A-10 Warthog

[FJAG]

You do need the ability to get human eyeballs close to the fight. Preferably undetected. Preferably with the ability to get out of the fight in a hurry. Preferably with an ability to defend itself.

Having done that job from the back of an L-19 and the side seat on a CH-158, I can tell you that you do not need a human in the aircraft for either the "close or deep fight" that matters to the division. I can't speak for the even deeper one.

In short, the brief glimpses you get of the battlefield as you duck and weave to avoid enemy fire and observation doesn't compare with the quality of the information that someone in a safe spot gets from the sensors on an unmanned aircraft. I know that there are still folks that swear by the attack helicopter but quite frankly I can't see what they do that can't be done on the properly designed and configured . . . and cheaper . . . UAV.

The only weakness that I see is the integrity of the comms link. That's up to the techies to solve.

 

[Kirkhill]

Having done that job from the back of an L-19 and the side seat on a CH-158, I can tell you that you do not need a human in the aircraft for either the "close or deep fight" that matters to the division. I can't speak for the even deeper one.

In short, the brief glimpses you get of the battlefield as you duck and weave to avoid enemy fire and observation doesn't compare with the quality of the information that someone in a safe spot gets from the sensors on an unmanned aircraft. I know that there are still folks that swear by the attack helicopter but quite frankly I can't see what they do that can't be done on the properly designed and configured . . . and cheaper . . . UAV.

The only weakness that I see is the integrity of the comms link. That's up to the techies to solve.

So where is the manned advantage on the battlefield? If any.

 

[FJAG]

So where is the manned advantage on the battlefield? If any.

I think that there are quite a few places where the flexibility of the human mind, its ability to adapt and respond, still matters a lot. Machine responses may come up to a par - or better - but then there is the cost factor. Crude as it sounds, there are many places where the human is the most cost effective asset being available in large quantities and with a shorter production cycle than a machine. That will change.

While I really despise James Cameron, I think his vision of the initial Terminator future is probably more realistic than many.

 

[YZT580]

OK what was the A10's original role? Tankbuster - am I right?

I think - and this is an uninformed opinion - its a waste of a fighting aircraft used to hunt drones.

true but there isn't an air force around that still operates a/c in the category of the P51 or the like. Our weapons suite is too sophisticated for the targets. The gun pod on the CF100 would probably be as useful as and certainly a lot cheaper than the weapons package available to most of the current aircraft.

 

[ytz]

OK what was the A10's original role? Tankbuster - am I right?

I think - and this is an uninformed opinion - its a waste of a fighting aircraft used to hunt drones.

Tank buster and even during the Cold War those guys only expected to survive two weeks. They were going to sacrifice themselves stopping columns through the Fulda Gap.

Nobody is disputing their utility during GWOT. But in a situation where near peer is the baseline threat, it's incredibly risky to employ a platform with a huge signature that does flies slow. This is just asking for pilots to get killed.

Which is why I was arguing for the F35 as a Recce Strike platform whose stealth capabilities, advanced all aspect sensor suite heavy on passives, and comms systems made it a necessary component.

But I see its greatest value as being a more effective, and survivable, version of this

Any situation which already has 4th gen aircraft down is not one you should be sending more susceptible aircraft into. Did you miss the part where they lost an A-10 and had to recover another pilot. This could all have gone much, much worse.

I think CAS eventually devolves into a Hi - Lo split. F-35s on the hi side with something approaching more traditional interdiction. Autonomous and RPAS somewhere in the mix. And weaponized tiltrotors on the Lo side which would be needed anyway to provide escort to the tiltrotor transporters. The gap between attack helos and Chinooks and MV-75s is an obvious problem that has to be addressed at some point. And whatever does that is going to have a lot of capability crossover with your Bronco anyway. I think it's going to be a weaponized MV-75.

That said I do think as we get more drones and they become more autonomous, demand from the guys and gals on the ground will skyrocket. Trying to explain to a pilot the exact picture on the ground in the middle of a fight is way more challenging than simply being able to input instructions on a map on a tablet (by the JTAC) and having the aircraft autonomously execute.

 

[ytz]

Having done that job from the back of an L-19 and the side seat on a CH-158, I can tell you that you do not need a human in the aircraft for either the "close or deep fight" that matters to the division. I can't speak for the even deeper one.

In short, the brief glimpses you get of the battlefield as you duck and weave to avoid enemy fire and observation doesn't compare with the quality of the information that someone in a safe spot gets from the sensors on an unmanned aircraft. I know that there are still folks that swear by the attack helicopter but quite frankly I can't see what they do that can't be done on the properly designed and configured . . . and cheaper . . . UAV.

The only weakness that I see is the integrity of the comms link. That's up to the techies to solve.

