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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

Double Post

U have a good point, helos other than attack helos, are used extensively in Afghanistan. and they are more vulnerable than COIN aircraft. I don't understand why forward based Super Tucano can't get to the fight as fast a jet either.

But only the armoured attack helos actually go looking for trouble - the others are transports and try to avoid it. A COIN aircraft has to deliberately place itself in danger, within range of small arms fire.

Even the attack helos cannot ignore small-arms fire - remember that incident in Iraq in 2003 when a formation of US Apaches was forced to turn back after coming under heavy fire?

Even for the Afghanis, a UCAV may be more useful than a manned plane. They don't all cost the same as Reapers, after all, there's a huge range of different types and capabilities, and an increasing number of them can be armed. I don't see them being necessarily more expensive or difficult to operate than a manned plane with equivalent capabilities.

I think Chris Werb has the long-term solution: UAVs for surveillence and targeting, with artillery (tube and rocket) for the punch.

One thing that may be of importance: Are any of the fast movers or A-10's actually based in Afghanistan?
One benefit of fast movers flying from Krygyzstan and Tajikistan and formerly Uzbekistan are that they can transit the very long distance much quicker, which means more time on station with tankers and minimizes pilot fatigue which is a considerable factor.

And why couldn't the Afghans fly UAV's?
How are they more impossibly complex than other modern aircraft?

At the end of the day armed UAV's are going to be able to bear the brunt of CAS in COIN situations: You can keep on station a very long time, crew fatigue is negligible, and if they go down (which IIRC is about 30% loss rates) you only lose $4 mill worth of aircraft (vs$30-100 million aircraft), no pilot, no need for CSAR.

Fine, as long as you're within artillery range, and your target isn't close to non-combatants. But if the UAV can carry a small PGM, that can attack more quickly than getting an artillery round on target and with less risk of collateral damage. When you're dealing with small, fleeting targets (as you often are in COIN work) speed of response and a small effective radius are both important.

Yes, Harriers and Dutch F-16s definitely based at Kandahar, A-10s at Bagram I think.

With modern guided rockets and arty shells (GMLRS and Excalibur), the accuracy is becoming comparable. Artillery, both rocket and tube, is getting longer-ranged as well. I would think that the cost comparison favors the artillery; the log footprint of an arty battery is far smaller than a fighter base. Plus, as long as the UAV can fly, a call for fire is, what, a few minutes? Seconds, if pre-arranged? Even if the weather is too rotten for a UAV to fly, targets can be hit if the FO can get a GPS location and/or a laser on the target.

I wasn't questioning the accuracy, but the radius of destruction of the warhead. For COIN work, you often want to keep that to the minimum required to knock out a small target withour devastating the area.

But not as long-ranged as a UAV.


But for your preferred scenario to work, you need a UAV for identifying and illuminating the target, plus an artillery battery. Slinging a small PGM under the UAV is cheaper.

It still takes time for the shell or missile to arrive at the target, even if the gun is loaded and the crew are poised to fire (which I suspect wouldn't normally be the case). And the longer the range, the longer it takes. It is much quicker for the UAV pilot, having identified and illuminated the target, to fire the missile or drop the small bomb.

True - that is one circumstance in which artillery has the edge.

Nice analysis, Tony; thanks. Maybe in my eagerness to show off my own vast analytical skills ( ), perhaps I got away from the comparison to manned fast-movers. Arty and UAVs should be complementary, wailing and teeth-gnashing of the jobs-threatened zoomies aside.

I guess the key factor though is having the UAV close enough to putter to where they're needed, then aquire the target and hit it. Unless the UAV is directly supporting the troops or extremely close, a fast mover will be able to arrive quicker, and arty will probably be on call in some capacity even quicker.

I would imagine it would be whatever is closest and on call, now if that is a fast-mover, an armed UAV or an arty battery I don't think the guys with rifles would mind too much, so long as the bad guys go boom...

Response time and accuracy are the key things, and based on the posted experiences of our OIF vets it sounds like the real question isn't what platform is used to deliver ordnance on bad guys, but rather which C3I structure responds quickest.

The optimum surely is a mix of fast movers, light attack/COIN aircraft, UCAVs, and arty. I'm skeptical of the primarily arty approach, my readings of RVN give me the impression that you end up having to blanket the theather with fire bases with all the logistic and security issues thereof.

I also think we are seeing a gradual shift in societal values, such that grunts are valued much more highly. Back when pilots were golden and grunts were expendable, folks worried about pilot losses. In the case of CAS I'm not convinced the differential exists any more; risking one pilot to ground fire in order to protect/defend an infantry company on the ground may become acceptable again.

Judging from the imagery currently available from Google Earth, there is at least a half-squadron of A-10s at Bagram. Hi-res of Kandahar AF is not available.

The US Special Forces have ordered some for themselves in order to provide dedicated air support to SF units. I sure it's getting the USAF knickers in a knot. If you had a production line running for updated A10's I am sure they would sell well. I think the days of CAS by fighters are numbered. The risk vs benifit ratio of having a 100million dollar jet down in the weeds to strafe a bunch of Tallies in a Hilux isn't worth the risk, if they pull out a modern Manpad or even get the lucky BB with a 14.5 or 23mm and shoot down a jet, the propanga value and cost is worth many of them being killed in the process.

Guided bombs will be delivered by UAV and or dedicated bomb trucks. Hell you could design a bomber version of the 737, with long loiter time and large payload of bombs, have them fly a circuit over the battlefield. Personally I can see Air forces other than the US going to a dedicated CAS platform with a gun and bombs.

