USA Fighter Dilemma

[DarthAmerica]

Seems like we are reading the same threads...

You are right, I misread your 10000 ft+.

You are also right that UAVs are not much cheaper. At least to develop, acquire, arm and equip with the latest sensors. However, there is a major difference in training and operating costs.

1. Cost of training a pilot vs a UAV operator. Today, I believe the USAF is still using rated pilots to fly the UAVs. But if you automate the flying portion including the takeoff landing portion, the cost of training a basic UAV operator will be much less.

2. Cost of training an operational fighter pilot. Add another year for RTU and several million more dollars. If I remember correctly, reaper RTU only lasts 3 or 4 months.

3. Cost of general flight training.

I won't go into other specifics but just look at the fuel consumption rates per hour of training. A F-16 flies let's say 2 hours. So let's just say for simplicity sake, it consumes 10000 lbs of fuel or an estimated 1500 gallons costing $1500 (1500 X US$1 per gallon). You train 1 pilot.

A MQ-9 can fly 14 hours for using 600 gallons of fuel costing $600. Every 2 hours, they rotate crew. You train 7 sets of crew.

If we normalise the figures, we can easily see that training costs are different by a magnitude of more than 10. That means it cost more than 10 times as much to train a pilot than a UAV crew, at least from the fuel perspective.

That means the earlier the US operationalises armed UAVs and mass produce them, the more they will save in the long term by scrapping earlier the older fighters. The cost avoidance will eventually pay for the UAVs.

I am sure that you would notice that the figures are deceptively low. For simplicity's sake, I just did not factor in other things.

How much flying hours does a typical fighter pilot get every year? Hmmm...

4. Cost of prolonged in theater flight operations from the fuel perspective. I believe that today, there are airborne fighter CAPs 24/7 because it would probably take too long to scramble. From the fuel perspective, for each fighter that you have airborne, you can afford to have at least 10 UAVs airborne.

At the end of the day, I believe both systems are necessarily complimentary. As stated in the roadmaps, I think the US will develop suitable C2 systems to control large numbers of UAVs effectively to have massive coverage. If you have 100 UAVs airborne, it is unlikely that all 100 UAVs will be engaging targets all at once. Perhaps a quarter, 20 or so will be involved so plan the appropriate numbers of crew. Put the rest in orbit and automated search, detect, identify and track. Develop planning and targeting teams. Yes, nightmare airspace and c2 issues, but then fighter aviation has always been a airspace and c2 issue.

Ok, I have been really long winded. sorry.

Cheers

guppy

The problem with your comparison is that MQ-9 and F-16 cover VERY DIFFERENT sets of requirements with some overlap in capability. If you tried to replace the F-16 with the MQ-9 you would lose A LOT of the benefits F-16s bring to the battlefield. The F-16 is able to cover the MQ-9s missions almost completely but the reverse is not true. So your cost comparisons are like the cost of a Honda Civic vs an SUV. They are not comparable across the spectrum of user requirements.

There is battlespace MQ-9 cannot even hope to enter until sanitized by other assets. F-16s being more survivable can. There is ordinance the MQ-9 cannot deliver, the F-16 can. The MQ-9 can never be as responsive as an F-16 in general. The speed difference is insurmountable. Time compression is a priceless commodity. Even with 100 MQ-9s you will not get the same type of CAS or flexibility of an F-16. MQ-9s can't be called off of CAS, climb to 30,000ft and intercept Iranian fighters on a ferret flight.

I agree that if a MQ-9 happens to be nearby it can help. But will I get hit by a complex attack tomorrow? Where and will an MQ-9 be around? Neither you or I can know this. But I do know where ever I am I can get an F-16 in minutes even if the pilot is at the Greenbean oogling USAF chicks in PT shorts(exaggerated). The C3 issue you mention casually is probably the most crucial thing right up there with speed. The system isn't set up to do what you are suggesting. Not with 10 or 100 MQ-9's.

What you are suggesting would be a leap in UCAV technology and cost. If you aren't already familiar look into something called the "turing test" or at a CAPTCHA. This should give you an idea of what you are dealing with at the end of the OODA loop.


-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Just want to add something

I am not saying that UAVs can replace fighters in the CAS mission in the near future. I brought out the numbers to support my opinion that in CAS missions and other missions related to direct support of ground troops, it is much better to use UAVs to cover certain areas, especially if it involves having a pilot sit in a cockpit twiddling thumbs for the next two hours. At least, the pilot can be enjoying his cappuccino in base camp until he gets scrambled to support a prolonged firefight.