I think people are forgetting that the ultimate authority in this situation is the JTAC. They are the one calling for fire. Everybody else is a service provider. Including the A-10 pilot. So the system should be destined with that in mind.

It's a big part of why I think autonomous aircraft will eventually be favoured is not because of the air force. It's because I think JTACs will favour platforms they have more control over.

 

[FJAG]

And weaponized tiltrotors on the Lo side which would be needed anyway to provide escort to the tiltrotor transporters.

I can't help but say that this gives my some trouble. I do see where there will remain a niche requirement for this capability - the most recent rescue operations a good case in point. But how realistic is the need for an airmobile division? Or anything which requires that type of force at scale? And do we need anything that can't be done well by the old venerable CH-47 fleet - perhaps escorted by heavily armed with CH-47 gun ships?

 

[FJAG]

I think people are forgetting that the ultimate authority in this situation is the JTAC. They are the one calling for fire. Everybody else is a service provider. Including the A-10 pilot. So the system should be destined with that in mind.

It's a big part of why I think autonomous aircraft will eventually be favoured is not because of the air force. It's because I think JTACs will favour platforms they have more control over.

I think that the days of the JTAC - as we know him - is numbered. Not that there won't be "terminal attack controllers" up forward, but I think that instead of calling in aircraft, they will be doing direct terminal guidance on loitering munitions and a variety of other guided weapons launched more often than not from ground based launchers rather than airborne ones.

@markppcli might have some thoughts about where things are going or ought to go.

 

[ytz]

I can't help but say that this gives my some trouble. I do see where there will remain a niche requirement for this capability - the most recent rescue operations a good case in point. But how realistic is the need for an airmobile division? Or anything which requires that type of force at scale? And do we need anything that can't be done well by the old venerable CH-47 fleet - perhaps escorted by heavily armed with CH-47 gun ships?

Till now the problem was that the Chinook (157 kts) flies faster than the Apache (143 kts). So essentially any package you construct is flying slower (~140 kts) making the whole group more vulnerable. This problem is getting worse with the tiltrotors and their 280 kt cruise speed. They either fly unescorted or slow down to speeds that are ridiculously slow.

I don't see any way out of this conundrum beyond doing what was originally done with the Huey/Cobra. Make an armed version of the MV-75 that can keep up with the Valor. Added bonus is that any such aircraft comes with more range, speed and endurance than other manned CAS solutions being proposed like the OV-10. They also offer more than the 2 hrs on station that an A-10 does.

 

[ytz]

I think that the days of the JTAC - as we know him - is numbered. Not that there won't be "terminal attack controllers" up forward, but I think that instead of calling in aircraft, they will be doing direct terminal guidance on loitering munitions and a variety of other guided weapons launched more often than not from ground based launchers rather than airborne ones.

@markppcli might have some thoughts about where things are going or ought to go.

There's the combat cloud concept. It essentially builds on what the Ukrainians are doing with artillery right now. Extend that to air support. Put a point on a map. Some service provider magically delivers.

Whatever happens with JTACs, the basic idea doesn't change. It's an individual on the ground calling for fire. And the system needs to be designed around their needs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Tank buster and even during the Cold War those guys only expected to survive two weeks. They were going to sacrifice themselves stopping columns through the Fulda Gap.

Nobody is disputing their utility during GWOT. But in a situation where near peer is the baseline threat, it's incredibly risky to employ a platform with a huge signature that does flies slow. This is just asking for pilots to get killed.



Any situation which already has 4th gen aircraft down is not one you should be sending more susceptible aircraft into. Did you miss the part where they lost an A-10 and had to recover another pilot. This could all have gone much, much worse.

I think CAS eventually devolves into a Hi - Lo split. F-35s on the hi side with something approaching more traditional interdiction. Autonomous and RPAS somewhere in the mix. And weaponized tiltrotors on the Lo side which would be needed anyway to provide escort to the tiltrotor transporters. The gap between attack helos and Chinooks and MV-75s is an obvious problem that has to be addressed at some point. And whatever does that is going to have a lot of capability crossover with your Bronco anyway. I think it's going to be a weaponized MV-75.

That said I do think as we get more drones and they become more autonomous, demand from the guys and gals on the ground will skyrocket. Trying to explain to a pilot the exact picture on the ground in the middle of a fight is way more challenging than simply being able to input instructions on a map on a tablet (by the JTAC) and having the aircraft autonomously execute.

But does your weaponized tilt-rotor require a person on board?



And what advantages do tilt rotors have over this pair?


V-Bat - $500 to $600,000



X-Bat CCA Target price of 27 MUSD.

Personally I think they would be better aiming for Kratos type price ponts in the 3 to 7 MUSD range.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think that the days of the JTAC - as we know him - is numbered. Not that there won't be "terminal attack controllers" up forward, but I think that instead of calling in aircraft, they will be doing direct terminal guidance on loitering munitions and a variety of other guided weapons launched more often than not from ground based launchers rather than airborne ones.

