User Panel
|
|
Quoted:
If you're talking about the parts that don't look like an F-18 raped an O-2 then, you're right. Except there aren't any parts that don't look like an F-18 raped an O-2. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks kinda like an F4. If you're talking about the parts that don't look like an F-18 raped an O-2 then, you're right. Except there aren't any parts that don't look like an F-18 raped an O-2. Aha, an O-2. I was trying to come up with a rape scenario but couldn't remember the pusher O-2. Good job. |
|
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/348/48064.JPG Let's see the engineering and the details. I'm not convinced that airplanes are the right answer for Close Support now. There are at least two other means available that provide the same effect, which I believe is to attack and eliminate a threat that is difficult or impossible to access by the group that is in danger. Aviation seems like the natural solution to "go in over the top where the threat is vlunerable". Manned aviation may not be the best solution. View Quote And i would argue that aviation's triumph in that role is the ability to find a threat that can't be easily identified/located precisely and to pursue a broken enemy in the retreat. These issues are a lot better solved with a man in the cockpit. I have had the pleasure of UAV "CAS"; it sucks. |
|
Would you really have room under the pilot for those missiles?
|
|
Hmmm...let's do a drawing of the Air Force plane we want to replace and put MARINES on it.
|
|
Is there a good argument for why the Reaper can't replace the A10?
It's got better loiter time and better AA resistance, and carries lots of weapons. |
|
The Machete sounds like something the mexicans would name a plane. Or maybe the Indonesian air Force if they have one.
|
|
Quoted:
And i would argue that aviation's triumph in that role is the ability to find a threat that can't be easily identified/located precisely and to pursue a broken enemy in the retreat. These issues are a lot better solved with a man in the cockpit. I have had the pleasure of UAV "CAS"; it sucks. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/348/48064.JPG Let's see the engineering and the details. I'm not convinced that airplanes are the right answer for Close Support now. There are at least two other means available that provide the same effect, which I believe is to attack and eliminate a threat that is difficult or impossible to access by the group that is in danger. Aviation seems like the natural solution to "go in over the top where the threat is vlunerable". Manned aviation may not be the best solution. And i would argue that aviation's triumph in that role is the ability to find a threat that can't be easily identified/located precisely and to pursue a broken enemy in the retreat. These issues are a lot better solved with a man in the cockpit. I have had the pleasure of UAV "CAS"; it sucks. That's a hunter-killer mission that might also provide CAS. Or a CAS mission that includes hunting, either as a natural part of CAS, or as a dovetailing additional mission. CAS is perceived as the response to an immediate threat in a location that is reasonably well understood, if not the exact location, with a quick reaction. I have no idea what time span would be considered a quick reaction, I expect a platoon under fire or about to be overrun considers that to be seconds, not large fractions of hours. This might be the first time I've read your notion or definition of CAS. Except for "the effect", you left that part out; I would think you'd pursue that broken enemy, and continue to break it down until it has been eliminated and won't likely continue to be a threat without rebuilding from scratch. I suppose part of the discussion has to include effectiveness of "the effect", too. Does that mean the threat is only a little dangerous after an attack, or does it mean only 1 Soldier or Marine was killed in the fight? I mostly watch these discussions from the point of view of understanding the complaints and the problems presented here. It's possible we have solutions available that aren't deployed now. I have to wonder if the right solutions start with leaving personal agendas at the door. |
|
The less you actually know about the subject the more your concepts are capable of doing.... Just sayin
|
|
|
|
|
Air Tractor was working with the Air Force in the 2000's to convert one of their crop dusters into a ground attack plane.
When the old man who owned Air Tractor died, the plans just kinda fell apart. It looked promising too. |
|
Quoted:
Call Burt and start up an Ares production line, as long as we're dreaming... https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/177643/ares-20then-8X4-164060.JPG View Quote Came here to post this so I'll add to it: Turbofan Killer Bee: Rutan ARES "Mudfighter" for U.S. Army Close Air Support |
|
Anyone who thinks that is ugly looking and...
