US Air Force planners want irreguar warfare wing

[Trigger]

And here I thought AFSOC wanted to give up their rotary wing mission to the 160th SOAR...

US Air Force planners want irregular warfare wing

By Stephen Trimble

US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) planners have called for the stand-up of a new "irregular warfare" wing dedicated to fighting insurgents and terrorists with an aircraft fleet numbering 44 airlifters, 20 helicopters and 20 turboprop strike fighters.

AFSOC's proposal, which is described in a recent internal White Paper obtained by Flight International, would dramatically increase the air force's assets dedicated to the counter-insurgency mission, which now includes a single squadron equipped with two Bell Helicopter UH-1N utility helicopters.

"The USAF should establish an irregular warfare wing capable of providing assistance to partner nations across the full spectrum in developing and employing indigenous air and space power to defeat irregular internal threats," says the AFSOC document, which includes a foreword signed by its commander, Lt Gen Michael Wooley.

In response to questions, AFSOC says: "The air force is looking at several options to help support the 'Global War on Terror' and the concept of an irregular warfare wing is just one."

But the idea for standing up an irregular warfare wing with a strike and mobility fleet dedicated to the counter-insurgency mission is clearly gaining some momentum. Earlier this year, Rand's "Project Air Force" published a monograph also calling on the service to create an irregular warfare wing within its force structure. In April, top air force leaders also held a counter-insurgency aircraft summit at the Air University at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.

The Rand study notes that the air force's only counter-terrorism unit - the 6th Special Operations Squadron - is over-subscribed by a factor of two to four times capacity.

The irregular warfare wing concept seeks to introduce the first dedicated strike aircraft for fighting insurgent forces since the Douglas A-1 Skyraider in the Vietnam war.

"One possible candidate for the light strike role is the air-to-ground modified [beechcraft] AT-6B. Other candidate aircraft include the [Embraer] Tucano or Super Tucano," the AFSOC paper states. The authors add that a Cessna Caravan "might be useful as a light mobility, strike, or intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft depending on its configuration".

Perhaps more important than the light strike component, the new wing should operate four Lockheed Martin C-130s in a "heavy mobility" role, as well as 20 medium lift and 20 light mobility aircraft. The latter can be comprised of Cessnas or EADS Casa C-212s, while the former might be the Alenia Aeronautica C-27J Spartan Joint Cargo Aircraft.

[Karl Sander]

Irregular warfare - because having to go #2 in the middle of battle is such an inconvenience.

[Andre]

I say, put the ol' Skyraider back in production! ;-)

Cheers,

Andre

[Keith Diamond]

I heard rumors about the USAF interest in the AT-6 and I guess this is further proof of that interest. They'll probably go with the AT-6 due to the T-6 already being in service. So wait, there'll be an AF aircraft that has both an attack version and a trainer version? Sounds kinda like the T-6's predecessor...

"The USAF should establish an irregular warfare wing capable of providing assistance to partner nations across the full spectrum in developing and employing indigenous air and space power to defeat irregular internal threats," says the AFSOC document, which includes a foreword signed by its commander, Lt Gen Michael Wooley.

I hope they learned a lot from working with the Filipinos, which btw, really needs to update their air assets.

[Trigger]

I hope they learned a lot from working with the Filipinos, which btw, really needs to update their air assets.

Their Broncos wearing down?

[Keith Diamond]

Their Broncos wearing down?

Last I heard, a few of them have been upgraded, but overall, their AF has been neglected greatly since the early 90s. They're still flying, but with their track record with previous aircraft (F-8P, F-5A/:thumbsup:, I wouldn't be surprised if the Broncos will be struggling to get in the air in a few years. The main source to their problem seems to be currency flow, which is understandable since it is still considered a third world country.

[Nergol]

The Air Force follows a pattern, as predictable as PMS.

They have a cycle of going for sexy, impractical, high-tech Sky Corvettes - the F-104, B-58, and F-22 are good examples. Then they get into a real, shooting war and find out that all that crap is impractical and useless. Then they find, scrounge, or improvise some practical weapons- note that in the late 60s, B-58s were being hauled into the scrapyard, and clapped-out old Skyraiders were being hauled out to be refurbished and sent to Vietnam. Also remember that the first "Spooky" gunships were improvised in Vietnam, and then improved upon at Hurlburt. Finally, practical weapons are put into production as the Air Force wises up - examples include the eminently practical A-10 and the AC-130.

Finally, after a few years of peace, the Air Force forgets everything and goes back to its Sky Corvettes. Witness all the recent attempts to kill the A-10 and replace it with something supersonic.

So now, after a few years in Iraq, the Air Force swings grudgingly towards something practical, such as AT-6s (which basically would become new and improved versions of the T-28s that fought the war in Laos). But a few years after the war, the Air Force will forget everything it learned, again...

[Keith Diamond]

The Air Force follows a pattern, as predictable as PMS.

My ex gf had PMS. I found her to be highly unpredictable.

[Mark S.]