Cheers

guppy

Those numbers were based on a cost-benefit justification which is false.

1. You still need the manned fighters to cover things the MQ-9 can't do

2. To operate one UAV/UCAV such as an MQ-9 you need a team of operators working the sensors/weapons and flying the aircraft. You also still need the squadron level support for the aircraft which is still an aircraft.

What have you saved? Looks like you SPENT money to gain an additional system that can compliment but not replace your older system. Also, there is not really prolonged firefights. They happen but they are the exception and not the rule. Most engagements are over in the time it takes to read through our last few post. Time is of the most critical importance. Assuming it's a life and death necessity for CAS, if there is a MQ-9 around, great! Hopefully it can help end the fight. If not then your going to want a manned fighter or you will die. It's as simple as that. And you better hope it's something the MQ-9 can actually deal with and doesn't require a human present to figure out.

-DA

EDIT:

How fast you can get killed when support arrives late:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sRWSzeEZd_M&feature=related

Now let me qualify this by saying that I do appreciate the value of todays UAV/UCAVs. But clearly, the time required for CAS in this scenario would be too short for a MQ-1/9 platform. Just to give an idea. MSR Tampa for example is ~720 km long give or take. Lets say the Reaper had a V_Max of ~100 mps You would need a minimum of 10 Reapers in the air continuously spaced every ~60-70km to even try to get to and provide CAS for an unexpected ambush somewhere on the route like this. Even if the Reaper were present over the ambush coordinating fires and maneuver under todays system would not give the same capability of a manned aircraft in terms of C3 which adds more time before decisive action can happen. As you can clearly see, time is not a luxury in these situations. Keep in mind there are thousands more km of ASRs. And you aren't even using the Reapers to support their other ISR missions off of the route. So is it really cheaper? Obviously not.

UCAVs of today are great for preplanned coverage of areas of interest but they aren't so good at dynamic rapidly developing situations associated with CAS. Again it needs to be said that they also face no significant anti-aircraft threats such as those that would be present in a conventional fight. This is only just a basic issue dealing primarily with the physics. There are even bigger organizational and technological challenges as well. From a cost point view, the suggestion of filling the skies with Reapers would cost hundreds of millions to well over a billion dollars since aircraft and operators need to be rotated out for continuous coverage. At the minimum of 10 Reapers airborne for MSR Tampa we are going to get personnel numbers near what a manned fighter squadron uses. 3 shifts of 20 operators? Thats 60 "pilots" right there with no provisions for people getting sick and other reasons why people can't work.

Does this cursory analysis make sense?

 

[guppy]

DA,

I said that both systems are complimentary in achieving the overall objectives, not entirely exclusive, nor competitive. So let's say the UAV can perform 70% of all type of "CAS" missions and a fighter can do 100% of all the missions. Some missions the UAV can do better and vice versa. We can then model a mixed force to provide the most effective solution at the best cost possible. Even the US has a limited budget.

In an open forum, we can only discuss open domain information. The illustration was meant to show magnitudes of differences which provides insights on cost differences, and not actual cost computations. Of course, a maintenance squadron is still required to maintain the UAVs. But we should consider the logistics footprints of UAV and fighter platforms. I personally think that they are quite different.

Based on your example of MSR Tampa (whatever that is), how many F-16s do you think will be needed to provide 24/7 coverage? What would the logistical and manpower footprint be like?

In modern warfare where ground fire and movement are often coordinated, ie preplanned, is it so difficult to put several armed UAVs in a supporting position? A good reason not to do so would be to conceal a surprise offensive. Then again, most ground units have access to ground indirect fire, organic or not. Today, for the US, I don't think that the main problem is getting iron on the target as there are so many ground and airborne platforms. The most acute problem is getting a sensor on and since most of the time the sensor is going to be coming from a UAV, why not just put some "grenades" on the little bugger?

I agree that UAVs are great for preplanned AOs and SLOCs. So put UAVs for preplanned AOs and fighters for more responsive targeting needs. C2 can pre-plan allocations or decide which asset to allocate when the need arises.

