Lockheed Martin bought the Argentine company that produced the IA-58 Pucara COIN aircraft which has been very successful in Colombia, Indonesia, and druing the Falklands conflict. It is battle-tested and could - with modernization and upgrades be a very competitive, cost effective, and survivable platform (twin engined, armored already).

It could be sold as a US plane.

Rather than turning training and/or other aircraft into COIN aircraft at significant cost why not improve a great COIN platform at lower cost and simply get the production line restrarted - the tooling, etc is already around and there are plenty of trained people who can do that and it is still in operation in some countries.

Just some thoughts

Posted by: Fred at April 4, 2008 01:52 PM

I would say to bring back the A-1 Skyraider. The plane proved itself and worked quiet well. A big thing would be cost...one could probably purchase several Syraiders for the price of one A-10.

Update the Skyraider and put it into use again.

Posted by: Nathan at March 15, 2008 06:12 PM

My two cents on a couple of observations. The rationale for an exportable aircraft in COIN is more about winning than getting our "lesser-funded coalition partners do the COIN dirty work." Outside powers do not win inside wars--outsiders pick a side and help them win their own war. Big difference. Also explains why a lot of "high tech" platform options are marginal as long-term solutions. Can't just "do" COIN; must be able to teach.
In the "fun" to talk about category (picking platforms), Cessna Caravans work because they are in production but I still like the OV-10D (no production) and the AC-47T (limited production as BT-67T by Basler-Turbo). R2

Posted by: Robyn at December 7, 2007 01:51 PM

>How is the C-LVL different from the Groen Hawk 4/Hawk 5 Gyroplanes,are they all related?

Roy,
They are related in the sense that they are both autogyros. The C-LVL TOAD is a third the price and has a mechanically much simpler design (4 stroke Rotax engine and simple rotor head) so it is easier to maintain. It is also a much smaller machine that can be moved on the back of a pick up truck so it can be drove along the unit it is supported till needed.

Posted by: KFRtoad at December 7, 2007 01:57 AM

Even former Air Force & Navy A-7 Corsairs would probably make great COIN aircraft,& if I understand correctly,we still have quite a few of them stored away in the Boneyard.Maybe we need a "fifth(not the Coast Guard)" armed service totally dedicated to flying the slow,ugly,"s****y" planes that the Air Force refuses to fly.This new armed service could be named the U.S. "Not the Ones Who Fly F-22s & F-35s" Force.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 7, 2007 12:09 AM

I'm sure there are bad guys in South America who sweat profusely whenever a Super Tucano flies overhead.I watched on You Tube a drug plane being shot down by a Super Tucano.Some probably think that the Super Tucano is as threatening as a man with a high pitched voice.However,if that high pitched voice belongs to Mike Tyson in his heyday,then people start sweating in fear.I'm very sure that the enemy can learn to fear COIN planes like the AT-6 Texan II,A-67 Dragon,& EMB-314 Super Tucano as much as they fear the A-10 Warthog.Its a very big shame that we got rid of our OV-1 Mohawks,OV-10 Broncos,& A/OA-37 Dragonflies,all very appropriate aircraft for COIN operations.In fact,if we still had them,we wouldn't be having this discussion about AT-6 Texan IIs,A-67 Dragons,& EMB-314 Super Tucanos.We'd instead be discussing what great "training" aircraft they(the AT-6 Texan II,A-67 Dragon,& EMB-314 Super Tucano) are.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 7, 2007 12:02 AM

The A-10 is probably the best example of a realistic COIN aircraft in service today. It has two turbofans as opposed to a single prop, thereby being redundant while also having extra power for heavy loads. The A-10 can also slow down and orbit, which fast movers can't do.

The 30mm is impressive, but the better part of the deal are the many wing stations. You have the potential for many small munitions and observation pods.

You also have to have a combat A/C as the basis for a COIN A/C, because it would be politically impossible to just put weapons in a Cessna and call it good. Despite being an easy and effective solution, up-arming a Cargomaster is not something that would fly through Congress or the Pentagon, because its lightness and lack of all the latest survival/navigation/attack gizmos would be hen-pecked to death before reaching the Senate floor. As sad as the situation is, the political hurdle would be too great.

