[On the way]

I am wondering if its an overkill to use F-16s. F-15s, Tornadoes, etc. in a theatre like Afghanistan, in basically a counterinsurgency role. Obviously, some assets like A-10, AC-130, Apache, etc. are suitable in Afhganistan, but in light of a lack of an air threat or even a rudimentary SAM network, would not COIN aircraft like the Embraer Super Tucano, AT-6 Texan II, or Pilatus PC-21 be better suited? They can operate closer to the fighting, I am sure they can use basic or unprepared airstrips, easier to maintain, cheaper to purchase and easier to train Afghani pilots on them. They can carry a useful ordnance load, 5 hardpoints, 2500lb load, and also use PGMs.

I know that fast jets are what's in the inventory of the Allied air forces, but at some point in time, they should look at handing over some easier to operate air assets to the locals, as well as redeploying thier fast jets some where else. Not all the fast jets, but certainly freeing up some squadrons.

[m4a1]

On the way, while I disagree on total withdrawal of fighter jets from Afghanistan, the idea of bringing COIN aircraft would be interesting, they would be useful support assets. I wonder only if NATO AFs have got such planes in their inventories.
However, a few jet aircraft must stay in Afghanistan to perform Air Policing as long as Afghan Army will not have its own AF.

[Xavier]

armed MALE UAVs could take a large part of that role, everything where the Mk 1 eyeball isn't required in fact.

[Tony Williams]

Xavier, on Sat 11 Apr 2009 1212, said:

armed MALE UAVs could take a large part of that role, everything where the Mk 1 eyeball isn't required in fact.

They are increasingly doing so already, as fast as they can be got out there. Their ability to loiter for hour after hour, monitoring a developing situation while the operators consider if and when to strike, cannot be matched by fast jets or armed trainers.

Considering that manned planes are increasingly using PGMs which are aimed by using video recce pods, their pilots are getting no clearer view of the target than are the UAV operators sitting back home.

The Mk 1 eyeball is still used for gun strafing, but probably not a lot else.

[Luke Y]

The big issues with Tucano type aircraft are range and payload, and there are only so many A-10's and AC-130's in the world.

[Charles]

Didn't we discuss this in a thread not so ling ago?.
I believe the consensus at the time was placement of air assets (airfields, support thereof etc) and time on target.
Jets (when available) can get there a damn site faster when the Infantry are calling for support.

MQ-9 Reapers and the like are the way to go; massive loiter time and cheaper to supply than fast jets. As already pointed out, only so many of them and crew trained to "fly" them.

I suppose that once there are enough UAV's(armed) in theater, we might see a gradual reduction of the use of Fast Jets in the Stan.

Charles

This post has been edited by Charles: 11 April 2009 - 1426 PM

[Rod]

The Reaper already carries a nice load of PGMs and has excellent loiter time with no pilot fatigue (if your UAV pilot needs a break, he can pass the controls to another pilot in the trailer). The only advantage of a plane such as the A-1 Skyraider is that it would be able to reach an unit with a distress call much faster than a Reaper.

[Exel]

Luke_Yaxley, on Sat 11 Apr 2009 1905, said:

The big issues with Tucano type aircraft are range and payload, and there are only so many A-10's and AC-130's in the world.

I'm curious, have the new operational demands affected the plans to retire the A-10s in any way? Are they still to be replaced by the F-35?

[Tony Williams]

Exel, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 0954, said:

I'm curious, have the new operational demands affected the plans to retire the A-10s in any way? Are they still to be replaced by the F-35?

That's still the current plan last I heard. Oof course, given the increased cost of the F-35 and the budget shortfalls, a decision may later be made to keep the A-10s on until they are replaced by UCAVs.

[Exel]

Tony Williams, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1208, said:

That's still the current plan last I heard. Oof course, given the increased cost of the F-35 and the budget shortfalls, a decision may later be made to keep the A-10s on until they are replaced by UCAVs.

Would a new A-10 or something similar make sense, or can UCAVs really do everything better than the A-10?

[Tony Williams]

Exel, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1048, said:

Would a new A-10 or something similar make sense, or can UCAVs really do everything better than the A-10?

The interesting question is going to be the future importance of gun strafing, given the hazards involved (a c.$100 million dollar F-35 being shot down by small-arms fire doesn't bear thinking about). The development of laser-guided versions of the 70mm/2.75 inch rocket is now underway in several companies, and promises even greater precision than gun firing at a much greater range. These could also be used very close to friendly troops, given that terminal effects are much less than a Hellfire (it will also be a small fraction of the cost), let alone aerial bombs.

If it is decided that cheap PGMs or very small guided bombs (such as guided 81mm mortar bombs recently tested) can do the job, it makes sense to leave the delivery platform up high. So it might as well be a UCAV, since these have such a long endurance that they can track a friendly formation for hours, instantly ready to intervene (a much faster response time than having to call in an air strike from fast jets which are currently sitting on the ground).

High-speed strike planes which can penetrate deeply into enemy territory will still have a role for a while, but I suspect that the combination of cruise missiles and more sophisticated UCAVs will eventually see the end of them, also.

