Posted on 10/17/2008 5:04:14 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
Senior US Department of Defense officials are considering an air force proposal to transfer the entire fleet of General Atomics Aeronautical System Inc (GA-ASI) MQ-1B Predators to the army’s control.
The proposed inventory transfer, if approved, would enable the USAF to afford shifting to an all-MQ-9 Reaper fleet, also made by GA-ASI, said Kevin Meiners, assistant deputy under secretary for portfolio, programmes and resources.
The issue is still being debated by senior defence officials as they prepare for the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a congressionally-mandated planning exercise that shapes the Pentagon’s spending priorities every four years.
The chief advocate for the air force’s proposal is Lt Gen David Deptula, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
“I know Deptula would love to see that” win approval, said Meiners, addressing the C4ISR Integration Conference.
It was not immediately clear how shifting the MQ-1B fleet to the army’s plans to acquire the more capable MQ-1C Sky Warrior for the extended-range/multi-purpose (ER/MP) requirement.
The USAF currently plans to deploy enough MQ-1Bs to operate 31 combat air patrols by the end of 2009. At the same time, USAF officials also want to shift to an all MQ-9 fleet providing 50 combat air patrols by 2015. But it appears unlikely that the service can afford to operate both fleets.
“The question is, everyone loves the Predator, so do you leave the [combat air patrols sized] at 31 or do you begin drawing down?” Meiners asked.
The USAF instead hopes their alternative proposal will allow them to build up their MQ-9 “hunter-killer” capability while continuing to support the army’s need for a medium-altitude, long-endurance ISR system.
The army still plans to buy 120 MQ-1Cs, which feature a Thielert heavy fuel engine and a tactical common data link (TCDL).
“We continue to develop the program of record successfully,” said a spokeswoman for army aviation. “We’ve demonstrated some of the most technically challenging capabilities, such as automatic takeoff and landing and the tactical common data link.”
The U.S. Army has landing craft for amphibious warfare. It is not a mission they take too seriously (not to say that the personnel assigned to them don’t take it seriously). It is a mission that the USMC does take seriously.
The A-10C is to the Air Force what those landing craft are to the Army.
The fact that the A-10 has finally been upgraded to the same software standard as the first F-18C’s (twenty-five years ago) isn’t exactly proof that the Air Force takes CAS seriously. Why else would it just be happening now?
I’m not any expert on CAS, but my guess is the A-10 (in any variant) if only because the plane is more survivable and carries a bigger payload. The only drawback I can see with the A-10 is that the plane is not carrier compatible.
The USAF has not been trying to ditch the A-10. It recently did an upgrade to A-10Cs, which should keep them in service for many years to come.
Agreed!!!
A stupid mentality that keeps the AF irrelevant in this day and age. If not for CAS missions, they'd be glorified delivery truck drivers.
You are assuming one needs to get up close and personal to provide CAS. That used to be true, but is not any longer. With modern targeting pods, it is possible to provide more accurate CAS from 30K than from 500 feet.
Not my assumption. My assumption is that you need to be able to loiter for long periods of time and that the more ordnance that you can haul the better. Aircraft designed to be fighters have the wrong type of engine (low-bypass) and wing loading for this. Thus, they are not optimized for CAS.
But getting lower than 30k feet can be very important in CAS. I've tried to pick up targets to bomb from 20k and its not that easy. If GPS isn't available, then CAS must be talked onto the target using identifiable landmarks. Those aren't easy to discern five miles up or at 600 kts down low.
The answer to that, flying lower and slower then requires the ability to absorb some punishment.
Now if you are confident that you can always provide CAS from 30k feet and that survivability isn't an issue, I recommend installing bombays in Boeing airliners. They are better suited for range, endurance and load-out than F-16's.
It was a shame that during the Korean war P-51's were sent to provide ground support and all the surplus P-47's sat in the Desert. The P-51's were far more susceptable to ground fire and suffered accordingly.
Strongly disagree.
In Afghanistan, for example, you don’t know in advance where the enemy will hit - so being able to move to the site of the engagement at 500kts is a good thing. Typically, CAS is ‘shared’ between battalions and brigades until troops are in contact.
Even crude GPS coordinates pulled from a map can get a targeting pod within a mile. Laser designators and data links (increasingly widespread) take the guess work out of the process - you can swap images with the ground troops to get confirmation. Also, modern targeting pods will automatically search for the laser spot.
B-52s offer the ultimate in loiter time and bomb load. F-16s aren’t bad if refueling is nearby (current wars). They carry a fair number of bombs - not by F-111/B-52 standards, but not bad. Smaller bombs will help.
One of the arguments AGAINST modifying the A-10 was that its engines don’t allow it to climb up high enough with a load to effectively employ some munitions.
would enable the USAF to afford shifting to an all-MQ-9 Reaper fleet
It can be about allocating fewer Rated Officers than if the USAF had to support both the Predator and Reaper.
I don't know about every Marine CAS pilot being a Platoon Leader first (I know every Marine has to go through combat infantry school (SOI)), but I agree with you that as a package Marine CAS integrates much more closely with Marine ground forces than USAF CAS ever could. By the same token, Army Rotary Wing units also integrate much more closely with Army ground forces than USAF CAS could.
USAF CAS have to integrate with US Army, Marine Corps, and multi-national units interchangablly to provide CAS to international operations. So does Navy CAS. I also believe that Marine CAS supports Army and multi-national forces, too.
However, my question was about platforms, and I believe that the A-10, especially the -C precision engagement upgrades, makes the A-10 a better CAS platform than the F/A-18C or AV-8B of the Marine Corps. The A-10C has a larger A-G payload, longer loiter time, and slower speeds to assist in target acquitision. However, as you point out, if the mission is one of initial seaborne assault, the A-10 won't be available at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.