for massed troop concentrations strafing. Probably didn't work all that well back then

396459[/snapback]

 

Tuccy,

 

Now that you mention it, I seem to remember a diagram somewhere from way back when that proposed a similar arrangement for a U.S. light or medium bomber employing a rack of Thompson SMGs.

 

Regards,

 

William

[Ivanhoe]

Sorry guys, my humor was a bit too subtle. The term "broadsides" set me off. When I wrote "gun systems contemporary to the Buff" and "gun tackles", I was implying the use of guns of the cast bronze, muzzleloading ilk, on oaken carriages and run out the ports by gun tackles. Avast, ye maties! Yarrrgh!

 

On a more serious note, as guidance and advanced fuzing continue to shrink, I don't think it's too wild to consider a 50-60mm autoloader for the small gun and a 105mm as the big gun. Regardless of the platform, I don't think future gunships ought to be operating low enough to allow 20-30mm autocannon use. Its one thing for an attack/light bomber airframe to strafe moving targets of opportunity, its another to set up in orbit at low altitude and go guns.

[Tony Williams]

I've thought on this thread before that when a gunship becomes a launch platform for small guided ammunitions, the difference to a bomber would essentially disappear.

396430[/snapback]

I agree with you - particularly if the bomber also carried small UAVs for recce/targeting purposes as indicated in the above article. The plane could be orbiting at high altitude and at a safe distance, using its UAVs to monitor what is going on and to "paint" targets for the guided munitions which would be released as necessary.

 

I'm not sure whether a gun is needed at all on such a plane. The only purpose would be to achieve a more rapid strike on a fleeting target. But perhaps the 120mm mortar would be a satisfactory compromise. Or one of the UAVs could be armed for just that purpose.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Slater]

If a target could be satisfactorily engaged with guns instead of missiles, wouldn't that be a bit easier on the munitions budget?

[Tony Williams]

Sure. But if it was a small target, a gun on one of the UAVs wouold be quicker into action and far less risky.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[gewing]

Sure. But if it was a small target, a gun on one of the UAVs wouold be quicker into action and far less risky.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

396654[/snapback]

 

 

 

or, to avoid the weight of a gun, using the spike micro missiles or the APKWSII guided rockets.

 

Heck, or smashing the UAV into the target. THough I don't really like that one.

[Slater]

I agree that the missile/UAV concept is probably going to be in the gunship's future. Some have speculated that indeed gunships may eventually do away with guns altogether.

 

In that case, how would a gunship handle a target such as large numbers of enemy troops in the open?

[Ivanhoe]

If a target could be satisfactorily engaged with guns instead of missiles, wouldn't that be a bit easier on the munitions budget?

396640[/snapback]

 

Easier on the munitions budget, but not necessarily on the total budget. The cost of one lost airframe buys a lot of missiles of the Hellfire ilk. Not to mention the aircrew. Any cost/benefit analysis has to work with assumptions of gun effectiveness, missile effectiveness, blue-on-blue rates, aircraft loss rates, etc. There's more than enough wiggle room to adjust the assumptions to reach the conclusion desired.

 

I figure that in the long run, we're going to see a mix of capabilities combining tactical UCAVs, manned/unmanned attack aircraft, and strategic bombers used as orbiting bomb JDAM distributors. Perhaps in a ratio of 50/25/25%. I don't expect the large orbiting gunship a la AC-130 to stay in service too much longer; that mission can be replaced, more or less, with a swarm of UCAVs.

[gewing]

Easier on the munitions budget, but not necessarily on the total budget. The cost of one lost airframe buys a lot of missiles of the Hellfire ilk. Not to mention the aircrew. Any cost/benefit analysis has to work with assumptions of gun effectiveness, missile effectiveness, blue-on-blue rates, aircraft loss rates, etc. There's more than enough wiggle room to adjust the assumptions to reach the conclusion desired.

 

I figure that in the long run, we're going to see a mix of capabilities combining tactical UCAVs, manned/unmanned attack aircraft, and strategic bombers used as orbiting bomb JDAM distributors. Perhaps in a ratio of 50/25/25%. I don't expect the large orbiting gunship a la AC-130 to stay in service too much longer; that mission can be replaced, more or less, with a swarm of UCAVs.