[Exel]

Could you utilize UCAVs for remote-controlled strafing runs? They'd need to be faster to be survivable in that role, but given that jet-powered UCAVs are on their way, couldn't you design one around a GAU-8 or a couple? B)

[Tony Williams]

Exel, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1147, said:

Could you utilize UCAVs for remote-controlled strafing runs? They'd need to be faster to be survivable in that role, but given that jet-powered UCAVs are on their way, couldn't you design one around a GAU-8 or a couple? B)

Probably - but the GAU-8/A is such a massively heavy gun, with such huge recoil, that the UCAV would have to be at least as big as an A-10 to cope with it. I also suspect that there could be a time-delay problem with controlling such a UCAV from a distance; not much of an issue when you're just keeping a laser designator on the target, a different matter with aiming a fixed gun.

Basically, why go in close and risk a valuable plane (manned or not) if you can drop a small PGM precisely on target from on high?

[Chris Werb]

Luke_Yaxley, on Sat 11 Apr 2009 1705, said:

The big issues with Tucano type aircraft are range and payload, and there are only so many A-10's and AC-130's in the world.

By far the biggest issue with Tucano type aircraft is vulnerability to ground fire and the political and humanitarian cost of losing the pilot.

This post has been edited by Chris Werb: 12 April 2009 - 0726 AM

[Chris Werb]

Rod, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 0427, said:

The only advantage of a plane such as the A-1 Skyraider is that it would be able to reach an unit with a distress call much faster than a Reaper.

If circumstances permit, a salvo of GMLRS could reach the unit far faster than either.

[On the way]

m4a1, on Sat 11 Apr 2009 1056, said:

On the way, while I disagree on total withdrawal of fighter jets from Afghanistan, the idea of bringing COIN aircraft would be interesting, they would be useful support assets. I wonder only if NATO AFs have got such planes in their inventories.
However, a few jet aircraft must stay in Afghanistan to perform Air Policing as long as Afghan Army will not have its own AF.

That is not what i posted. U still definitely need fast jets.

[On the way]

Tony Williams, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1042, said:

The interesting question is going to be the future importance of gun strafing, given the hazards involved (a c.$100 million dollar F-35 being shot down by small-arms fire doesn't bear thinking about). The development of laser-guided versions of the 70mm/2.75 inch rocket is now underway in several companies, and promises even greater precision than gun firing at a much greater range. These could also be used very close to friendly troops, given that terminal effects are much less than a Hellfire (it will also be a small fraction of the cost), let alone aerial bombs.

If it is decided that cheap PGMs or very small guided bombs (such as guided 81mm mortar bombs recently tested) can do the job, it makes sense to leave the delivery platform up high. So it might as well be a UCAV, since these have such a long endurance that they can track a friendly formation for hours, instantly ready to intervene (a much faster response time than having to call in an air strike from fast jets which are currently sitting on the ground).

High-speed strike planes which can penetrate deeply into enemy territory will still have a role for a while, but I suspect that the combination of cruise missiles and more sophisticated UCAVs will eventually see the end of them, also.

Tony, I agree that the use of armed UCAV is essential and currently the nearest thing to a COIN role in Afghanistan. But how does it help the Afghanis? If the goal of the US and the ALlies is to withdraw down the road, and hand over the fight totally to the Afghanis, they must at some point develop an air component for themselves. Giving them UCAV capability is probably not desirable and nor will they be able to upkeep it. Neither is fast jets. A "lower tech" solution like a COIN aircraft and armed helos may be within the capabilities of the Afghanis.

[On the way]

Chris Werb, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1226, said:

By far the biggest issue with Tucano type aircraft is vulnerability to ground fire and the political and humanitarian cost of losing the pilot.

Yeah, but the Taliban and their allies are not exactly brimning with AA and MANPADS. U can fire hand held AK-47s and 12.7mm at the attacking aircraft, bit most of these type of aircraft have some armour protection like kevlar, and other defensive measures like flares. Eventually, u want Afghani personnel flying these aircraft anyway.

[Tomas Hoting]

On the way, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1731, said:

Yeah, but the Taliban and their allies are not exactly brimning with AA and MANPADS. U can fire hand held AK-47s and 12.7mm at the attacking aircraft, bit most of these type of aircraft have some armour protection like kevlar, and other defensive measures like flares. Eventually, u want Afghani personnel flying these aircraft anyway.

In addition, if turboprop trainers used in the COIN role are claimed to be too slow and easy to shoot down, one has to wonder why helicopters aren't considerded to be too vulnerable as well.

Colombia and Brazil specifically ordered the most modern variants of the Super Tucano for internal security and border patrol. Brazil's SIVAM (Amazon Monitoring System) project for example uses the armed A-29 and AT-29 variants in conjunction with EMB 145 AEW&C and RS/AGS surveillance jets.

[Tomas Hoting]

Double Post

This post has been edited by Tomas Hoting: 13 April 2009 - 0336 AM