I totally agree with you that time is not a luxury in a firefight, and that is why there is a need to keep a persistent armed airframe in critical areas of operations. From the video, everything seems to have happened in less than 5 minutes. Do you think that calling in air support would have helped? This is a "urban CAS" environment, usually with very strict ROEs. Consider the response time for the fighter to pick up the tasking (not the speed of the airframe), receive the briefing, time taken to get eyes on, demarcate the friendlies, authorization to engage and weapon TOF. Think about the last time you looked at a city from an airplane, what was your visual acuity like? Besides, were these guys air controller qualified? The only way in my mind that could have helped was to have greater organic protection, firepower, as well as dedicated fire support from the air. The latter meaning an airframe following the convoy, in constant radio contact, ready to support, because it was a very important convoy, very much like what the apaches does for the army.

Yes, you are right that current C2 systems for the MQ-9 is quite pathetic. That is why I am not too impressed by that portion of the system. I feel that the initial resistance to UAVs have actually done quite a bit of harm. Even the current mindsets are disturbing and is the biggest organizational challenge that I see. Is it so difficult to write a computer program to control and deconflict several airborne UAVs? I don't really know, but I think it should not be too difficult. The effort is in the testing. Most of the technologies required to build such a C2 system already exist, some since a long time ago.

No, I am not too familiar with CAPTCHA but I am not suggesting that the computers do what humans do best.

I personally don't think that the Greenbean would be doing much ogling if he wants to respond in minutes. Typical fighter alert timings are already in minutes even when the pilot is seated in the jet on the ground with motors off. Add the rest of the timings, you would be looking at no less than 10 minutes before there is any chance of the jet arriving overhead, even if it is not too far from the base. Putting bombs on will take quite a while more...

 

[DarthAmerica]

DA,

I said that both systems are complimentary in achieving the overall objectives, not entirely exclusive, nor competitive. So let's say the UAV can perform 70% of all type of "CAS" missions and a fighter can do 100% of all the missions. Some missions the UAV can do better and vice versa. We can then model a mixed force to provide the most effective solution at the best cost possible. Even the US has a limited budget.

We already have the most effective solution considering the technological limits. The limitations of the U.S. budget are not an issue. It's not an issue of being able to afford it. "It" won't work the way you suggested.

In an open forum, we can only discuss open domain information. The illustration was meant to show magnitudes of differences which provides insights on cost differences, and not actual cost computations. Of course, a maintenance squadron is still required to maintain the UAVs. But we should consider the logistics footprints of UAV and fighter platforms. I personally think that they are quite different.

You really should compare the logistics footprints. If you did you would see why deploying enough UAVs to cover the entire battlespace CAS requirement doesn't offer any savings over faster reacting fighters. You would also see that UAV maintenance is very intensive as well. Read this...

The new wing is starting out with about 440 aircrew members, about half of whom are pilots and the other half sensor operators, Chambliss said.
The goal is to increase the number of operations personnel to about 600 over the next three years, he said.
Forty percent of the wing is made up of Air Force reserve component personnel, including members of the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard, Seip said.
On the maintenance side, the wing has 450 personnel, Chambliss said.
Of those, half the maintenance staff are contractors.
The maintenance force “will double in the next three years,” he said.

...The old paradigms and theories about how UAVs would reduce cost and manpower requirements have all been shattered by the realities of war.

Based on your example of MSR Tampa (whatever that is), how many F-16s do you think will be needed to provide 24/7 coverage? What would the logistical and manpower footprint be like?

MSR or Main Supply Route. Tampa is the name of the MSR that runs north to south through Iraq for about 700+km. As to numbers you should refer to the 332d AEW Fact Sheet:
http://www.balad.afnews.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4032

In modern warfare where ground fire and movement are often coordinated, ie preplanned, is it so difficult to put several armed UAVs in a supporting position? A good reason not to do so would be to conceal a surprise offensive. Then again, most ground units have access to ground indirect fire, organic or not. Today, for the US, I don't think that the main problem is getting iron on the target as there are so many ground and airborne platforms. The most acute problem is getting a sensor on and since most of the time the sensor is going to be coming from a UAV, why not just put some "grenades" on the little bugger?

It's very difficult to get UAVs in position. This is the crux of the fight between the U.S. Army and the USAF. The U.S. Army had General Atamics develop their own version of the Predator for this reason! Also, in modern war especially against an asymmetric opponent contact is almost always by surprise. That was one of the main things I wanted you to get out of the video. If you think it makes a difference against a conventional foe, it doesn't. Battle of 73 Easting. Moreover, UAVs like the ones we have would have difficulty surviving in denied airspace.