But the most important piece is psychological - the A-10 is the most feared A/C by insurgents in Iraq. A show of force with an A-10 flying low and dropping flares has the ability to disperse an insurgent group with a lower likelihood of shots being fired. Could a Super Tucano generate that kind of presence?

Posted by: Smith at December 6, 2007 10:13 PM

You are going to talk long and hard to get the Air Force to sign off on a COIN aircraft, because they are for the fast (costly) fighters. They don’t want something that is slow and ugly looking (look at the A-10 warthog they were going to moth ball it just before desert storm and use the F-16 for a tank killer).

I know the two planes I going to talk about are old and out dated. The air frame was the heart of their success plus the power plant they had and the pay load they could carry…

First one is what we called the AD-6 sky raider in the old marine corps, new name is A-1H sky raider) it carried a pay load of 14,000 pounds, air speed around 295 MPH.

Second one is the A6 intruder I think it could carry about 34, 000 pound pay load; speed was 653 MPH, toe turbines for power.

This is what I think would make a good COIN air craft, but you need to get the army to fly then as the air force wouldn’t want any thing that slow and ugly in their fleet.

Open the pilot job up to enlisted, (check the pilots for the navy and army of Japan in WW-II some of their pilots were enlisted I think.

If the 747 laser plane could stay far enough away and still burn then with their lasers it might make a good air to ground weapon.

Posted by: John Moore at December 6, 2007 04:15 PM

You are going to talk long and hard to get the Air Force to sign off on a COIN aircraft, because they are for the fast (costly) fighters. They don’t want something that is slow and ugly looking (look at the A-10 warthog they were going to moth ball it just before desert storm and use the F-16 for a tank killer).

I know the two planes I going to talk about are old and out dated. The air frame was the heart of their success plus the power plant they had and the pay load they could carry…

First one is what we called the AD-6 sky raider in the old marine corps, new name is A-1H sky raider) it carried a pay load of 14,000 pounds, air speed around 295 MPH.

Second one is the A6 intruder I think it could carry about 34, 000 pound pay load; speed was 653 MPH, toe turbines for power.

This is what I think would make a good COIN air craft, but you need to get the army to fly then as the air force wouldn’t want any thing that slow and ugly in their fleet.

Open the pilot job up to enlisted, (check the pilots for the navy and army of Japan in WW-II some of their pilots were enlisted I think.

If the 747 laser plane could stay far enough away and still burn then with their lasers it might make a good air to ground weapon.

Posted by: John Moore at December 6, 2007 04:14 PM

SSG Yankee Medic,
I haven't seen anything that says that we have any OV-1 Mohawks & OV-10 Broncos in storage anywhere.We seem to have sold our OV-10s off to Colombia,VENEZUELA,Indonesia,Thailand,& the Philippines & our OV-1s to Argentina & South Korea.Single prop aircraft is better than what we have now,which is NOTHING(yes all of you Predator UAS defenders out there,NOTHING!!!).God,it would be so nice to still have our OV-1 Mohawks,OV-10 Broncos,& A/OA-37 Dragonflies,but thanks to both Cheney in the Bush,Sr. administration & Clinton,we don't.Rumsfeld NEVER had the vision to replace these weapons & Gates doesn't seem to get it either.The Air Force does not want any other airframe other than the F-22 & the F-35,& we all know what kind of COIN aircraft both of those make.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 6, 2007 03:46 PM

Between the OV-10 Bronco and the OV-1 Mohawk you have enough proven airframes for "danger close" tactical air support
in environments like Iraq & especially AFGN. There are probably enough at the bone yard @ Davis-Monthan AFB in AZ to retrofit a few squadrons. I can't believe the Air Force is dumb enough to even consider a single engine COIN prop aircraft. Survivability factors since WW2 have consistently proven a TWIN engine aircraft is the ONLY viable configuration for this type of mission.
Why waste MORE money on NEW aircraft when we've got tried and true veterans in mothballs ripe for upgrades on avionics, weapon systems and a higher maintenance to flight hour ratio PROVEN in SE Asia ! The brass hats must have a particular thing for NEW and shiny toys that are unproven in combat.

