Article

2008-06-23 Afghanistan

Brits get some Urban Renewal assistance from the Yanks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-06-23 06:38|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 Sounds like our U.K. ally was suitably impressed with American technology.

Posted by Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 2008-06-23 07:01|| 2008-06-23 07:01|| Front Page Top

#2 And the NYTimes on Sunday are trying like hell to sponsor and promote a feud between USAF and the Army. To the point, that they are actually endorsing a move by Army to establish their own air power (albeit, the Prowler UAV). Now that the war is basically won, the Times now has to break the machine so Obama can come in a fix it - thereby making it look like something a Kenyan would create.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2008-06-23 08:43|| 2008-06-23 08:43|| Front Page Top

#3 Jack, it's actually a sound proposal. The Air Force has consistently kept its UAV fleet undermanned and underdeployed, despite direct orders from SecDef.

The Air Force, operating UAV's from Nellis and not the front, insists that they must be flown by pilots, officers, who have flown them before. That happens to be a remarkably small number of people.

UAV pilot is not an MOS that is in demand in the AF. They have made halfhearted attempts to increase UAV availability but the fact remains that one of our top weapons systems is vastly underdeployed and it is the direct responsibility of the AF.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2008-06-23 09:10|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2008-06-23 09:10|| Front Page Top

#4 I've heard good arguments for both sides from people I respect.

It is absolutely true that USAF has moved slower than Gates wants on expanded UAV capability.

But it's also true that the Army, used to tactical air ops only, tends to underestimate issues like airspace management as UAV use broadens.

Moreover, there are UAVs and then there are UAVs. Little Ravens op'd by squads for very local recon are one thing. But a highly respected pilot I know makes a strong case that (at least for the Predators) there are or were good reasons to use skilled pilots to fly them.

The reality is that both operational doctrine and the state of the technology are evolving rapidly. Neither service IMO has a good grip on how to manage this effectively.

Posted by lotp 2008-06-23 09:53|| 2008-06-23 09:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Need not be officers. Warrant Officers seems to be the better path, starting as enlisted analysts/weapons operators.

The Army has had a lot of success with Warrant Officers as pilots - and it keeps them in the pilot seat, not off playing manager.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-23 10:00|| 2008-06-23 10:00|| Front Page Top

#6 Yup - and a friend of mine resigned her commission to go warrant so she could fly.

That said, OS, the Army's air use is tactical. And they really do not have the skills or mindset for larger operational coordination in the air.

Posted by lotp 2008-06-23 10:15|| 2008-06-23 10:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Off Topic (kinda): If you had ever flown into busy airspace while keeping the aircraft under control, dealing with air traffic control, ducking that fast mover who doesn't think he has to follow flight regs, ect. you would realize why a trained pilot is required in complex situations per lotp's comment.

One reason that UAV's are not in common use in the CONUS is that they do NOT have sufficient situational awareness to safely mix with other air traffic where the UAV does NOT have priority. I suspect that "playing well with others" is a problem with the E4's controlling some of these UAV's. This is where the pilot training comes in.

The Warrant Officer program is probably the best way to get those trained pilots. Train them to fly (not jets) then crosstrain to UAV's. Base them fairly close to the area where the UAV is being used as the commo time lag can literally be a killer in some complex situations and a 3-5 second lag is probably one reason they lose aircraft in emergency situations.

Posted by tipover 2008-06-23 11:01|| 2008-06-23 11:01|| Front Page Top

#8 If you had ever flown into busy airspace while keeping the aircraft under control, dealing with air traffic control, ducking that fast mover who doesn't think he has to follow flight regs, ect. you would realize why a trained pilot is required in complex situations per lotp's comment.

Yep. It was interesting to watch the air situation during GWI. There were clusterf**ks. Attack aircraft returning fast, low and 'dark' (everything that radidated shut off). Aircraft vectored to rather odd routes (like over Iran). Aircraft missing their 'ordnance dumping' zone and nearly hitting ships. Aircraft mistaking friendly vessels for enemy. Cruise missiles in their own corridors, supposedly known to the air crews. JSTARs, tankers, ELINT, EW, P-3s, airborne controllers, CAP, CSAR, ASUW helos, Marine helos conducting a diversionary feint...