I agree that UAVs are great for preplanned AOs and SLOCs. So put UAVs for preplanned AOs and fighters for more responsive targeting needs. C2 can pre-plan allocations or decide which asset to allocate when the need arises.

We do. Have you been reading the events of the last 5 to 7 years? The CONOPS is still a work in progress.

I totally agree with you that time is not a luxury in a firefight, and that is why there is a need to keep a persistent armed airframe in critical areas of operations. From the video, everything seems to have happened in less than 5 minutes. Do you think that calling in air support would have helped? This is a "urban CAS" environment, usually with very strict ROEs. Consider the response time for the fighter to pick up the tasking (not the speed of the airframe), receive the briefing, time taken to get eyes on, demarcate the friendlies, authorization to engage and weapon TOF. Think about the last time you looked at a city from an airplane, what was your visual acuity like? Besides, were these guys air controller qualified? The only way in my mind that could have helped was to have greater organic protection, firepower, as well as dedicated fire support from the air. The latter meaning an airframe following the convoy, in constant radio contact, ready to support, because it was a very important convoy, very much like what the apaches does for the army.

You still aren't tracking. I know calling in CAS would have helped. But it has to get there fast enough and when it arrives you have to be able to coordinate your actions. ROE's aren't a problem either. Nor would it have been necessary for there to be an Air Controller there although that would have helped immensely. Convoys like that are routine and everyday. The fact is they didn't know or expect to be hit that way. Time is critical and a UAV CAN NOT respond fast enough to a situation like that unless it is already present. Even so, the OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Pay particular attention to the "ORIENT" part. A UAV cannot orient itself the way a manned platform can hence my reference to a CAPTCHA or the Turing test. The man in the loop on the other end of the datalink is at a huge disadvantage in terms of situational awareness. He is also at a disadvantage with regard to C3. Remember that he is 2 to 6 seconds away from any data he receives from the ground. That isn't as much of an issue during a strike sortie. But in a dynamic CAS scenario it's a huge issue. It's interesting that you mention dedicated asset but aren't familiar with the U.S. Army and USAF tug-o-war. Believe me, I've gone into as much detail as I can and your suggestion isn't practical yet. Read up a bit on the things I've mentioned and it will make more sense.

Yes, you are right that current C2 systems for the MQ-9 is quite pathetic. That is why I am not too impressed by that portion of the system. I feel that the initial resistance to UAVs have actually done quite a bit of harm. Even the current mindsets are disturbing and is the biggest organizational challenge that I see. Is it so difficult to write a computer program to control and deconflict several airborne UAVs? I don't really know, but I think it should not be too difficult. The effort is in the testing. Most of the technologies required to build such a C2 system already exist, some since a long time ago.

Yes it's very difficult. UAVs can BARELY even avoid flying into each other or manned assets. The C2 issue is a whole other HUGE issue. Ultimately what you are suggesting requires considerable improvement over todays technologies as well as revolutionary advancements in AI.

No, I am not too familiar with CAPTCHA but I am not suggesting that the computers do what humans do best.

I strongly recommend that you get familiar before responding. It will clear up a lot of things for you.

I personally don't think that the Greenbean would be doing much ogling if he wants to respond in minutes. Typical fighter alert timings are already in minutes even when the pilot is seated in the jet on the ground with motors off. Add the rest of the timings, you would be looking at no less than 10 minutes before there is any chance of the jet arriving overhead, even if it is not too far from the base. Putting bombs on will take quite a while more...

Did I not say it would take minutes? Additionally there is always a CAP airborne. You have got to think combat persistence. Do you know how long it takes a UAV to get up in the air? Do you know how long it would take even if it was airborne but out of position? I do. The point is the flexibility of the manned platform combined with it's superior SA, comms and speed make it a much better choice in this role.

Armed UAVs are good for persistent surveillance of NAI and prompt precision strikes on targets of opportunity. Not dedicated CAS. The CONOPS are totally different.



-DA

EDIT: Begging for mercy. Can we deal with one question/issue at a time? thx in advance.

 

[guppy]

We already have the most effective solution considering the technological limits.

Yes, I don't and will not dispute that the most effective solution is already in place. It is not so much a technological limit than a limit caused by in-fighting and inertia to changes in mindsets.