Posted by: SSG Yankee Medic at December 6, 2007 02:50 PM

So,looking up the OV-1 Mohawk & the OV-10 Bronco I've come to two conclusions:1) We lost our collective minds when we retired both aircraft along with the A/OA-37 Dragonfly;2) the Air Force(bless their hearts) sold us a "bill of goods" when they convinced us to retire these three aircraft.Fortunately for us,they couldn't "retire" the A-10.Like the B-52 Bomber,like it or not for the Air Force,the A-10 will soldier on for many years to come.No wonder the Air Force is so despised by the other armed services.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 6, 2007 02:42 PM

I believe that the Seabird Seeker is also co-produced by Jordan & that the new Iraqi Air Force was given Seekers to use for border security.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 6, 2007 01:54 PM

Quote "The Northrop F-20 was the last time the USAF tried to sell an aircraft to partners that it didn't buy itself, and the fighter flopped on the export market. No one wanted to buy an aircraft that lacked a USAF-supported supply chain."

Not true - blame Congress for not approving the sales

Posted by: aussie expat at December 6, 2007 01:48 PM

For anybody who is familiar with it,how about the Seabird SB7L-360 Seeker 2 with a forward "bubble" helicopter fuselage or the upgraded Stormer SB9 that can be fitted with the forward fuselage of either an AH-64 Apache or an AH-1 Cobra.These are both fixed wing aircraft.

This has the picture of a Seeker 2
http://www.seabirdaviation.com.au/pages/index.php?page=seeker-2

This is the Stormer SB9
http://www.seabirdaviation.com.au/pages/index.php?page=sb9-stormer

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 6, 2007 01:31 PM

How is the C-LVL different from the Groen Hawk 4/Hawk 5 Gyroplanes,are they all related?

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 6, 2007 01:19 PM

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

Posted by: scott at December 6, 2007 01:06 PM

The Air Force went down this road in the 70's and 80's which lead to the design of the PA-48 based on the P-51 of WW2. 10 hard points, 6 50 cals, long range, decent speed and a very reliable airframe.

Posted by: scott at December 6, 2007 01:03 PM

I am a little biased since it is a project I am working on but at C-LVL we are currently working on such "minimalist low tech" aircraft that can be maintained easily and doesn't need runways or any infrastructure. The TOAD (Tactical Organic Airborne Demonstrator) : http://www.c-lvl.com/ . It is based on a modified ultra light autogyro airframe. Training takes about 20 hours for basic pilot license, it doesn't suffer the "soda straw" problem for observation due to its large windows and you can always remove the doors. We think that for observation it has potential being small, quiet and stable.

Posted by: KFRtoad at December 6, 2007 12:51 PM

I have a question that some of you may be able to answer. the guns currently used on fixed wing aircraft are solidly connected to the frame and can only be used for straight on strafing, which requires the aircraft to line up on the target and fly straight at it and usualy over it. My question is, can the chin gun and helmet sighting system of an Apache or Super Cobra be fitted to a fixed wing aircraft? The aircraft could circle around the target or fly by at a safer distance and the pilot could maintain constant contact with the target. If a small turret could be attached under each wing of a high wing aircraft like an OV-10 and only the gun on the appropriate side of the aircraft brought to bear on the target or both guns locked forward for more conventional strafing.

Posted by: Bruce at December 6, 2007 10:41 AM

A-10s are tank killers, so unless the insurgents have armored vehicles thats just overkill.

second thought:

The russians tried coins in Afganistan back in the 80s which showed two problems for them in that country one was if the aircraft went too fast it slammed into mountains and the second was if it went slow enough to avoid the mountain walls our stingers that we sold them were more than enough to do the job. And dont think the pakistanis havent been copying the stinger too sell to the insurgents because they have and at a cheaper price than us manufacturers would if allowed.

Posted by: christiansoldier1997 at December 6, 2007 09:59 AM

Why not bring back the OV-1 Mohawk? Folks tend to think of it as a reconnaissance aircraft, but it certainly performed COIN work before the Pentagon pulled its teeth. My boss flew an armed Mohawk in Viet Nam. It's even a two seater.

Yeah, it carries a lot of Pentagon baggage, but the Air Force can finally get their wish of 40 years and own it instead of the Army...

Posted by: Dave at December 6, 2007 09:52 AM

SrA Sabo,

I agree, UAS's are perfect for the COIN mission in many ways -- for the US Air Force.

But put yourself in the shoes of Ethiopia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, et al. It's more of a crawl-walk-run situation.