Gents:

Wonder what the wing number will be? The 56th which is and should in my opinion remain a fighter wing was the COIN unit during Vietnam. Aren't the 1st and 16 SOW's the current special ops wings?

Could this lead to A-10's leaving the boneyard to equip this new unit? How about a small gunship based on the C-27J?

Think whatever happens it's going to be interesting.

Mark

[Trigger]

The Air Force follows a pattern, as predictable as PMS...

Yeah, because those A-1s really kicked @$$ against those Serbian MiG-29s didn't they? I don't know why we invested so heavily in those sexy, impractical, high-tech F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and F-117 Sky Corvettes. And I'll bet the Brits are jolly glad they kept those Spitfires around when they went to take back the Falklands. <_<

*sigh* It's been said before by others, but I'll repeat it - if you have a crystal ball that tells you for a fact that every conflict the US will enter into for the next 30-40 years will be low intensity and not involve facing an IADS and/or 4th generation+ aircraft, then the Pentagon will really like to hear from you.

Comparing COIN to the Air-To-Air mission is an apples to oranges comparison. Sure, the Iraqi Air Force didn't fly this last go around, but who knew NATO would face MiG-29s over Europe in the 1990s even after the fall of the Iron Curtain?

What I see here with this is the ultimate application of the long-standing and successful High-Low mix doctrine, but instead of it being limited to a a couple of types (F-15 & F-16), it's being extended to the entire force. On one end, there are "sexy, impractical, high-tech Sky Corvettes" (F-22, F-35, F-15E, F-16, B-1, B-2) and on the other end you have your "lower" tech, lower cost types (B-52, A-10, AFSOC's proposed 20 mud-movers, AC-130). I say "lower" only because they are viewed as being low-tech. What this does is expand the flexibility of the force as a whole to address an increased range of potential threats.

Could this lead to A-10's leaving the boneyard to equip this new unit?

Are they being kept in "in case of emergency, break spraylat" storage? And I've got that A-10 N/AW kit too. Hmmm..... B)

Edited July 3, 2007 by Trigger

[Mark S.]

Are they being kept in "in case of emergency, break spraylat" storage? And I've got that A-10 N/AW kit too. Hmmm..... B)

Let see, an A-10B with SEA camo, black undersides, hauling around a PAVE PAT store with a targeting pod and the other usual weapons. Sounds good to me!

[Keith Diamond]

Let see, an A-10B with SEA camo, black undersides, hauling around a PAVE PAT store with a targeting pod and the other usual weapons. Sounds good to me!

How about this AFSOC scheme?

I found a site with a whole bunch of concepts, but I forgot where.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Keith Diamond

[Trigger]

How about this AFSOC scheme?

I found a site with a whole bunch of concepts, but I forgot where.

I know that scheme, I made it! LOL!

Edited July 3, 2007 by Trigger

[Keith Diamond]

I know that scheme, I made it! LOL!

Wow, somehow a link to all of them made it to the What If Modelers forum a while back and I downloaded a bunch! Pretty interesting concepts. One of the Luftwaffe schemes was the basis for my Phil AF A-10 scheme. Same pattern, just different colors. And I based my A-10I scheme off of your concept as well!

Alot of those schemes were on my computer for a while, and I had no idea that you made them.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Keith Diamond

[Trigger]

Wow, somehow a link to all of them made it to the What If Modelers forum a while back and I downloaded a bunch! Pretty interesting concepts. One of the Luftwaffe schemes was the basis for my Phil AF A-10 scheme. Same pattern, just different colors. And I based my A-10I scheme off of your concept as well!

Alot of those schemes were on my computer for a while, and I had no idea that you made them.

LMAO! That's awesome!

[Karl Sander]

I know that scheme, I made it! LOL!

Nice to see you were able to make time for that while working on the 7th fetzer valve.

[Trigger]

Nice to see you were able to make time for that while working on the 7th fetzer valve.

I billed my time to the Underhills.

[Rapier01]

They have a cycle of going for sexy, impractical, high-tech Sky Corvettes - the F-104, B-58, and F-22 are good examples. Then they get into a real, shooting war and find out that all that crap is impractical and useless.

And when the next war starts with a major regional power or peer level competitor and the Air Force followed your reactionary theories of air warfare- i.e. killing the F-22, JSF and scraping the F-15- you not going to be among the first calling out the Air Force for stupidly not investing in air superiority/dominance?

[Vesper]

Dig the paint scheme!

I'd like to see the 2-seat A-10 make a comeback (mod those airframes over in AMAR, AMARC, er whatever they call themselves this week), along with the OV-10D, but thats wishful thinking.

Ves B)

[Karl Sander]

And when the next war starts with a major regional power or peer level competitor and the Air Force followed your reactionary theories of air warfare- i.e. killing the F-22, JSF and scraping the F-15- you not going to be among the first calling out the Air Force for stupidly not investing in air superiority/dominance?

I hardly see how folks would enjoy sideline carping to the extent that they do if THAT sort of rule was in place.

[phantom]

Well, it worked for Canada and it's CF-5's.....modernized them, then retired them. Oh well.