The limitations of the U.S. budget are not an issue. It's not an issue of being able to afford it. "It" won't work the way you suggested.

So why is congress limiting the numbers of F-22s? And why is the USAF worried about F-35 production gaps? Perhaps you can qualify "It" won't work..

You really should compare the logistics footprints. If you did you would see why deploying enough UAVs to cover the entire battlespace CAS requirement doesn't offer any savings over faster reacting fighters. You would also see that UAV maintenance is very intensive as well. Read this...

I did not say to cover the entire battlespace. Neither did I say that UAV maintenance is not intensive.

The maintenance force “will double in the next three years,” he said.

This should be qualified with what is the increase in the UAV fleet and what are the respective capabilities it will bring to the fight.

...The old paradigms and theories about how UAVs would reduce cost and manpower requirements have all been shattered by the realities of war.

Not true. If you use current fighters to do the job of the current UAVs, you will see overall system and operating costs spiral up.

It's very difficult to get UAVs in position. This is the crux of the fight between the U.S. Army and the USAF. The U.S. Army had General Atamics develop their own version of the Predator for this reason!

Thus, it is a turf war issue between the USAF and the US army and not really the problem of getting UAVs into place.

We do. Have you been reading the events of the last 5 to 7 years? The CONOPS is still a work in progress.

I am not an American and thus I don't usually it consider it my business to keep track on how americans do things, but as a matter of fact, I am quite familiar.

You still aren't tracking. I know calling in CAS would have helped. But it has to get there fast enough and when it arrives you have to be able to coordinate your actions.

Getting bombs on target in less than 5 minutes from activation? Ask a CAS pilot how long it usually takes to get bombs on target in an urban environment, or better, how often they have been unable to attack due to target ID. It takes more than a few seconds from bomb release to weapons impact based on medium altitude attacks. And it does not have to be New York to be considered an urban environment.

ROE's aren't a problem either. Nor would it have been necessary for there to be an Air Controller there although that would have helped immensely. Convoys like that are routine and everyday.

ROE's are always a problem in order to avoid fratricide, and minimize collateral damage. A lack of a air controller usually results in bungled up comms like,"I am here in the brown truck, they are there on the green building" which is completely useless, esp at night. A qualified air controller is critical if you want bombs in minutes.

Pay particular attention to the "ORIENT" part. A UAV cannot orient itself the way a manned platform can hence my reference to a CAPTCHA or the Turing test. The man in the loop on the other end of the datalink is at a huge disadvantage in terms of situational awareness.

Yes, the machine is unable to abstract. I never suggested that we make the machine abstract. The human operators can do the abstraction.

He is also at a disadvantage with regard to C3. Remember that he is 2 to 6 seconds away from any data he receives from the ground.

That is the penalty that the USAF has to pay for placing their cabins in the Nevada halfway around the world, which can be solved by current technologies.

It's interesting that you mention dedicated asset but aren't familiar with the U.S. Army and USAF tug-o-war. Believe me, I've gone into as much detail as I can and your suggestion isn't practical yet. Read up a bit on the things I've mentioned and it will make more sense.

That is why I previously said that mindsets need to change in order to progress. I am not very up to date, but am quite familiar with the issues actually.

Ultimately what you are suggesting requires considerable improvement over todays technologies as well as revolutionary advancements in AI.

Current technologies already exist for many of the things I suggested. Revolutionary advancements in AI are required for fully autonomous UASs, which I did not suggest.

Did I not say it would take minutes? Additionally there is always a CAP airborne. You have got to think combat persistence. Do you know how long it takes a UAV to get up in the air? Do you know how long it would take even if it was airborne but out of position? I do.

Yes, I do too. I also know how long it is needed for fighter INUs to cook before the jet can get airborne and use their targeting pods or inertial munitions effectively. Yes, fighter CAPs are good.

EDIT: Begging for mercy. Can we deal with one question/issue at a time? thx in advance.

Bro, didn't mean to max you out. Don't feel obliged to respond esp if you are busy with work. For me it is just a interesting hobby and a way to keep my mind active since I got some spare time now.

Cheers

Guppy

 

[DarthAmerica]

So why is congress limiting the numbers of F-22s? And why is the USAF worried about F-35 production gaps? Perhaps you can qualify "It" won't work..

Guppy

The F-22 isn't being massed produced because there is no perceived need not due to funding. Also, the USAF always worries about production gaps. Thats business as usual.