I'm surprised boing hasn't offered a version of the 737 for bomb-truck duties, since we know from the P8 the fuselage can accept a bomb bay...

As I posted above, British Harriers (7 I think) and Belgian F-16s (4) are based at Kandahar, Dutch F-16s were formerly based there but have rotations stopped in 2008.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-...r-harriers.html

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/2009/0...an-heavily.html

The US Marines try to keep a detachment of Harriers in A'stan, also.

As far as USAF and COIN, it's unlikely since it will compete with funds for pet projects. After the "Fighter Mafia" retires, the "UAV Mafia" will likely take the reins--er, controls. Their mantra will probably be something like "We Can Kill It Without Leaving Home"

Forgot about them. There were also 3 French Mirage 2000s and 3 Super Etendards based at Kandahar for at least part of 2008; don't know what the situation is now.

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema_uk/operatio...ion_in_kandahar

Regarding a future A-10C replacement for the USAF, I really don't know how much you could improve on that design. Sadly they can't keep flying forever.

Having some aircraft like the Super Tucano, AT-6B Texan II or a modernized OV-10 could be useful. Even if UAVs can do the job better in our services they could certainly be useful to Afghan forces. Apparently the Navy recently trialed the Super Tucano for SOCOM use.

And if one goes down you get the newer, better, faster, stealthier, nastier one like you do with personnal computers now. Even EOL(End of Life) ones still in stock have a use as decoys or kamikaze roles in a high intensity conflict.

Bring back the Piper Enforcer. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA-48_Enforcer

I don't think I suggested that GMLR replace air assets. For one thing, engaging a target that can move in any direction is not going to be easy with something that takes that long to organise and arrive. Loitering munitions could make things a lot more interesting though and, unlike the US which cancelled its LAM project, the UK has an ongoing loitering munition project which could even see action someday.

With laser or GPS guidance virtually any aircraft can be a COIN aircraft, even a B-52. In Korea and Vietnam COIN aircraft had to be procured because direct fire or lobbed bombs was difficult for jet aircraft constricted by low cloud and tight terrain. Today these are not factors. AC-130s probably still have a role to play, but I doubt adding a bunch of rebuilt A-1Es or newbuilt Tucanoes would be helpful, though they might be cheaper.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/24/af-mulls...wing-new-planes

The Hawker Beechcraft T-6 is the Air Force’s current primary trainer aircraft. Its maker has proposed a modified plane with machine guns and the ability to carry a variety of PGMs so it would seem a natural candidate for this role

Um, wrong approach. Slow and good time on station Observer planes with recon kit and standoff capability to go with UAV's good. Getting close and dirty with machine guns bad.

Well is it well armored? Cannons would be better than MGs in this day and age too.

For reference weights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator
Empty weight: 1,130 lb
Max takeoff weight: 2,250 lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1C_Warrior
Empty weight: NA
Max takeoff weight: 3,200 lbs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-9_Predator_B
Empty weight: 4,900 lb
Max takeoff weight: 10,500 lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-6_Texan_II
Empty weight: 4,900 lb
Max takeoff weight: 6,500 lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10_Bronco
Empty weight: 6,893 lb
Max takeoff weight: 14,444 lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
Empty weight: 6,658 lb
Max takeoff weight: 11,464 lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider
Empty weight: 11,970 lb
Max takeoff weight: 25,000 lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10
Empty weight: 24,959 lb
Max takeoff weight: 50,000 lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju-87
Loaded weight: 9,524 lb
Max takeoff weight: 11,023 lb


Think the COIN candidates are a little light to put cannons and armor. Re-inventing the A-10, AH-64, and OH-58 with allot more developement cost. The last one, if going propeller with cannons might as well scare them!. Even if you put flares for the MANPADS you might still deal with a technical with a something in 12.7 or 23mm. A COIN aircraft would at least need enough kevlar and redundancy for 7.62 to get close and personnal.

The main point of using manned COIN aircraft with observer UAV kit is to have Mark 1 eyeballs attached to a on-the-spot Mark 1 brain, in a more persistant platform, with less complex airframe and associated cost. Reinventing the FAC aircraft with modern sensors and some light stand-off weapons. Accurate fire from a guided smaller-than-Hellfire missle pod from out of range would be more accurate, effective, and less risky to the pilot\observer than a 20mm or larger cannon pod.

The ideal role would be to use a light COIN aircraft with better performance in some areas like very short take off, lower logistics burden, and better endurance to observe a fight than a A-10. If used by itself, the ability to carry enough munitions for a light fight. You would want to use it with A-10 or other asset if you need more firepower. Basically a fixed wing Kiowa to go with the Apache. A updated OV-10 or adapted twin engine aircraft would be ideal in my opinion.

edit: Forgot about the helos and a little clarifying.
2nd edit: Added UAV's for comparison
3rd edit: slept on it and added more.

That isn't necessarily an advantage in itself. Manned aircraft using Mk1 eyeballs have put a lot of ordnance on the wrong people down the years. If you're operating within the threat envelope of even small arms fire you're not going to be near the target for very long - travelling fast and low and trying to get it right on the first pass (and making subsequent passes from different directions) will make you even more prone to mistakes. Being fast and low also doesn't lend itself to accurate ordnance delivery. If you're going to fly high enough to stay out of SA fire, you might as well be flying/controlling a UCAV from a base a continent away.