Posted by: Stephen Trimble at December 6, 2007 08:21 AM

Quote --> "In any event, UAS's are still to costly and complicated to operate for most nations with a COIN problem."

So is spending $1 mil training a pilot, add to that support functions, only to have to turn around and pay his SGLI when he gets shot down. And that doesn't even figure in the human factor, because a human being is irreplacable.

Tactically, I believe it is a role to be filled. I would much rather put a machine in harm's way than a man, especially when there is no appreciable difference in mission performance.

Posted by: SrA Sabo at December 6, 2007 07:53 AM

Hey all,

Great discussion!

Just to throw out a few points:

a) Area weapons (ie, 30mm cannon, 105mm howitzer, cluster bombs, etc) are generally bad for counter-insurgency. Precision is very important. Pinpoint bombs (ie, 10lb high-incindiary explosive, 155mm artillery shells) are much preferred.

b) Survivability is another must for COIN. IRCM is the only thing you can do about MANPADs. Armoring and flight control system redundancy is the only thing you can do about artillery. Speed and tactics are also helpful. This rules out the Caravan, but makes aircraft like AT-6B, AT-37, OV-10, EMB-314, PC-9 and A-67 more appropriate.

c) ISR is most important role for this kind of aircraft, not firepower. It needs to be the eyes and ears and only should use weapons if it finds a high-value target of opportunity in the right circumstances.

d) UAS are probably the ideal weapon but they are not exportable. Because UAS's technically can be adapted into cruise missiles, the Missile Technology Control Regime bans UAS exports to all but the most staunchest allies (Australia, Italy, UK currently -- although Singapore, Japan and Korea may join the list). In any event, UAS's are still to costly and complicated to operate for most nations with a COIN problem.

Posted by: Stephen Trimble at December 6, 2007 07:23 AM

The problem with the OV-10 Bronco is that I think after we retired them,we sold them all to South & Central American countries,including Venezuela.The same goes with our A/OA-37 Dragonflies,we also sold those off to South & Central American countries.I'm not sure about our OV-1 Mohawks.I was curious how COIN propeller aircraft would operate against anti-aircraft guns attached to the back of a truck like the Somalis did with their technicals.Does the EMB-314 Super Tucano have a hardened body to protect it against 20mm or higher rounds from a anti-aircraft gun which would be its principle opponent? The same question goes for the AT-6 or the A-67 Dragon.I also still like amphibian aircraft like the Lake Renegade Seawolf that can operate from bodies of water & aircraft carriers.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 6, 2007 05:17 AM

I like the concept of F-20, but would anyone also like to mention upgraded OV-10 Bronco with more armor as a "lo" solution to COIN?

Posted by: pedestrian at December 6, 2007 03:16 AM

What?! Build massive numbers of cheap F-20s for COINs?

Posted by: pedestrian at December 6, 2007 03:10 AM

WADR, some of you seem to be fixated on the stick and rudder, strafing or direct fire stuff. That may be exciting, like cavalry charges, but developments in ordnance tend to make either obsolete.

Don't forget we lost nearly 200 Skyraiders in combat in Vietnam -- and over 60 OV-10s, over 20 A-37s, and over 20 gunships of all types (AC-47, -119, -130). We lost a lot of FACs, too -- over 200. A lot of that was before what we now call MANPADS. Don't forget that the A-10 was designed to survive that kind of threat environment. Going backwards to prop COIN or gunships isn't necessarily going back to the future.

Apart from that, you can't just blithely restart a production line on a type or class of aircraft that hasn't been built for a while. You can forget building new OV-10s or A-1s.

Turning the new T-6 into a cheap COIN/FAC/CAS/ISR node makes some sense. We've converted trainers before -- like the T-6, T-28, and T-37. IIRC, after we lost OV-10s in Gulf War I we used TA-4 Skyhawks as OA-4 FACs.

It also avoids the F-20 "legacy" argument, per the lead article, which is sort of an apples and oranges comparison. F-20 vs. F-16 is one thing; AT-6 vs. Super Tucano is another.

A lot of militaries are still using prop aircraft for COIN, but, by and large, that's over jungle. It's harder to shoot up through canopy than it is to rain sh*t through it. Not so in the desert, or cities.

