Guess who's back?

[Spectre711]

Oh question here: Were these private contractors?

Article 1 says in the fourth paragraph they are flown by a pair of naval aviators.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I was there and actively involved. The ROE can be frustrating at times, but it is also there for very good reason. This isn't like any air campaign we have ever done, so the ROE has to be strict because it is difficult to identify ISIS targets from civilians, militias, and Iraqi security forces. Against a positively identified ISIS target with good information on the location of friendly forces I never had an issue getting support, but it isn't as clear as having JTACs on the ground calling for CAS.

In Iraq and Syria we aren't in the fight on the ground (not like we were in OIF), and in Iraq we are fighting in support of a sovereign nation. The Iraqi military has to approve every strike, and we have to be 100% certain of the target. I am sure that frustrates pilots, it frustrated me at times but there are many factors that the pilots wouldn't be aware of. I would rather let an target go that I was 99% certain was ISIS than put bombs into an Iraqi army unit, or a militia that is also driving around in a Toyota Hilux with a machine gun in the bed.

As far as the OV-10, I was in a briefing from the aviators that operated it in 2013. It is a cool platform, bringing capability like attack aviation with some additions. It can do CAS, but can also do CCA which is something most fixed wing doesn't do.

My point is, we have played this game before the results were poor.

Besides, what the Bone does isn't special -- it's just a damn weapons truck with a really expensive loiter time.

2 trillion dollar war.

Expensive compared to what? the fleet of fighters required to replicate its capability?

has all the virtues of the hog short of a gun, with about 30 times the payload so you can't acknowledge it.

Edited March 12, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[nspreitler]

My point is, we have played this game before the results were poor.

2 trillion dollar war.

Expensive compared to what? the fleet of fighters required to replicate its capability?

has all the virtues of the hog short of a gun, with about 30 times the payload so you can't acknowledge it.

We haven't played this game before. ISIS operates more like a state than an insurgency, the fight is more conventional than COIN. However, the impact we (coalition and Iraqi forces) have on the local populations is still extremely important. Mosul still has a half million people, and if we inflict collateral damage those people will side with ISIS over what they will see as Iraqi government willing to kill them. As the Iraqi forces push ISIS back they need the support of the populations in the areas ISIS now controls. It is really easy to complain about ROE when you don't understand the situation. 0

The B-1 is a great platform for fixed targets, not danger close CAS though. It can do CAS but a JDAM from 30,000 feet isn't very good at hitting moving infantry.

[Par429]

Article 1 says in the fourth paragraph they are flown by a pair of naval aviators.

Hey-

I don't think that is really correct. They're not Navy Aviators, nor is this being done on the Navy's dime. They were modded by the Navy and pretty much handed over to SOCOM.

Phil

[TaiidanTomcat]

We haven't played this game before. ISIS operates more like a state than an insurgency, the fight is more conventional than COIN. However, the impact we (coalition and Iraqi forces) have on the local populations is still extremely important. Mosul still has a half million people, and if we inflict collateral damage those people will side with ISIS over what they will see as Iraqi government willing to kill them. As the Iraqi forces push ISIS back they need the support of the populations in the areas ISIS now controls. It is really easy to complain about ROE when you don't understand the situation. 0

The B-1 is a great platform for fixed targets, not danger close CAS though. It can do CAS but a JDAM from 30,000 feet isn't very good at hitting moving infantry.

I'll make sure to tell all the O3s, 08s, Rangers, and 11Bs I've talked to about ROE/EOF how they don't understand the situation. It's good to see their votes about the A-10 count, but not the other votes.

I think we are talking about different things anyway. I'm talking about the global war on terror as a whole (where we certainly have ground forces involved), along with political overreach/micromanagment as a whole, and you are taking specificly about iraq and ISIS.

[nspreitler]

I'll make sure to tell all the O3s, 08s, Rangers, and 11Bs I've talked to about ROE/EOF how they don't understand the situation. It's good to see their votes about the A-10 count, but not the other votes.

I think we are talking about different things anyway. I'm talking about the global war on terror as a whole (where we certainly have ground forces involved), along with political overreach/micromanagment as a whole, and you are taking specificly about iraq and ISIS.