Now throw in a slew of UAVs.

Posted by Pappy 2008-06-23 11:47|| 2008-06-23 11:47|| Front Page Top

#9 lotp, in the RVN, Warrants flew in and out of Air Bases [mixed Navy and Air-Force bases]with..

A-4 Skyhawks,
F-105 Thunderchief,
F-100 Super Sabre,
A-6 Intruders ,
A-7 Corsair,
F-4 Phantoms,
A-3 Skywarriors,
A-1 Skyraiders,
A-1H version,
KA-3B tanker version,
A-26 Invaders,
B-26K version,
AC-47 Spookys,
AC-130 Spectres,
AC-130E Gunship version,
An-2 Colt,
Boeing 707,
C-47 Skytrain,
etc
etc.
@

Bien Hoa
Binh Thuy
Cam Ranh Bay
Da Nang
Nha Trang
Phu Cat
Pleiku
Phan Rang
Tan Son Nhut
Tuy Hoa
etc
etc
etc.

Posted by RD">RD 2008-06-23 11:50|| 2008-06-23 11:50|| Front Page Top

#10 Perhaps a Warrant Officer could fill us in.. first hand.

I Must GOTO Verk now! :)

Posted by RD">RD 2008-06-23 11:54|| 2008-06-23 11:54|| Front Page Top

#11 I am only concerned about the "slippery slope" of the Army going retro back to their own ground support air wing. The AF is more than strategic and airlift - it is defense and tactical. In SpecOps you can have the mix since in SpecOps there are no straight lines but lots of overlap - FTC and Security and C3I and all sorts of MOS performed by whoever is first with the best. But in other operations we don't need more redundancy and non-standardization. That has been our achilles heel for years. We need razor sharp divisions of responsibility and in-synch commo and leadership.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2008-06-23 12:44|| 2008-06-23 12:44|| Front Page Top

#12 Airspace control will be an issue regardless of enlisted, warrant or officer pilots, and regardless of which service controls things.

Piloting a UAV takes special skill sets, and passing pilot school does not give you the ability to fly a UAV well.

Its a very specialized skill set - and as such, probably best belongs in the Warrant Officer ranks - technical experts who spend their entire career becoming a master of a particular field.

Same case could be made for fighter aircraft.

The Army Aviation way is probably the best - train pilots, some officer but mostly warrants (basic flight school at Ft Rucker will do the trick).

Keep the Warrants flying the UAVs and other airborne assets (like attack helis). Have officers fly some missions, but mainly serve as unit commanders after the get promoted "up and out" of O-2/O-3 area.

Give the A-10's to the Army - they fit better there as part of a combined team with attack helis. Marines already do similar work with their pilots and aircraft.

The air control split really depends on the environment. In a hostile air conflict area, USAF and Air Superiority are the lead dog.

But in something like Iraq, the Army/Marines should have priority and control.

USAF gets everything above 12000AGL (including Global Hawks and theater predators), Army/ Marines get everything below that.

Other than A-10's thats how the USAF seems to like it anyway.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-23 13:16|| 2008-06-23 13:16|| Front Page Top

#13 The Marine Corps has done just fine with it's own tactical air arm. When it comes to CAS no one is better. But, I'd invite the A-10 jocks to my party any time.

If the Air Force gets rid of the A-10's, refurb them and let the Marines have a go. The Harriers have been susceptible to ground fire. Unfortunately they are being replaced by the F-35's. I guess the Super Cobras are going to have to work harder.

Bring back the OV-10. In Nam that was our A-10. We had 8 5" Zuni's, 24 2.75's (4 marking, 20 HE) and 4 M-60's strapped to the belly. We could put Hellfires in place of the Zuni's. Now that's the ticket.

I see an occasional OV-10 flying as a controller aircraft at grass and forest fires here in California. Makes me sigh and remember my good friend JB. He's a FAC for God now.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-06-23 13:21|| 2008-06-23 13:21|| Front Page Top

#14 The Harriers have been susceptible to ground fire. Unfortunately they are being replaced by the F-35's.

So do the F-35s have stealth technology that makes them immune to ground fire? Or do they not need to get too close to the ground?