This is beautiful: Attached File Lacks any credibility as a judge of aesthetics. |
|
|
Quoted:
Air Tractor was working with the Air Force in the 2000's to convert one of their crop dusters into a ground attack plane. When the old man who owned Air Tractor died, the plans just kinda fell apart. It looked promising too. View Quote They're in use right now. The ARES was a toy. A viable production airplane would look considerably different from end to end. Rutan's admirers should look closer at what he really built, and the success of the airplanes that either made it into production, or tried to make it into production. The Starship and Visonaire Vantage are two examples. When you can build airplanes unconstrained by regulations other than required for an Experimental certificate in the US, the possibilities look great. But a realistic view is required to get past the glamor if the airplane is to be put into production. |
|
Quoted:
Air Tractor was working with the Air Force in the 2000's to convert one of their crop dusters into a ground attack plane. When the old man who owned Air Tractor died, the plans just kinda fell apart. It looked promising too. View Quote Air Tractor 802 Gunship / Archangel Close Air Support Aircraft? Makes too much sense. If wiki is to be believed, they're still a thing. |
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
And i would argue that aviation's triumph in that role is the ability to find a threat that can't be easily identified/located precisely and to pursue a broken enemy in the retreat. These issues are a lot better solved with a man in the cockpit. I have had the pleasure of UAV "CAS"; it sucks. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/348/48064.JPG Let's see the engineering and the details. I'm not convinced that airplanes are the right answer for Close Support now. There are at least two other means available that provide the same effect, which I believe is to attack and eliminate a threat that is difficult or impossible to access by the group that is in danger. Aviation seems like the natural solution to "go in over the top where the threat is vlunerable". Manned aviation may not be the best solution. And i would argue that aviation's triumph in that role is the ability to find a threat that can't be easily identified/located precisely and to pursue a broken enemy in the retreat. These issues are a lot better solved with a man in the cockpit. I have had the pleasure of UAV "CAS"; it sucks. Were those UAV's issued to boots on the ground? I'm no expert but I'm thinking CAS directed by drones packed in by infantry units + F35 + resources on the net = good guy win. Just a thought. |
|
Quoted:
That's a hunter-killer mission that might also provide CAS. Or a CAS mission that includes hunting, either as a natural part of CAS, or as a dovetailing additional mission. CAS is perceived as the response to an immediate threat in a location that is reasonably well understood, if not the exact location, with a quick reaction. I have no idea what time span would be considered a quick reaction, I expect a platoon under fire or about to be overrun considers that to be seconds, not large fractions of hours. This might be the first time I've read your notion or definition of CAS. Except for "the effect", you left that part out; I would think you'd pursue that broken enemy, and continue to break it down until it has been eliminated and won't likely continue to be a threat without rebuilding from scratch. I suppose part of the discussion has to include effectiveness of "the effect", too. Does that mean the threat is only a little dangerous after an attack, or does it mean only 1 Soldier or Marine was killed in the fight? I mostly watch these discussions from the point of view of understanding the complaints and the problems presented here. It's possible we have solutions available that aren't deployed now. I have to wonder if the right solutions start with leaving personal agendas at the door. View Quote the text book retarded definition of CAS (thanks air force) would have it as a highly planned, and meticulously integrated part of the fires battle in conjunction with the defense of western europe. With all assets of course centrally controlled for the maximum effect against an always massed enemy. Really, CAS is a detractor from air power as the CAOC has a much better concept of the overall ground situation than the senior ground commander. For the AF, the ultimate manifestation of "CAS" was the opening bombardment in Cobra. The assets and targets all planned for weeks (at least!) based upon a mythical perfect intelligence picture with only a tiny amount of terminal control really needed. This would all be endlessly rehearsed and everything shut down for this perfect mission. needless to say, this doesn't happen. But understand that the concept of CAS was designed primarily to ensure that minimal input from ground forces would be involved. If it is flexible, it is only to the degree that CAOC can reallocate assets across theater. Its not designed to "save" anyone. And it is certainly not designed for "emergency" measures. Quick reaction in CAS land is limited to the ATO. This is the "text book" CAS. It is such a massive failure that the idea of it only exists in maxwell. Army commanders do not understand CAS for the same reason we don't understand underway replenishment. It doesn't matter to us. CAS is trained in areas where no ground forces exist because CAS, in air force form, has as small an interaction with the ground commander as possible. In fact, none would be better. Most AF will tell you after a few beers the army exists to escort JTACs around to win the war. This is Airpower. The Air Force only does "Airpower" so CAS must be Airpower even though Airpower and Air Support are, by definition, mutually exclusive (this assumes that Billy Mitchell, HAP Arnold and Guilio Douhet actually understood airpower. modern air force theorists will tell you they didn't, ironically enough) Air support is simply cavalry of the modern age. A force multiplier using speed to quickly mass in key areas during the battle (not 96 hours prior to the battle), screen the main effort, deep penetration raids and pursue a broken enemy. You'll note that is how army attack (and previously scout) aviation operates. |
|
Quoted:
Were those UAV's issued to boots on the ground? I'm no expert but I'm thinking CAS directed by drones packed in by infantry units + F35 + resources on the net = good guy win. Just a thought. View Quote or just use LAAR driven by army aviators and I don't have to carry a drone, won't need 10Xs as many F35s and won't need a completely unrestricted EMS. There is lots of ways to drive a win. But we can develop a concept that provides distributed and ubiquitous support instead of an exquisite and highly restricted support. |
|
let's hang everything on a B-52.