The topic is OV-10s fighting ISIS, the majority of the conversation is the air campaign on ISIS. So yes, I am talking about the air campaign and the ROE in the fight against ISIS.

Interesting though that you will completely disregard those Infantrymen and Rangers on what they need for CAS, but latch onto what you have heard about restrictive ROE even though in the fight with ISIS we aren't using conventional ground forces. By the way, never in any ROE is self defense prohibited, but there have certainly been valid concerns about ROE when we have ground troops engaged. So I agree with concerns about ROE when we are in a ground fight.

Edited March 12, 2016 by nspreitler

[nspreitler]

Hey-

I don't think that is really correct. They're not Navy Aviators, nor is this being done on the Navy's dime. They were modded by the Navy and pretty much handed over to SOCOM.

Phil

They would still be Navy or Marine pilots. The original program was Navy, Marine, and Army pilots (there may have even been an Air Force one).

[11bee]

The topic is OV-10s fighting ISIS, the majority of the conversation is the air campaign on ISIS. So yes, I am talking about the air campaign and the ROE in the fight against ISIS.

Interesting though that you will completely disregard those Infantrymen and Rangers on what they need for CAS, but latch onto what you have heard about restrictive ROE even though in the fight with ISIS we aren't using conventional ground forces. By the way, never in any ROE is self defense prohibited, but there have certainly been valid concerns about ROE when we have ground troops engaged. So I agree with concerns about ROE when we are in a ground fight.

Re: ROE, can't wait to see what happens if / when the new team takes office. Won't need no steenkin' ROE when we are carpet bombing the entire region and turning it into glass.

Kidding aside, you appear to have more first hand involvement in this fight than anyone else on this board. From all I've read, it appears that ISIS is finally showing some signs of instability and is starting to loose control of both territory and some of it's personnel. It does seem to have shifted to more defensive posture.

Do you agree and do you think we should stay the present course or do you feel that we should be sending in 20 - 30,000 ground troops as some of our politicians have demanded? Or should we be doing something completely different?

Just curious what your thoughts are...

[nspreitler]

Re: ROE, can't wait to see what happens if / when the new team takes office. Won't need no steenkin' ROE when we are carpet bombing the entire region and turning it into glass.

Kidding aside, you appear to have more first hand involvement in this fight than anyone else on this board. From all I've read, it appears that ISIS is finally showing some signs of instability and is starting to loose control of both territory and some of it's personnel. It does seem to have shifted to more defensive posture.

Do you agree and do you think we should stay the present course or do you feel that we should be sending in 20 - 30,000 ground troops as some of our politicians have demanded? Or should we be doing something completely different?

Just curious what your thoughts are...

This is strictly my personal opinion. We should keep doing what we are doing, and leave the ground fight to Iraq and Iraqi forces. The Iraqi forces fighting ISIS are the Iraqi military and militia forces. A lot of the militias are the same groups that fought us in OIF. My first tour was in Baghdad and most of the fighting was with Shia groups in Sadr City. Those groups are now militias with overt Iranian backing, and make up a big part of the ground force against ISIS. They don't like us, and won't work side by side with us in a ground fight. If we sent ground troops not only would we have an ISIS threat we would have a probably bigger threat from the Shia militias. For this to work and ISIS to fall Iraq has to come together under a common government, and our presence in force to do the ground fighting would make the Iraqi government appear weaker and a puppet of the US. That wouldn't be good for Iraq or us. We can advise, we can train, and we can provide air support. What we shouldn't do is send divisions, if we did a large portion of the groups that are now united fighting ISIS would turn against the Iraqi government and us. ISIS was able to take the areas they did because the Iraqi government was clearly sectarian and they were weak. The areas ISIS took over were the same areas we had some of the hardest fights like Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah. Our involvement would likely cause many of the people in those areas that are currently opposed to ISIS to side with ISIS since they would see us as a greater threat.

I think we keep doing what we are doing, but it will take time and cost money. There will be defeats along the way, but I think the Iraqis can push ISIS back. They did it in Bayji, Tikrit, and most recently Ramadi.