396845[/snapback]

 

 

 

You may well be right, though I still think we may see something like a smaller "gunship" evolve in an Unmanned form.

 

As to large numbers of troops in the open, that will be another reason for them to carry a variety of weapons. And SDB has an airburst mode too...

 

I keep thinking that something similar to a boosted SDB/heavier APKWS will be developed. Particularly if we abandon the overhead gun model of gunship operations, the need for a rapid hit on a target will probably still be there.

 

OTOH, with enough armed UAVs...

 

I am curious what the mix of UAVs, UCAVS what have you will be.

 

 

Perhaps swarms or packs of smallish, lightly armed recon UAVs supported by a much smaller number of more heavily armed versions?

 

If there were say 3-5 recon versions to each heavier version, and they are programmed to fly in some form of relatively loose formation..

 

The recon might fly in a chevron out in front of the heavier ucav, with their camera/sensor images sent back to the controller. He would have basically a monitor bank similar to some of these

 

http://www.digitaltigers.com/zenview.shtml

 

perhaps each scout would feed its data to one screen.

when one of the scouts observed something interesting and it was displayed on a screen, a button and a mouse click would lock onto it for further examination or destruction. Perhaps the heavier strike UAV could carry more advanced sensors. THese would feed to, for instance, the lower bank of 3 monitors If it had an MTI capability, and perhaps multispectral scan, the process could be reversed, and the scouts could circle to observe the target it picked up.

 

Then whichever armed UAV had the appropriate weapons fit would hit the target.

 

If it was a truck moving down a road, the scouts could hit it with a rocket or light missile.

If it is a large number of troops in the open, or a hardened bunker, the main craft would probably engage.

 

This way, the unit of UAVs could be steered to waypoints with the click of a mouse, and AI target recognition would not be required to prevent blue on blue.

[Tony Williams]

One of the key assets of the AC-130s is their very powerful sensor suite, to enable them to track what is going on at night. I would be surprised if that could be packaged in a much smaller UAV. That could preserve a role for a big manned plane, which could control its own little family of UAVs while keeping a safe distance from MANPADS.

 

One of the advantages claimed for larger UAVs is their very long endurance (no pilot to worry about), but a big manned plane can have long endurance as well (they can change the pilots, move around, make the tea, have a kip, get refuelled etc) and in addition can carry a vast array of munitions to provide great combat persistance.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[DB]

Tony, you might be surprised at just how much of a sensor package can be fitted in given a need.

 

Look at spacecraft sensors, particularly on long distance missions. They're robust, too. Expensive though.

 

David

[Ivanhoe]

Its probably impossible to predict all the modes, tactics, etc that UAVs will be used in. We've covered some of them, but I've no doubt that 10-20 years down the road there will be missions and applications performed by UAVs that were unheard of in 2006.

 

One thing I think is relatively inevitable is the UAV swarm. Perhaps with a large number of cheap, disposable decoy drones, some scout UAVs, some attack UAVs, and maybe a manned bomber or multiple manned light attack jets. Rather than flying in a geometrically fixed formation, I expect an essentially unpredictable swarming behavior, where the "center of mass" is fairly deterministic but the trajectory of individual UAVs has a substantial random component. Increases fuel consumption but would make targeting by AAA quite difficult.

 

It'll be interesting to see if the USAF can or will make a "UAV carrier" out of old jetliner or heavy bomber chassis. If you forego airborne recovery and have the spent UAVs return to some airstrip instead, it seems quite doable. A plain old ALCM is a good head start on a ALUAV design, just have to allow for bulkier payload and shorter range.

[Marek Tucan]

It'll be interesting to see if the USAF can or will make a "UAV carrier" out of old jetliner or heavy bomber chassis.

397208[/snapback]

 

Or a large airship

[Swift Sword]

...One thing I think is relatively inevitable is the UAV swarm. Perhaps with a large number of cheap, disposable decoy drones, some scout UAVs, some attack UAVs...

 

...It'll be interesting to see if the USAF can or will make a "UAV carrier" out of old jetliner or heavy bomber chassis...