When I say "it" won't work I'm referring to your suggestion of using UAVs instead of manned systems for dedicated CAS. UAVs either autonomous or remotely piloted still have a way to go technologically before that is realistic. They also have organizational issued to deal with and the CONOPs.

Yes, a UAV in the right place at the right time can do CAS and save the day. But this is the exception rather than the rule for all the reasons I previously mentioned. Moreover, we have learned in war, that UAS operations are just as manpower intensive in both operations and logisics as manned fighters. Also because the technology isn't mature, the cost associated with UAS is not cheaper.

Getting bombs on target in less than 5 minutes from activation? Ask a CAS pilot how long it usually takes to get bombs on target in an urban environment, or better, how often they have been unable to attack due to target ID. It takes more than a few seconds from bomb release to weapons impact based on medium altitude attacks. And it does not have to be New York to be considered an urban environment.

BTDT, manned systems can do this.

Not true. If you use current fighters to do the job of the current UAVs, you will see overall system and operating costs spiral up.

Strawman. We aren't talking about having fighters replacing UAVs in UAV roles. We are talking about UAVs replacing manned fighters. Big Difference and very true.


-DA

 

[guppy]

Perception depends on who is having it. The USAF perceives that they need it, whereas congress does not. Based on your reasoning, just about half the world can afford a F-22 (assuming US congressional approval of course). Can you afford a Lamborghini? I am sure you could mortgage your home to pay for one if you wanted to, but you won't because you would need a roof over your head. Thus, you can't afford a Lamborghini (Now, I may be wrong, because you might be Bill Gates for all I know ) and thus the USAF cannot afford 700 F-22s when there are other more pressing needs. From a different perspective, the USAF is like a little kid, asking mummy (Congress) for more money for this and that. But look at the bigger picture, you can't keep busting the bank continuously.

Yes, I know it is business as usual for the USAF to worry about production gaps, but why? $$$, $$$, $$$. It makes the world goes round, esp in the US.

The fact is that there are gaps that only UAVs can fill. As things get more advanced and mature, UAVs will start to fill more operational space. I agreed with you that the current UASs are limited in many ways, but mostly by decisions made previously, or rather not made previously.

Again, I did not say to use UASs to replace fighters entirely.

I suppose that you are in a position to actually ask CAS pilots how long it usually takes for them to put bombs on the target after they receive the tasking order. Up to a minute usually pass between the radio call requesting for air support, and the pilots getting the tasking order. Assuming they were already overhead, they still need to get the controller to fighter briefing. Then they have to locate the target, demarcate the friendlies, then position themselves for the correct attack direction, then drop the bomb, then guide the bomb, and doing all this at tactical airspeeds. Now if ROEs aren't an issue, e.g. they can drop on coordinates, don't have to worry about distances from friendly troops, don't have to worry about collateral damage, the given coordinates are nearly mensurated etc etc, yes, it might be possible to hit the target in less than 5 minutes.

Really, you should ask them the question how often they have been unable to drop. CAS pilots live tough lives.

I will summarize.

You think that in the future, fighters will continue to be the main CAS force because they possess greater situational awareness granted by the pilot's ability to see and be there, greater speed and thus better response time.

I think that in the future (between 5-10 years), UASs will begin to play a crucial role in direct firepower support to ground troops (CAS or otherwise). Fighters will continue to have an important role because there are things that UASs cannot do, and are much more flexible in employment. I think that the greater situational awareness of a fighter will be severely limited unless they pilot is willing to fly lower, and thus exposing himself to more threats, because at medium altitudes, visual acuity of ground battles is limited at best. There is little worry about air threats during a CAS engagement because the air dominance enjoyed by the US today will likely extend "indefinitely", and besides, nowadays how often do ground contact start before the air war is over?

cheers

Guppy

 

[DarthAmerica]

I think you should have a look at whats on the roadmap for the next 5 to 10 years before making those assumptions. Manned fighters and Helos will continue to be the dominant platforms for CAS well beyond that timeframe. Also your assertion that there will be little to worry about because the USA has air dominance ignores history and reality. Flying CAS has been by far the most dangerous mission for tactical platforms. It's where we lose aircrew and machines most due to enemy action. Modern battlefields are full of IR guided SAMs, MANPADS, AAA and small arms fire. A Mig pilot just found this out the hard way in Sudan. This often forces pilots to fly higher. US platforms are mostly all being fitted with pods that allow for more precise targeting at high altitude. This makes them more vulnerable to RF guided SAMs and fighters. We didn't wait in 2001 or 2003 to start our ground war. The ground campaigns ran concurrently with the air.