20 gau8's on each wing for starters Trump will do it. It'll be GREAT. It'll be YUGE. |
|
Dat is neet. When it comes to war planes 2 is 1 and 1 is none when it comes to engines.
They need to make a big ass mothefuckin prop plane that is a dedicated platform that orbits at 30,000 feet with enough ordnance to kill all the things and be fucking done with it. These little planes are slick tho. I like them, should be attached to everyone who wants them in numbers that actually mean something all over Europe and the pacific. If we get hit with nukes dumb rockets and gun pods are gonna look real good real quick. If the bad guys wanted to fuck us up, our reliance on stuff that requires super computers to work is softest place to hit. IMO we need parallel tech that would be ready post flash if we are going to be taken seriously by China and Iran once they get a way to project nuke force. A carrier full of F-35s wont mean shit to them if they cant fly. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know about the plane, but I am certainly going to look into the investment opportunity. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/857/IMG-0104-164089.JPG View Quote The future of side boob is looking up. |
|
Quoted:
MANPADS already made them obsolete in Vietnam. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
MANPADS already made them obsolete in Vietnam. Just like the A10. Having flown CAS before I can tell you with a certainty they wont send A10s where there are any ground threats much beyond small arms. They will just get shot, forcing them to fly home. Because its the A10, it will it at least fly home. But the enemy just negated your CAS. Then again, our own leadership has already negated CAS with their ROE so its all a moot point anyway. I say go ahead and build them, my kids are already out of money but my grandkids or their kids might still have some, if they work until seventy five. Whatever will feed the procurement beast.... |
|
Quoted:
As far as I can tell Stavatti just makes cool-looking drawings that are maybe better than what a middle school student will do on a notebook. View Quote Ding ding ding. Stavatti is best known for trolling the DoD with offers to build "laser rifles" about fifteen years back. http://www.defensereview.com/stavatti-sf-1-gasdynamic-laser-rifle-individual-combat-weapon-of-the-future/ |
|
Quoted:
Just like the A10. Having flown CAS before I can tell you with a certainty they wont send A10s where there are any ground threats much beyond small arms. They will just get shot, forcing them to fly home. Because its the A10, it will it at least fly home. But the enemy just negated your CAS. Then again, our own leadership has already negated CAS with their ROE so its all a moot point anyway. I say go ahead and build them, my kids are already out of money but my grandkids or their kids might still have some, if they work until seventy five. Whatever will feed the procurement beast.... View Quote the most vulnerable fixed wing is still more survivable than the most hardened rotary wing. rhodies were flying O2s, Aleuttes and C47s with ubiquitous SAM-7s, 14.5 and 23mm. the ROE restrictions on CAS were generally not the same with CCA. It isn't the frame, its the different training and doctrine. |
|
Powerful U.S. senator John McCain has lent his support to the idea of a new light attack plane. McCain’s proposed military reforms include acquiring 300 light attackers for the Air Force. Gen. Dave Goldfein, the Air Force’s chief of staff, said McCain’s proposal was a “great idea.” View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Dumb question ..... Why replace the A-10 ? Everything I read says "it's ___ yrs old we need a new plane .... Why not build new A-10s ? It's not like it's a pos . Build new ones replace old ones . View Quote Because a off the shelf turboprop is much cheaper to buy and more importantly operate. The A-10 lines and tooling went to the scrap heap decades ago. |
|
Quoted:
the text book retarded definition of CAS (thanks air force) would have it as a highly planned, and meticulously integrated part of the fires battle in conjunction with the defense of western europe. With all assets of course centrally controlled for the maximum effect against an always massed enemy. Really, CAS is a detractor from air power as the CAOC has a much better concept of the overall ground situation than the senior ground commander. For the AF, the ultimate manifestation of "CAS" was the opening bombardment in Cobra. The assets and targets all planned for weeks (at least!) based upon a mythical perfect intelligence picture with only a tiny amount of terminal control really needed. This would all be endlessly rehearsed and everything shut down for this perfect mission. needless to say, this doesn't happen. But understand that the concept of CAS was designed primarily to ensure that minimal input from ground forces would be involved. If it is flexible, it is only to the degree that CAOC can reallocate assets across theater. Its not designed to "save" anyone. And it is certainly not designed for "emergency" measures. Quick reaction in CAS land is limited to the ATO. This is the "text book" CAS. It is such a massive failure that the idea of it only exists in maxwell. Army commanders do not understand CAS for the same