Edited March 13, 2016 by nspreitler

[11bee]

This is strictly my personal opinion. We should keep doing what we are doing, and leave the ground fight to Iraq and Iraqi forces. The Iraqi forces fighting ISIS are the Iraqi military and militia forces. A lot of the militias are the same groups that fought us in OIF. My first tour was in Baghdad and most of the fighting was with Shia groups in Sadr City. Those groups are now militias with overt Iranian backing, and make up a big part of the ground force against ISIS. They don't like us, and won't work side by side with us in a ground fight. If we sent ground troops not only would we have an ISIS threat we would have a probably bigger threat from the Shia militias. For this to work and ISIS to fall Iraq has to come together under a common government, and our presence in force to do the ground fighting would make the Iraqi government appear weaker and a puppet of the US. That wouldn't be good for Iraq or us. We can advise, we can train, and we can provide air support. What we shouldn't do is send divisions, if we did a large portion of the groups that are now united fighting ISIS would turn against the Iraqi government and us. ISIS was able to take the areas they did because the Iraqi government was clearly sectarian and they were weak. The areas ISIS took over were the same areas we had some of the hardest fights like Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah. Our involvement would likely cause many of the people in those areas that are currently opposed to ISIS to side with ISIS since they would see us as a greater threat.

I think we keep doing what we are doing, but it will take time and cost money. There will be defeats along the way, but I think the Iraqis can push ISIS back. They did it in Bayji, Tikrit, and most recently Ramadi.

Very insightful. I hope that some of our politicians get this message but I do have to ask - your answer is focused on Iraq. Not sure if you are involved in the fight in Syria but if so, any thoughts as to whether the current approach is also working in that country?

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[FM-Whip]

Didn't think there were any OV-1's kicking around these days. Any references you can share? Not sure what advantage an OV-1 has compared to an OV-10 (or for that matter an A-29).

I can not add anything. You will not find references online. OV-1 doesn't have an advantage over an OV-10, it's just another twin turbined-engine platform that is similar to the OV-10 and that can do similar things, or haul an advanced EO package around.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

[nspreitler]

Very insightful. I hope that some of our politicians get this message but I do have to ask - your answer is focused on Iraq. Not sure if you are involved in the fight in Syria but if so, any thoughts as to whether the current approach is also working in that country?

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I haven't personally been involved with Syria, but I think Syria is far more complex. With militias we are working with, a government we are against, and ISIS I don' think there is anything to win in Syria. That doesn't mean it isn't important, because it is the same group that is in Iraq. We can't ignore Syria, because if we did that leaves ISIS in Iraq with a place to rearm and regroup (Cambodia during the Vietnam War). It is even more complicated with Russia being there. So I think we should be hitting ISIS in Syria to set the conditions in Iraq, but I don't expect a measurable win in Syria.

[G_Marcat_Italy]

When in the 80's the Usaf has evalutated the PIPER ENFORCER they should have go forward with the project

[11bee]

When in the 80's the Usaf has evalutated the PIPER ENFORCER they should have go forward with the project

Look at that big, unshielded exhaust. Inches from the cockpit. No vulnerability to IR SAMs there.

I'm partial to the Cessna Caravan. Multiple hardpoints for Hellfires, Griffins. Add on the required targeting and defensive gear and put an extra tank in the cabin to get longer loiter times. Best of all, it's a very basic airframe that the Iraqis should have no trouble maintaining.

I'd love to know the readiness rates for their F-16 fleet.

[82Whitey51]

Well, at least the USAF is on top of this CAS problem and searching/studying for a solution (F-35A???)...they should just look at ARC threads for expert advice and save themselves some time.

Disclaimer: Not a Tyler Rogoway authored piece.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-studying-future-attack-aircraft-options-422936/

[11bee]

Well, at least the USAF is on top of this CAS problem and searching/studying for a solution (F-35A???)...they should just look at ARC threads for expert advice and save themselves some time.

Disclaimer: Not a Tyler Rogoway authored piece.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-studying-future-attack-aircraft-options-422936/

Sorry but we can only discuss Tyler Rogway articles on this site.

[Exhausted]

Article 1 says in the fourth paragraph they are flown by a pair of naval aviators.

A Naval Aviator is anybody who got their wings in the Navy, Marine Corps or Coast Guard. That doesn't mean they are still in the active service. They could be retired, or former service, flying as a contractor.