As far as a COIN aircraft being for observation, or tasked to forward commanders, that's what your smaller UAVs are for. There you get the "looking through a soda straw" problem, but who says you only need one camera on the bird, or one set of eyes looking at the feed?

IMHO, doing COIN from the air nowadays means looking at a continuum of options -- choppers for some threats, UAVs, gunships and/or fast movers for others. The best way to look at an AT-6 or Super Tucano may be as a gap filler, a multimission platform -- more of a utility vehicle, than a weapons system. More like a police car, than a fighter-bomber.

Like, apart from hard points, you might need some cup holders. Or, piss tubes.

Posted by: demophilus at December 6, 2007 01:57 AM

I say the AC-130 gunship fits that role just fine.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 01:44 AM

An A-10 is AWESOME in the CAS role (as a Tanker, I have a love/hate relationship with the A-10) but it's not optimal for COIN. It's certainly better than a "fast mover", but a COIN aircraft needs two sets of eyes. I think we need to take another look at the OV-10 Bronco, especially the Night Observation Gunship (NOGS) model previously used by the Marines. With it's M197 20MM turreted cannon in the belly and wing hardpoints to allow the use of Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) or Hellfire II, it could bring appropriate fires on the enemy after a long loiter time. It sould be upgraded with more up-to-date materials/componants for it's airframe, engines, etc. I wonder how possible it would be to use "off the shelf" systems to reduce R&D and costs by using components from the cockpit of an AH-64, Arrowhead targeting system, etc. (Is anyone from Boeing reading this?!?). For it's employment, it should be based as far forward as possible and I agree with Roy Smith that it should be detached to Army & Marine Ground commanders.

Posted by: Doug VW at December 5, 2007 11:28 PM

I don't think A-10 is appropriate for a COIN aircraft. These craft need to be maintained by third world mechanics with limited funding and tools in a combat zone. The key design question should be "Can an afghan mechanic who only knows how to fix a bus maintain this in the field? If I were designing this from scratch as an engineer, I might start with a lightweight diesel aircraft engine (there actually are some) and a pusher propellor, add a couple of browning 50 cal's and you'd be ready to go.

Posted by: Rix at December 5, 2007 11:18 PM

Discussions are fine. Besides the fear by bean counters that diversion to another airframe endangers "must have" F-22's, F'35's, manned COIN in the AF are commissioned slots, also expensive.
What should come back to cut wastage of officer slots in non-nuclear capable A/C is Army like pure pilots, WO's or Sgts. "You can teach a monkey to fly". Besides monkeys are too important to train to be Stars when they can fly and like flying better than chasing stars.

Posted by: Robert Brenzel "Bob" at December 5, 2007 09:04 PM

Discussions are fine. Besides the fear by bean counters that diversion to another airframe endangers "must have" F-22's, F'35's, manned COIN in the AF are commissioned slots, also expensive.
What should come back to cut wastage of officer slots in non-nuclear capable A/C is Army like pure pilots, WO's or Sgts. "You can teach a monkey to fly". Besides monkeys are too important to train to be Stars when they can fly and like flying better than chasing stars.

Posted by: Robert Brenzel "Bob" at December 5, 2007 09:01 PM

As I stated below, the key to a good COIN aircraft is its observation ability. Aircraft like attack helicopters, (Ah-64, Ah-1W) 2 man precision strike aircraft, AC-130gunships, and Predators. What all these aircraft have in common is 2 things... First is some sort of ground observation pod with IR (i.e. apaches have one on the front, predator has one underneath, AC-130 has something on the side, and strike aircraft normally have a pod mounted on it). Factor number 2 is the ability to lay a precision strike on a target. Examples of this can be seen all over the net of each one of the aircraft noted above killing insurgents. The A10 is an awesome close air support aircraft perfect for the invasion of Iraq, but it does not make a good COIN aircraft but does have a good purpose.

Posted by: Mike at December 5, 2007 08:08 PM

The A-10 was offerred for export to FAS in the early 90s when they were getting rid of them as fast as they could. Turkey at one point was looking to buy them but decided not to because they were a one dimensional aircraft. I agree that the A-10 is a powerful airplane but it is not ideal for COIN.

The AT-6 is an armed version of the T-6 so we are using existing aircraft to try to meet this requirement. And it is an asset that has been lacking since the removal of the OV-10 in the USMC and the OV-1 in the Army. Now to dispell the myth of the OV-10 being a troop carrier. It could carry two paratroopers that had to back into the rear of the fuselage. They sat there cramped together with no room to move until they jumped out. It was only used as a last resort.