@markppcli might have some thoughts about where things are going or ought to go.

What are the roles of the boots on the ground?

What support do they need when they are there?

I still see the role of people as dealing with people. Let machines deal with machines.

If we have machines dealing with people or peolle having to deal with machines we are doing something wrong.

....

Re the CH47...

Why not a 158 knot Chinook escorted by 3 or 4 300 knot tilt rotor drones controlled from the left-hand seat?

...

Or, for that matter, the right hand seat while the Hook flies itself?

 

[FJAG]

Whatever happens with JTACs, the basic idea doesn't change. It's an individual on the ground calling for fire. And the system needs to be designed around their needs.

Right now JTACs work, more or less in FOO/JTAC teams with some folks doing guns and some the aircraft. The issue that I see is that right now the JTAC locates the target, guides the aircraft to the point where the pilot identifies the target and carries out the attack.

Where I see the difference is that the pilot gets cut out of the loop. Let's say that there is a loitering munitions launch battery within range, or some form of autonomous weapon carrying aircraft is circling at a safe distance and altitude from the target. The JTAC identifies and calls in the target, The "system" selects the appropriate battery or autonomous aircraft launch a weapon to a glide point, and the JTAC then guides it in himself from there onto the target. It greatly reduces the risk to the aircraft and pilot and probably also increases the accuracy of the strike.

 

[ytz]

But does your weaponized tilt-rotor require a person on board?

Doesn't have to be. But right now if we're talking about weaponizing an MV-75 to replace an Apache it probably would be manned.

The CONOPS for all this changes with Air Launched Effects anyway. You're not firing Hellfires from 10 km out. You just need a platform to deliver a bunch of ALEs and somebody on the ground to mark targets.

 

[ytz]

Where I see the difference is that the pilot gets cut out of the loop. Let's say that there is a loitering munitions launch battery within range, or some form of autonomous weapon carrying aircraft is circling at a safe distance and altitude from the target. The JTAC identifies and calls in the target, The "system" selects the appropriate battery or autonomous aircraft launch a weapon to a glide point, and the JTAC then guides it in himself from there onto the target. It greatly reduces the risk to the aircraft and pilot and probably also increases the accuracy of the strike.

We posted at the same time. But essentially correct. We're already testing ALEs out of Griffons. They can be ground launched like Switchblades. Or have a Herc fly by and drop a literal swarm. All you need is somebody on the ground marking targets.

Be careful. You're going to get accused of an obsession with things that are "shiny and new". For thinking through tech we're using right now apparently.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think that there are quite a few places where the flexibility of the human mind, its ability to adapt and respond, still matters a lot. Machine responses may come up to a par - or better - but then there is the cost factor. Crude as it sounds, there are many places where the human is the most cost effective asset being available in large quantities and with a shorter production cycle than a machine. That will change.

While I really despise James Cameron, I think his vision of the initial Terminator future is probably more realistic than many.

I think having a mix protects you from being horribly exposed when the enemy is able to jam/corrupt/hijack your unmanned stuff.

 

[ytz]

I think having a mix protects you from being horribly exposed when the enemy is able to jam/corrupt/hijack your unmanned stuff.

Sure. But just a reminder that unmanned doesn't always equal remotely operated. Loitering munitions can do autonomous target recognition and even area denial. We're even moving to a world where the swarms can self target and prioritize sometimes without links between themselves.

And more than likely, in any scenario where somebody is jamming, the next move will be having a home-on-jam munition delivered. The EW cat-and-mouse game is going on in parallel.

 

[Kirkhill]

Doesn't have to be. But right now if we're talking about weaponizing an MV-75 to replace an Apache it probably would be manned.

The CONOPS for all this changes with Air Launched Effects anyway. You're not firing Hellfires from 10 km out. You just need a platform to deliver a bunch of ALEs and somebody on the ground to mark targets.

Which brings us back to first principle consideration of platform adavantages.

Aircraft make excellent high speed delivery systems to cover the unexpected or to create surprise.

Static systems that don't consume kJoules (insert your energy source of choice) are great for defending against enduring threats, infinite loiter time, but are inflexible and therefore need lots of duplication.

Ships allow you to move static systems as ships transport them over long distances and can loiter for extended periods.

All these considerations change whe range becomes cheap. And your Air Launched Effect simply becomes a Launched Effect, independent of platform at point of origin.

We have in the works a facility in Ottawa where operators will be constantly scanning monitors, directing the activity of platforms thousands of kilometers away and decoding whether or not to launch lethal effects within Canadian territorial limits.... the RPAS system.

This only differs from the F18 system in that there is no pilot in the launch platform.