dive bombing is only applicable to unsophisticated aircraft like the Bronco... i've seen media videos of the Philippine Broncos piloted by women, they still dive bomb since there are no anti aircraft defenses by the rebels and terrorists, and because there are no onboard bombing computers in the aircraft. Still works actually...
High-Low mix airpower for counter insurgency
- Thread starter peterAustralia
- Start date
Realistically you would be looking at LGBs, and other precision weapons. They would allow the aircraft to conduct attacks from altitudes that provide safety from AAA and MANPADS. Especially if someone on the ground is providing targeting.
Agree that in less technical forces it may still have a purpose, but would you want to be the pilot relying on the fact that the enemy has no AAA or MANPADS.
Those interested in the "lo" end of the hi-lo mix should take a look at this article from Air & Space Power Journal entitled "Ends Versus Means: The 6th Special Operations Squadron and the Icarus Syndrome".
There is a huge reason not to use high end aircraft and that's cost!
Why use a B-52 that costs more to operate in one year than it would cost to buy AND operate a low end platform to do the low end jobs?
So after a very short period of time the platform has paid for itself in operational cost savings. Then in the long run you have saved billions that can be spent in other area's.
Actually, not the best example to use. An expensive maint platform that can deliver low cost by accurate munitions is exactly what the US have been doing for the last 4-5 years - and still intend to maintain.
B-52's and B1's have been used to conduct high alt bombing, and in the case of the B1's, CAS due to a number of reasons.
- Penetration (depth of mission)
- Persistence (loiter over a threat area)
- Load out mix (greater variety of precision options)
- Absolute Load out (More JDAMs than a small aircraft with 9-11 hardpoints could ever hope to achieve - and would still need refueling assistance etc... if not within normal range parameters)
- not dependant on localised bases (avoids temperamental or politically sensitive basing issues)
- reliable
- available
- flexible
- unencumbered by the same logistical problems that smaller platforms generate.
The real cost is in actually using a low end COIN aircraft. These types of aircraft have to be based in theatre and within the province they are going to be used at because of their limitations in range and transit speed. This means all their logistical support (fuel, spares, munitions) needs to be shipped into the theatre and to the base. This exposes your logistics tail to interdiction and costs a huge amount to defend.
On the other hand a 'high end' system like the AC-130 and a strike fighter or bomber can be based at a secure facility in a nearby nation and transit into the theatre for CAS missions. This means all the logisitics support doesn't need to be brought into the operational theatre and is much cheaper to sustain. It also means the CAS effort can be concentrated in those areas of the theatre that need it rather than dispersed around the theatre.
This doesn't factor into COMBAT effectiveness, survivability and a range of other issues.
I would like to see a purpose designed COIN/CAS platform for contemporary conflicts but it would not resemble a Vietnam war era platform. Things have changed a lot in the technology solutions and the need since then. The most ideal proposal I've seen to date for the contemporary COIBN/CAS platform is the CalPoly Firefox, AIAA competition winner for an A/X RFP.
http://aerosim.calpoly.edu/files/Firefox/Firefox_AIAA_Final.pdf
A low end platform doesn't automatically mean it has to be a short ranged manned aircraft.
A long ranged armed UCAV has all the logistical and basing advantages that the B-52 and B-1b has but at a fraction of the cost.
The current UCAV's are still quite expensive however if purchased in larger numbers they will become extremely cheap.
Ideally an armed Global Hawk design could perform the CAS role perfectly. If the Global Hawk was purchased in 100+ quantity it would also be extremely cheap to buy and operate.
Right now the MQ-9 Reaper is maturing nicely and could probably replace the B-52 and B-1b for low end CAS as we speak.
Low end CAS does not need 50,000kg of ordinance, it just needs to be always on station something the UCAV can do brilliantly.
A long ranged armed UCAV has all the logistical and basing advantages that the B-52 and B-1b has but at a fraction of the cost.
The current UCAV's are still quite expensive however if purchased in larger numbers they will become extremely cheap.
Ideally an armed Global Hawk design could perform the CAS role perfectly. If the Global Hawk was purchased in 100+ quantity it would also be extremely cheap to buy and operate.
Right now the MQ-9 Reaper is maturing nicely and could probably replace the B-52 and B-1b for low end CAS as we speak.
Low end CAS does not need 50,000kg of ordinance, it just needs to be always on station something the UCAV can do brilliantly.