There are currently Air Force FAC assigned to Army units for close air support. The USMC has always had aviators assigned to their ground units for the same task.

We need Predators, A-10s, and some sort of manned low and slow COIN aircraft for a complete umbrella of coverage....in my opinion.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 5, 2007 05:48 PM

I'm a little ignorant here (not an aircraft designer), so I'm not completely sure exactly what a COIN aircraft needs. But after reading about the AC-47, which had 3 side firing miniguns and was lovingly nicknamed "Puff the Magic Dragon", I tried to run some numbers to see if the Cessna Grand Carvan could carry the 3 miniguns, and a decent supply of ammo.

I got specs from this site, and went for the numbers that seemed to make the most sense:
http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/M134_Stats.pdf

Total System Weight: 45
4400 Round magazine 295
4400 Round magazine 295
Feed chute (x2) 12
Mount assemby 45
Total weight 692 lbs

If you have 3 miniguns, with mounts, 2 ammo magazines of 4400 rounds each, that is 2076 pounds.

If I read the payload chart correctly (http://grandcaravan.cessna.com/range.chtml) that gives the aircraft a range of 800nm, a flight time of 4:29 with a speed of 179mph.

That's with an off the shelf, in production aircraft, and a M134 minigun that is in production, chambered in 7.62mm NATO and fires at a fixed rate of 3,000 shots per minute.

The aircraft is simple and in use by companies like fed Ex. Not exactly a sexy aircraft, but it could work.

Thoughts?

Posted by: EM2(SS) at December 5, 2007 05:35 PM

So if the A-10 is too much firepower then why not ramp up production of the A-37?

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=125

Or have they stopped making that, too? (rolling eyes)

I completely agree with Roy Smith, "I'm a big fan of minimalist low tech/no tech stuff." There has got to be an airplane being made, right now, that they could strap some radios into, add a minigun or two, and maybe something bigger, and get up in the air in large numbers, at a relatively low cost.

According to the AF site I linked above, the Unit Cost of the A-37 is $164,854 (most likely not a current replacement cost), and the T-6 Texan is $4.272 million. Even the Cessna Grand Caravan could probably be modified to do COIN, and it is only $1.9 million.
http://grandcaravan.cessna.com/

It doesn't have to be pretty, it just has to get the job done.

I am utterly amazed that during WWII, we saw a complete revolution in aircraft designs and capabilities, yet here we are in what, the 4th or 5th year of the war, and yet we haven't made that much forward progress in supplying the right tools for the job. It seems like all we have are hammers, even though the job might not require a hammer in every case.

Posted by: EM2(SS) at December 5, 2007 04:48 PM

There is no empirical proof that the days of propeller aircraft are over.I remember when everybody was saying that the days of anti-aircraft guns were over & then Iraq & Desert Storm proved all of those nay sayers wrong.The idea that there is no place today for an A-1 Skyraider or its equivalent is just opinion.Whats an appropriate COIN platform,a Raven "mini" UAV with a BB Gun attached? A Bronco is inappropriate(Why,because it is manned by humans?) but an "unmanned" Predator armed only with a Hellfire missile is? I just don't get it.What if you just needed simple 20-30mm rounds in a target,how is a platform only armed with a missile appropriate?I still believe that A-10 Squadrons should be attached to Army Combat Aviation Brigades & Marine Air Wings.The Army's OH-58Ds can coordinate tandem A-10s & AH-64s attacking a ground target.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 5, 2007 04:44 PM

I don't think the A10 serves well as a COIN aircraft. Due to its firepower for killing loads of things on the ground, its suited to bigger battles, not groups of insurgents. Things like the sky raider, and bronco have the same problem.. Its Observation! The perfect platform for this are AH-64s, Cobras, precision strike jets, Predators and AC-130 Gunships. They have the key advantage of observation and precision strike, while buzzing around in a cockpit using only your eyes is hard to tell an insurgent from a person. With the above aircraft always covering ground forces, you can have firepower exactly were you want it. The days of the sky raider are over, i.e., the A10 still does serve a purpose, but a COIN aircraft it is not.