[Exhausted]

This is strictly my personal opinion. We should keep doing what we are doing, and leave the ground fight to Iraq and Iraqi forces. The Iraqi forces fighting ISIS are the Iraqi military and militia forces. A lot of the militias are the same groups that fought us in OIF. My first tour was in Baghdad and most of the fighting was with Shia groups in Sadr City. Those groups are now militias with overt Iranian backing, and make up a big part of the ground force against ISIS. They don't like us, and won't work side by side with us in a ground fight. If we sent ground troops not only would we have an ISIS threat we would have a probably bigger threat from the Shia militias. For this to work and ISIS to fall Iraq has to come together under a common government, and our presence in force to do the ground fighting would make the Iraqi government appear weaker and a puppet of the US. That wouldn't be good for Iraq or us. We can advise, we can train, and we can provide air support. What we shouldn't do is send divisions, if we did a large portion of the groups that are now united fighting ISIS would turn against the Iraqi government and us. ISIS was able to take the areas they did because the Iraqi government was clearly sectarian and they were weak. The areas ISIS took over were the same areas we had some of the hardest fights like Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah. Our involvement would likely cause many of the people in those areas that are currently opposed to ISIS to side with ISIS since they would see us as a greater threat.

I think we keep doing what we are doing, but it will take time and cost money. There will be defeats along the way, but I think the Iraqis can push ISIS back. They did it in Bayji, Tikrit, and most recently Ramadi.

Dayum homie, that's real shht. Your opinion weighs heavily regarding CAS issues here. Iraq will never be a 'capture the flag' scenario because of ethnic divisions and power politics of ethnic suppression. It is absolutely imperative that we guide but not lead. No Iraqi government, short of a Saddam-style dictatorship, will be able to stand if we keep doing it for them. The Iraqi Civil War continues. I think the one thing against ISIS that could have been done better was putting the petty BS aside when the President asked Congress to support a wider role in Syria, but that boat has sailed.

You just stay safe brother.

[nspreitler]

Dayum homie, that's real shht. Your opinion weighs heavily regarding CAS issues here. Iraq will never be a 'capture the flag' scenario because of ethnic divisions and power politics of ethnic suppression. It is absolutely imperative that we guide but not lead. No Iraqi government, short of a Saddam-style dictatorship, will be able to stand if we keep doing it for them. The Iraqi Civil War continues. I think the one thing against ISIS that could have been done better was putting the petty BS aside when the President asked Congress to support a wider role in Syria, but that boat has sailed.

You just stay safe brother.

Thanks, Iraq is complicated and Syria is even more complicated.

With the OV-10, it is interesting that it went to fight ISIS. I thought it was a cool program when I heard about it in 2013. A light attack capability is certainly something that can be used in the current fight and in a lot of the potential conflicts.

[Gary Busey]

Boy howdy I sure can't wait for that victory parade led by OV-10s just like the ones in 1973!

[Joe Hegedus]

A Naval Aviator is anybody who got their wings in the Navy, Marine Corps or Coast Guard. That doesn't mean they are still in the active service. They could be retired, or former service, flying as a contractor.

Maybe just my take on it, but when I hear the crew described as "Naval Avaitors", that implies active duty. If they were retired/former service/contract, I'd expect the description to be either "former naval aviator" or maybe "contract pilot".

[Exhausted]

Not a bad take, but remember that since the beginning of Iraq in 2003 the US has purposely kept the involvement of contractors vague in order to downplay the real cost of the fighting. If the pilots were still active then who's authority did they fly under? Which unit?

[nspreitler]

Not a bad take, but remember that since the beginning of Iraq in 2003 the US has purposely kept the involvement of contractors vague in order to downplay the real cost of the fighting. If the pilots were still active then who's authority did they fly under? Which unit?

I don't know for sure, but I expect the pilots are military. Contractors for security is one thing, contractors for actual offensive operations in something else.

[niart17]

So who's up to grafting some kits and creating an OV-A-10? I think that could be an awesome what-if. Any takers?

Bill

[falcon20driver]

Oh, kind of looks like a skinny armed s-3 in my mind. That might be a future project.