Return of Turboprops to CAS role?

[VetteMuscle427]

It was "lost" because it doesn't make enough $$$$ for the really big defense contractors ... and it doesn't command a large piece of the DoD budget (read: power, face, influence, bigger piece of the pie) for military chieftains .... if "it" did, -- i.e., low intensity warfighting capability and assets --- we would have never "lost" them ...

Same thing happened with inshore warfare and brown water operations ... and mine-sweeping ... ??? What's that???

Two problems: we have short memories .... and we have overinflated budget/procurement priorities, both in industry and the DoD.

Just my $20 worth ...

"Never say never"??? How about .... the more things change ...

I was going to blame Bill Clinton... but this works too.

 

[usmarinemike]

I'm becoming more convinced in the chat. Vette has me seeing the light. Or maybe drinking the Kool-Aid. However you want to see it.

 

[BlkPny]

Sounds like a great idea, having longer loiter time and faster "get to the target" time than a helo, and more accurate ordnance delivery that the fast movers. Good idea, that is, until you fly against guys armed with something more than pitchforks and AK's.

If they are really going to do it, however, make sure they do two things.

1. Use the Spads, the "Flying Tank". Or the A-10.
2. Man the squadrons with mostly O-2's. They are still too young and stupid to know how dangerous it is. As an added plus, they will actually enjoy it.

Seriously, this would be of value in certain situations, but it would not work with the Air Force. It has to have a very fast response, something the USAF does not excel at, and it would have to work directly with the small units on the ground. I could see the Marines or the Army being better at this than the USAF.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Sounds like a great idea, having longer loiter time and faster "get to the target" time than a helo, and more accurate ordnance delivery that the fast movers. Good idea, that is, until you fly against guys armed with something more than pitchforks and AK's.

If they are really going to do it, however, make sure they do two things.

1. Use the Spads, the "Flying Tank". Or the A-10.
2. Man the squadrons with mostly O-2's. They are still too young and stupid to know how dangerous it is. As an added plus, they will actually enjoy it.

Seriously, this would be of value in certain situations, but it would not work with the Air Force. It has to have a very fast response, something the USAF does not excel at, and it would have to work directly with the small units on the ground. I could see the Marines or the Army being better at this than the USAF.

You only use it as a COIN aircraft, not in a role meant for a jet. Spads? C'mon, not possible. Staffed with O-2s? Sign me up. I bet it could work very will in the SOF field, self contained, and not in the "Big Air Force" mentality.

 

[statesman]

1. Use the Spads, the "Flying Tank". Or the A-10.

I was going to bring this up as well.

The USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 for years now. The hypothesis that I always heard thrown around was that the brass didnt like it because it wasn't hightech sexy enough for them. They wanted a new plane with lots of tech. But to me the problem they are trying to address with the AT-6 or other platform is the exact mission the A-10 fills.

It seems smarter to update the A-10, or do what the navy did with the E/F hornets and go with a Super A-10 if they want to upgrade passed the current airframes capability.

 

[hscs]

According to this article, this new wing will be attached to AFSOC (if developed) -- not ACC, so you won't have the "this plane isn't fast enough, sexy enough, high tech enough" issues like the A-10. It also sounds like the fixed wing attack plane will join the Foreign Internal Defense Huey squadron -- where the Air Force helps develop the air forces of struggling countries.

 

[phrogdriver]

I was curious about what the special operations UH-1N squadron does. I though the USAF just used them to drive crews to missile squadrons.

This is a great idea, if done right.

The Bronco had some big problems in the first Gulf War, probably due to being in a high-intensity conflict in a slow-mover. I think a newer bird, maybe with some IR suppression and the right weapons, could make a pretty good FAC(A) and CAS platform.

 

[Pugs]

I was curious about what the special operations UH-1N squadron does. I though the USAF just used them to drive crews to missile squadrons.

The wing at Andrews is primarily concerned with continuity of leadership e.g. evac leadership from D.C.

 

[hscs]

Yes, there are Hueys that do that and transport folks to missile silos but AFSOC has Hueys in addition to others for FID, too.

 

[Flash]

I was curious about what the special operations UH-1N squadron does. I though the USAF just used them to drive crews to missile squadrons.

This is a great idea, if done right.

The Bronco had some big problems in the first Gulf War, probably due to being in a high-intensity conflict in a slow-mover. I think a newer bird, maybe with some IR suppression and the right weapons, could make a pretty good FAC(A) and CAS platform.

The Spec Ops Hueys are used to train foreign pilots.

http://www2.hurlburt.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3496

The wing at Andrews is primarily concerned with continuity of leadership e.g. evac leadership from D.C.

They are attached to the 89th Wing and are not Special Ops, though they do have that mission. I see them flying up and down the river all of the time.

(PDF) http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2001/0101heli.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/1hs.htm

 

[Swanee]

I was going to bring this up as well.

The USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 for years now. The hypothesis that I always heard thrown around was that the brass didnt like it because it wasn't hightech sexy enough for them. They wanted a new plane with lots of tech. But to me the problem they are trying to address with the AT-6 or other platform is the exact mission the A-10 fills.

It seems smarter to update the A-10, or do what the navy did with the E/F hornets and go with a Super A-10 if they want to upgrade passed the current airframes capability.

The A-10 will be around for a while now that ACC has invested some money into them. And because ACC has invested that money, I don't see them giving AFSOC those assets anytime soon. The A-10 will always be the bastard child in a world controlled by patch wearing F-15 drivers.

 

[SteveG75]

Bring back the P-51. Actually, the Piper PA-48 Enforcer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_14.html

 

[hscs]

AFSOC will get what AFSOC wants (within reason) -- like the rest of SOCOM.

My take -- more AC130s....

 

[VetteMuscle427]

My take -- more AC130s....

Those are in modification right now.

 

[Gatordev]

http://www2.hurlburt.af.mil/library/...et.asp?id=3496

For crying out loud, the AF uses a lot of words to explain what it is they do.

The Spec Ops Hueys are used to train foreign pilots.

Indirectly. I believe these are the same guys that fly the Hips as well. I spent several hours shooting the shit w/ a couple of their guys (including a former Naval Aviator -53 guy) at Florala one night and they were explaining that they never take their assets overseas, just the pilots. The local assets are for currency.