Posted by: Mike at December 5, 2007 04:22 PM

If the Air Force cannot, or will not start production of the A-10 again, then why not build a modern equivalent of it? Tough, slow and deadly as hell with the GAU-8A Avenger cannon on it?

Same would go for a modern version of the AC-47 Spooky: Long loiter time, heavy firepower and simple operations.

There is a time and place for fast movers like the F-22. But there is also a need for something absolutely simple, effective and powerful. The A-10, AC-47 and AC-130 all fit the bill.

Once the fast-movers have cleared the airspace, there is almost always a need for CAS and COIN type of operations. These don't have to be expensive aircraft, with all of the bells and whistles. They just need to be effective.

And unfortunately, I don't see anything on the books to replace aging airframes, let alone get brand new squadrons of slow movers up in the air. I wish the AF Brass would get a clue and know that it is possible to have BOTH fast movers and slow movers.

And if the AF is too stupid to recognize it, then maybe the Army and Marine generals should step up to the plate and get some good air cover options for their ground pounders.

UAVs are great, and serve a purpose, but there still aren't enough of those, either.

Posted by: EM2(SS) at December 5, 2007 04:18 PM

The A-10 is being used as a COIN A/C. In Iraq the A-10 is stationed at Marine Air Bases and used jointly with all ground forces. The A-10 can slow way down and also take alot of ground fire before having to get out. Show me a F-16 that can do that. We have already had a F-16 driver run it into the ground do to speed. The AF was going to do away with the A-10. Huge mistake!!!! The problem with the U.S. Military is they have to have new stuff all the time. Look at he money that would be saved on R&D work if they would just start making the planes again that really perform, with some updates. We have the predator and other unmanned A/C over there and they are working great. DOD want to have more high tec toys and less people, people cost alot to maintain, according to the DOD. This is the problem we are having now. Not enought troops on the ground. A-10 is a great A/C we just need to use it more!

Posted by: Brian Wilms at December 5, 2007 03:42 PM

Article link fixed. M61 corrected...

Posted by: Christian Lowe at December 5, 2007 03:37 PM

Why not an existing airframe like the T-6 Texan II or the T-37 Tweet? All of our pilots have experience on them, so a squadron could be stood up almost immediately. Attach a few hardpoints for SDBs, a sensor suite, and beef up the underbelly, and you've got a working patrol aircraft.

Posted by: J.R. at December 5, 2007 03:29 PM

I was always a fan of the OV-10 Bronco -- not that I've ever flown a plane or anything like that (so maybe I'm not an expert), but it always seemed quite versatile: capable of unassisted carrier take offs, carrying paratroopers, gun and rocket pods, etc.. I think Calfire actually still flies them(?). It also looks cool. I wonder what it'd take to re-introduce something like that.

Posted by: JE at December 5, 2007 03:22 PM

I'm a big fan of minimalist low tech/no tech stuff.I wonder how the proposed COIN aircraft would fare though against dedicated anti-aircraft artillery.If the enemy had anti-aircraft guns strapped to the back of trucks like the Somalis did with their technicals,how would any AT-6B,EMB-314,or A-67 fare? I'm not going to ask about MANPADS because that could be a problem for any aircraft,I'm just asking about low flying aircraft,like no doubt the COIN aircraft would be, would fare against AAA.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 5, 2007 03:12 PM

Why not just use hellfire armed Predators and related UAV for counter insurgency work? Do you actually need a man inside the cockpit? I suppose allies wouldn't necessarily have the integrated communications necessary to operate the Predator?

Also, why go through the hassle and spend the resources to buy and operate these aircraft when you can contract with existing operators to train allies? Don't the Colombians operate some Super Tucanos? Why not just hire some of those guys through a contractor like Blackwater?

Finally, it seems that having the US airforce buy some aircraft to entice allies is a red herring. US allies who need them already operate them. Again, see the Colombians.

Posted by: citanon at December 5, 2007 03:11 PM

Hey Solomon,

A-10 has long been a no-go for FMS. Too much raw firepower.

It would be particularly unsuitable for the kind of partners the USAF would likely engage for the COIN mission.

Just picture the governments of Ethiopia, Nigeria and Colombia getting their hands on an A-10. I think we'd all agree that we'd all be better off with the AT-6B on the export market.