Posted by gorb 2008-06-23 16:17|| 2008-06-23 16:17|| Front Page Top

#15 Gorb,
The F-35s have stealth to help against MANPADS and heavier SAMs. However nothing is stealthy against a bullet.

Posted by Frozen Al 2008-06-23 16:36|| 2008-06-23 16:36|| Front Page Top

#16 Close Air Support in the Marine Corps doctrine means just that, "close". The advent of precision weapons have changed some of the "close" requirements, but unlike the AF, the Marines have never tried strafing runs from 30,000ft.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-06-23 16:55|| 2008-06-23 16:55|| Front Page Top

#17 Buddy of mine flew A-1's in Nam - best close-support aircraft flying at the time. Lots of gun, lots of bombs and lots of linger time. Ate Charle's ass but good.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2008-06-23 17:42|| 2008-06-23 17:42|| Front Page Top

#18 GB - you'll have to fight the Army to get your hands on those A-10's if we can ever convince the USAF to let go of them.

Close Air: its like our attack helicopter guys say in the cav: if you ain't coming back with tree branches on the undercarriage, you're flying too high.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-23 17:51|| 2008-06-23 17:51|| Front Page Top

#19 Mojo:

When I was in the Marines and Navy had given their Spad's to the Air Force. A great tough old bird.

They were even flying Spad's that had been configured to operate as carrier CODS.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-06-23 18:16|| 2008-06-23 18:16|| Front Page Top

#20 BTW The Marine, Army, Navy Warrant or Officer pilots who flew through the Trees, Bushes and long grass to save your huevos are what Ima talking about!

You want to kiss them when they are overhead loitering in the SPAD or the OV-10.

OV-10 Bronco

The OV-10 Bronco was a multi-purpose, light attack aircraft acquired by the Marine Corp for observation squadrons to conduct visual reconnaissance missions. The OV-10A is a twin-turboprop short takeoff and landing aircraft conceived by the Marine Corps and developed under an Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps tri-service program. The first production OV-10A was ordered in 1966 and its initial flight took place in August 1967. The OV-10 can be used for short take-offs and landings on aircraft carriers without the use of catapults. With the second seat removed, it can carry 3,200 pounds of cargo, five paratroopers or two litter patients and an attendant.

The Bronco's mission capabilities include observation, forward air control, helicopter escort, armed reconnaissance, gunfire spotting, utility and limited ground attack; however, the USAF acquired the Bronco primarily as a forward air control (FAC) aircraft. The Bronco also provides transportation for aerial radiological reconnaissance, tactical air observers, artillery and naval gunfire spotting and airborne controllers of tactical air support operations. Other tasks include armed escort for helicopters and front line, low-level aerial photography.

The first USAF OV-10As destined for combat arrived in Vietnam on July 31, 1968. A total of 157 OV-10As were delivered to the USAF before production ended in April 1969.

ABLE DOGS aka ABLE DAWGS...
GRRRR

Skyraiders

A total of seven major models and 28 different versions of the Skyraider were created and produced; this is more than any other aircraft in history. Some of the modifications included its use as an Attack Dive Bomber, All-Weather Attack Bomber, Radar Counter-Measures, Airborne Early Warning, Anti-Submarine, Photo Reconnaissance, Troop Carrier, Air Tanker, Air Ambulance, and Target Towing Aircraft.

With a cruising speed of 170 to 200 kts, a level attack speed of 260 kts, and a maximum (sea level red-line) speed of 410 kts, the Skyraider was able to hug the terrain below enemy radar coverage and deliver ordnance loads up to 8000 pounds.

Posted by RD">RD 2008-06-23 23:53|| 2008-06-23 23:53|| Front Page Top

23:53 RD
23:49 Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6
23:43 Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:27 Dopey Ebbimble9291
23:24 3dc
23:15 Spike Uniter
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:03 JosephMendiola
23:01 g(r)omgoru
22:58 g(r)omgoru
22:45 trailing wife
22:44 RD
22:38 trailing wife
22:36 g(r)omgoru
22:35 g(r)omgoru
22:10 Nimble Spemble
21:42 Pappy
21:32 Pappy
21:26 Robert M Kraus Sr
21:19 gorb
21:11 JosephMendiola
20:56 JosephMendiola
20:44 JosephMendiola