Do not use the Desert Storm model in all cases. The Air War was started first because the objective was different. We tried to compel Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait by bombing which didn't work so we had to eject him on the ground. In situations where we are taking and holding enemy terrain, the air and ground forces fight together like OEF/OIF. Also, Saddam still had a considerable number of fighters during the ground war. The Iraqis simply choose not to contest the air. If they did then it's a whole different ball game. A-10s and AH-64s are wired for AAMs for a reason.

-DA

 

[swerve]

....
Do not use the Desert Storm model in all cases. The Air War was started first because the objective was different. We tried to compel Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait by bombing which didn't work so we had to eject him on the ground. ...
-DA

I do not believe that is true. The air war was preparatory for a ground war, not an alternative to it. The troops were already on the ground, with supplies for the assault, when the bombing began. Preparations for the ground offensive had been going on for months.

Perhaps you are confusing it with the Kosovo & Bosnian affairs, where air bombardment was meant from the start to be the only weapon.

 

[guppy]

I think you should have a look at whats on the roadmap for the next 5 to 10 years before making those assumptions. Manned fighters and Helos will continue to be the dominant platforms for CAS well beyond that timeframe. Also your assertion that there will be little to worry about because the USA has air dominance ignores history and reality. Flying CAS has been by far the most dangerous mission for tactical platforms. It's where we lose aircrew and machines most due to enemy action. Modern battlefields are full of IR guided SAMs, MANPADS, AAA and small arms fire. A Mig pilot just found this out the hard way in Sudan. This often forces pilots to fly higher. US platforms are mostly all being fitted with pods that allow for more precise targeting at high altitude. This makes them more vulnerable to RF guided SAMs and fighters. We didn't wait in 2001 or 2003 to start our ground war. The ground campaigns ran concurrently with the air.

Well, those are not assumptions. It is just speculation on my part and things move very fast nowadays in very different vectors. Anyway, helicopter CAS is an entirely different dimension and they will continue to be very relevant. But the helicopters don't belong to the USAF, do they?

I agree that CAS missions can be very dangerous. Yet, if the CAS mission is so dangerous, why get a human being to do it? Anyway, let's not speculate what happened in Sudan. Who knows what mistakes were made there? Active russian pilots are not even flying much from what I have heard, don't even talk about a "mercenary" pilot. Besides, the MiG-29's usual role has always been point defense, and I don't think they would have concentrated much training on counter SAM tactics. Such is the life for air defenders.

Believe it or not, nowadays, it is usually more survivable to go medium altitude against SAMs and fighters.

Do not use the Desert Storm model in all cases. The Air War was started first because the objective was different. We tried to compel Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait by bombing which didn't work so we had to eject him on the ground. In situations where we are taking and holding enemy terrain, the air and ground forces fight together like OEF/OIF. Also, Saddam still had a considerable number of fighters during the ground war. The Iraqis simply choose not to contest the air. If they did then it's a whole different ball game. A-10s and AH-64s are wired for AAMs for a reason.

-DA

So you are saying that the US did not have air dominance over the last few conflicts? The ground campaign may have run simultaneously, but not without local air superiority at the least. Were there any friendly ground losses from enemy air attacks? Hmmm...it would be interesting to see a conflict where CAS is being conducted in non-sanitized airspace, where the air sup fighters are having problems gaining local air superiority. In such instances, all air to air capable fighters would probably be routed for air superiority missions. It is almost impossible to conduct CAS in contested airspace. The air sup fighters and the CAS fighters will run into each other. Also no point trying to put a bomb on a tank, when someone is trying to gun you. That is one of the reasons why the army needs organic fire support assets.

I didn't know that the apaches were already wired for AAM. When did that become operational? On the other hand, how many decades did they take to wire the apaches? It is a last resort capability. Even for the A-10s. If they are caught out there against a MiG-29, they are dead meat. The only hope is that only 1 MiG gets there and they can try a little 2v1 and hopefully the wingman, by being very good and very lucky, can avenge his flight lead. If there is a flight of MiG-29s that got through, you can be pretty sure that the AWACs will order a retrograde for the A-10s. But helicopters cannot move very fast, alas...

cheers

guppy