Posted by: Stephen Trimble at December 5, 2007 03:11 PM

Hey bubba,

M60 Vulcan is a typo. It should be the M61 Vulcan, of course. My bad!

Posted by: Stephen Trimble at December 5, 2007 02:53 PM

"A-10 could play the role, but that definitely doesn't solve the FMS problem. No way the USAF will ever export that aircraft, and it's not in production anyway."

Why wouldn't the A-10 (if it were still in production) not be available to FMS? Are you talking about a certain number of airframes? If thats the case then with this "neck down strategy" regarding different types of aircraft, then this whole thing is moot. If its become a matter of economics then it makes sense to trash this whole concept and just engineer f-16's to perform this type of mission and say the hell with it.

Posted by: Solomon at December 5, 2007 02:47 PM

Why couldn't A-10 units & their operations be detached to Army & Marine Ground commanders.A-10 squadrons could be detached to Marine Air-Ground task forces & such a type of Air-Ground task force could be created by the army based on merging A-10 units with Combat Aviation Brigades.The A-10s would still be Air Force,but they would be detached to the CABs & Marine Air-Ground Task Forces.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 5, 2007 02:41 PM

What's an M60 Vulcan?

Posted by: Bubba at December 5, 2007 02:40 PM

Hey John,

A-10 could play the role, but that definitely doesn't solve the FMS problem. No way the USAF will ever export that aircraft, and it's not in production anyway.

Posted by: Stephen Trimble at December 5, 2007 02:40 PM

I wonder if the idea of the Air Force putting money into anything other than the F-22 Raptor & F-35 JSF is being perceived as a threat to F-22 & F-35 procurement.You know,money going towards COIN aircraft means less F-22s for one thing.Man,if we fought WWII like we are fight the GWOT,we'd all be speaking German today & Hawaii,Guam,American Samoa,the Northern Marianas,& Alaska would belong to Japan.Don't give me that crap that Germany & Japan had real armies,air forces,& navies,war is WAR & ALL expenses must be made to win it.How convenient that we are fighting a "ghost" army in Iraq & Afghanistan.Oh yeah,the "terrorists" are real,but no tanks,enemy aircraft,or warships(including submarines) to "justify" keeping our anti-aircraft artillery,anti-tank missiles,& anti-submarine warfare capabilities intact.COIN aircraft is a wise investment,not a threat to buying more F-22s & F-35s.
Fourth Generational Warfare should be renamed "Ghost Busters" because thats all we are doing,fighting "invisible" ghosts.I just hope we don't get "slimed."

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 5, 2007 02:35 PM

Good Morning Folks,

If the current wars in Afghanistan and Iran have shown anything is that close air support ans a COIN air platform shouldn't be under the operational control og the AF but the ground commanders.

If a COIN air platform is needed is still debateable, COIN and close air support are two different activities. But one thing the curent wars are loaded with missed opportuntities by air support to get the bad guys because of bureaucratic bumbling and inter service jurisdictional issues is not the way to fight a GWOT where a target might show itself for only a brief time and then disappear.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at December 5, 2007 02:27 PM

What's the A-10 chopped liver? It would serve that roll wouldn't it?

Just a thought.

Posted by: John Stone at December 5, 2007 02:08 PM

Its weird that the author of the article points out the logistics/procurement aspect of COIN aircraft rather than their needing to be in the fight. The Air Force could gain some much needed credibility if they put their shoulder to the wheel on this issue and buy a COIN aircraft--one that they will put into the air.

Posted by: Solomon at December 5, 2007 01:26 PM

I wonder how many people will roll their eyes with my suggestion to be added to the list of of COIN aircraft.In addition to the AT-6B,Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano,& U.S. Aircraft A-67 Dragon,I nominate the Lake Renegade Seawolf "AMPHIBIAN" plane.It can operate from lakes,rivers,sea coasts,& Aircraft carriers.It could operate as an ASW platform replacing the retired S-3 Viking.We lost needed COIN capabilities when we retired & sold off our A/OA-37 Dragonflies & our OV-10 Broncos.I like the A-67 Dragon for COIN because it seems to offer more payload & can stay in the air longer than both the AT-6B & EMB-314,but the EMB-314 offers a single seat option in addition to its two seat option.I also like the Schweizer RU-38B & SA 2-37B aircraft.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 5, 2007 01:11 PM