reason we don't understand underway replenishment. It doesn't matter to us. CAS is trained in areas where no ground forces exist because CAS, in air force form, has as small an interaction with the ground commander as possible. In fact, none would be better. Most AF will tell you after a few beers the army exists to escort JTACs around to win the war. This is Airpower. The Air Force only does "Airpower" so CAS must be Airpower even though Airpower and Air Support are, by definition, mutually exclusive (this assumes that Billy Mitchell, HAP Arnold and Guilio Douhet actually understood airpower. modern air force theorists will tell you they didn't, ironically enough) Air support is simply cavalry of the modern age. A force multiplier using speed to quickly mass in key areas during the battle (not 96 hours prior to the battle), screen the main effort, deep penetration raids and pursue a broken enemy. You'll note that is how army attack (and previously scout) aviation operates. View Quote I was just on a call this week with some Army folks in which they declared all Army UAS going forward will be armed. Now I know that meant being cable of carrying weapons and maybe not all the time but I think they realize what they are up against. |
|
|
Quoted:
I was just on a call this week with some Army folks in which they declared all Army UAS going forward will be armed. Now I know that meant being cable of carrying weapons and maybe not all the time but I think they realize what they are up against. View Quote Unarmed UAVs are stupid at the tactical level. Find a target and then need ANOTHER asset to monkey stomp it? Stupid. UAVs are magnificent surveillance assets. CAS and recon they are not, however. |
|
Quoted:
the most vulnerable fixed wing is still more survivable than the most hardened rotary wing. rhodies were flying O2s, Aleuttes and C47s with ubiquitous SAM-7s, 14.5 and 23mm. the ROE restrictions on CAS were generally not the same with CCA. It isn't the frame, its the different training and doctrine. View Quote I agree wholeheartedly, and agree with most everything in your CAS definition post above. As long as general's on both sides are more interested in the budget wars than actual wars, and more interested in career risk mitigation than fighting and winning, not a thing will change. As I have said before, having loved the mission I would have been happy to fly anything, in any uniform, that would accomplish that mission. First just give me a general that will let me kill the enemy and wreck the enemy's stuff if our own are in harm's way. Thats all I ask. |
|
Quoted:
I agree wholeheartedly, and agree with most everything in your CAS definition post above. As long as general's on both sides are more interested in the budget wars than actual wars, and more interested in career risk mitigation than fighting and winning, not a thing will change. As I have said before, having loved the mission I would have been happy to fly anything, in any uniform, that would accomplish that mission. First just give me a general that will let me kill the enemy and wreck the enemy's stuff if our own are in harm's way. Thats all I ask. View Quote I heart you. kinda homo. If we could just get apportioned airpower down to the BSO and keep the same pilots for a year, give the mission to the AF. 50 planes remain in theater, all fighter/strike pilots go through a 2 month train up/transition at NTC/JRTC with a maneuver/fires guy in the back seat. we could stack bodies at 20% of the current footprint. |
|
Quoted:
I nominate the B-25H: https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/mort6.jpg?w=479 That site has several Mort Kunstler paintings of interest to Arfcomer's. NSFW, and maybe GD. View Quote Came here to say build a modern b25 |
|
Quoted:
They are being flown in combat every day in Libya and Yemen http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/?q=70&w=920&url=http://d254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net/ddsf1_1.jpg There are now 2 competing makers of effectively the same thing,which caused a problem with Kenya's recent order. IOMAX is now using Thrush airframes and Air Tractor is offering them in conjunction with L3. View Quote The newer version really improved visibility for the pilot/WSO. the first version you could barely tell there was a backseat. guess they figured out that the thermal POD isn't the only thing you should be looking around with. there is a lesson in there for those willing to learn it. |
|
Quoted:
The Super Tucano seems like a simple, cheap, and effective stopgap platform for COIN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano "The Super Tucano, however, has Kevlar armor that can withstand heavy machine gun fire, two .50-caliber machine guns in the wing roots, and can carry up to 3,300 pounds of munitions, sensor pods or fuel tanks on up to five hardpoints. It can go 367 miles per hour, and has endurance of eight and half hours and range 826 miles." Not bad for a COTS aircraft that's only $9-12 million. Of course, because it's a not a multi billion project for a major US defense contractor, it will likely never be adopted. View Quote Everyone quit advocating more foreign made equipment. We can make our own weapons and equipment. |
|
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.