397208[/snapback]

 

Ivanhoe,

 

I agree on the swarming thing.

 

I also think the cheap and/or disposable/semi-disposable unit is a really good way to go.

 

While a "UAV carrier" is a good idea, too, would'nt it make sense to cut the men out of the equation completely?

 

Two possibilities:

 

1. A UAV carrier based on something like NASA'a Helios aircraft. Such a critter would have extensive loiter capability and stay well above most AAA threats at 100,000 feet.

 

Also, such a platform would be a good observation point and communications relay to add redundancy in case of trouble with satellite communications;

 

2. Perhaps orbital sheds filled with a weapons mix of "smart rocks" to demolish certain surface targets as well as a bunch of small, essentially disposable UAVs configured for various missions.

 

The advantages here include being out of range of all but the most advanced and sophisticated opponents, good loiter characteristics after a fashion if there are a few sheds at different points along the same orbit to ensure continuos coverage and such prepositioning allows for immediate use in times of crisis.

 

Populating a few orbits to cover typical global hot spots where the U.S. and/or its allies are likely to be deployed such as the CARs would not be a bad idea.

 

Too, the observation and comm satellites required for data linking on the modern battlefield are already in orbit so putting the weapons and the computer servers to drive the whole shebang in orbit as well will reduce vulnerability and increase coverage with decreased numbers of units (I think it would work that way, at any rate).

 

William

Edited November 27, 2006 by Swift Sword

[Ivanhoe]

Or a large airship

397233[/snapback]

 

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

[DB]

Its probably impossible to predict all the modes, tactics, etc that UAVs will be used in. We've covered some of them, but I've no doubt that 10-20 years down the road there will be missions and applications performed by UAVs that were unheard of in 2006.

 

One thing I think is relatively inevitable is the UAV swarm. Perhaps with a large number of cheap, disposable decoy drones, some scout UAVs, some attack UAVs, and maybe a manned bomber or multiple manned light attack jets. Rather than flying in a geometrically fixed formation, I expect an essentially unpredictable swarming behavior, where the "center of mass" is fairly deterministic but the trajectory of individual UAVs has a substantial random component. Increases fuel consumption but would make targeting by AAA quite difficult.

 

It'll be interesting to see if the USAF can or will make a "UAV carrier" out of old jetliner or heavy bomber chassis. If you forego airborne recovery and have the spent UAVs return to some airstrip instead, it seems quite doable. A plain old ALCM is a good head start on a ALUAV design, just have to allow for bulkier payload and shorter range.

397208[/snapback]

You know, when a year or so back someone suggested that a large number of Chinese light aircraft could overwhelm the defences of a US CVBG, there was an awful lot of scoffing coming from the USian side of the fence.

 

For "large number of light aircraft", substitute "swarm of UAVs", but I digress.

 

David

[Ivanhoe]

While a "UAV carrier" is a good idea, too, would'nt it make sense to cut the men out of the equation completely?

 

I think that depends. In a situation where the mission is ground-driven, i.e. the call for air-2-ground comes from a company or battalion commander, then an all-robotic air system would work, because there's already human eyes and ears on the ground sorting out what ordnance is needed, where its needed, and whether the risk/return of the air work is worthwhile. Also, in interdiction type work where tasking comes from organized and managed photo-recon and sat-recon, and targets are chosen, prioritized, and serviced on a running basis, then an all-robot system makes sense. But I think there will be other scenarios where it will still pay to have man not only in the loop but in the aircraft and in control. For example, a hypothetical modern mechanized conflict between two regional powers. Given the speeds at which today's mechanized warfare occurs, there isn't always going to be time for the intel guys and air tasking guys to grind over stacks of photos and printouts and spend hours arguing over target servicing. I think it will be smart to have some manned attack aircraft "protected" by sympathetic drones and SEAD UAVs, running around on the OPFOR's side of FEBA and missiling and/or gunning vehicle columns, C4I installations, bridges & roads, etc. Even with next-gen sensors, comms, etc, I don't expect an RPV to be able to close the loop fast enough when dealing with a highly dynamic battlefield. At least not for a few more decades.