Same thing for the origanal Leopards. Modenize...use for a couple years, then ditch. Mind you the new ones ARE much better suited for our needs.

[Nergol]

Yeah, because those A-1s really kicked @$$ against those Serbian MiG-29s didn't they?

Uhm... what are you talking about? Those weren't, like, in the same war.

First, I think Vietnam was a little bigger deal than Serbia.

You might want to check up on the history of the service of the Skyraider over Vietnam. It was just a bit impressive.

Second, what exact threat did those Serbian MiGs provide to, well, anything? How many of them did we shoot down? A couple? Among other things, do we really need anything more expensive than F-16s to deal with those? Or with Iran's F-14s, which were delivered when I was still watching The Electric Company in my feetie pajamas?

Third, what good will an F-22 do in a war like Iraq? And against which enemy that we are likely to face will it do any good? Long story short, we ain't going to war against Russia or China, who are the only players even close to "peer" status. Period. The idea that we ever would, over anything, is a fantasy. And if we did, it'd turn into a nukefest in about five minutes - say goodbye to Taipei, Seoul, and San Diego. Step off on China and your F-22s would be heaps of radioactive slag in the glowing hole that used to be Kadena before the President's speech announcing the start of the war was over, rendering the whole subject pretty moot. We know it. They know it. Sorry guys, that's reality.

So who are we going to go after? Either fourth-rate chumps like Saddam's Iraq, or brushfire wars like Afghanistan and present-day Iraq. For this we need fighter planes costing 200 million dollars apiece? Of course not. The Sky Corvettes have no mission, and aircraft that would have a mission in a war like Iraq aren't being adequately developed or funded. I read a story not long ago in USA Today about how they can't get Predators into Iraq fast enough. The Predator is the breakout star and real success story of AF operations in the middle east - and is another low, slow, cheap, "small" weapon. Predators cost $4.5 million apiece. Even if we take the face-value cost of an F-22, $120 million (as opposed to the real per-unit cost based on number of aircraft divided by program cost, in which case the real price is something closer to 340 million apiece), that means you could have 24 Predators for every F-22. Ask anyone on the ground in Iraq which would be more valuable for them to have in the skies right now - one F-22 or two dozen Predators.

Or for another example, witness Israel's recent humiliating bloody nose in Lebanon. Dan "Schlemiel" Halutz, air power advocate, promised Ehud "Schlimazel" Olmert that his spiffy new F-16Is would clean up Hezbollah in no time. Air power would save the day - trust me. What'd Israel get for following that sage advice? It got run out of Lebanon with its aura of invincibility destroyed - maybe irreparably.

America's military is by and large a modernized version of exactly the same force that fought World War II, as if we're expecting the Imperial Japanese Navy to rise from the bottom of the ocean, buy a few nuclear supercarriers while we're not paying attention, and steam towards Hawaii again. It's just not going to happen.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Nergol

[Rapier01]

Nice. I see you have a crystal ball to predict the future... :)

Frankly, it is this sort of myopic viewpoint that gets us into disasters like Iraq- seeing the world as you would like to see it. You make a bunch of grossly optimistic assumptions without considering the various senarios of what could happen- one such example is the proliferation of advanced integrated air defense systems ie. double digit SAMS around the world. Our 4th generation planes have a very difficult time with those systems and consequently survivablity and lethality goes down. The Russians are selling those IADS and avanced 4th generation warplanes all over the world... to anyone with the money. When freakin Angola has Su-27s, you have a problem. Frankly it is criminal to ask our pilots to risk their lives against a modern IADS with obsolete gear, but then it's always easier to ask someone else to put their life on the line...

Sorry, I don't buy into the Donald Rumsfeld school of military planning. This all sounds like something coming from some armchair "expert" judging by the comment about the Chinese resorting to the use nuclear weapons upon civilian targets immediately.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Rapier01

[Tomcat Fanatic]

Considering the fact that there are a number of very good Russian fighters for sale to anyone with the cash for them, It's is eminently preferable to have the F-22 and not need it, rather than needing it and not having it and getting our asses kicked.

I don't know why the AF is even bothering considering the purchase of NEW COIN aircraft, when their needs would be best met by bringing the Bronco back. The Bronco does everything these new planes are supposed to do, and it can also drop off and retrieve five SpecOps troopers, or 3200 pounds of cargo.

[Rapier01]

I'd argue the advanced SAM systems are more of a threat than the Russian fighters. Mainly because the training standards of likely enemies are not up to Western standards, though the Chinese, for example, are rapidly catching up. You can overcome a superior plane with a lesser pilot with superior training and tactics; the same cannot be said for a surface to air missile system. With the newest double digit SAM based integrated air defense systems you need stealth (and electronic warfare assetss) to beat them down otherwise you'll take horrenous losses with the current 4th generation jets.

That's not to discount the Russian jets; they are an extremely potent threat especially in the hands of a capable pilot. These planes already outperform our current jets in many cases so they are a force to be reckoned with; especially since everyone and their dog is buying them. Throw in some Russian or Ukranian "contractor" pilots and they are a dangerous threat.