Jump to content

Operating Aircraft in austere conditions


junglierating

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if an attack aircraft, like A-10 got a place in modern airwar.

Sure, you can watch plenty of "Tubes" with guys squirting rounds, or bombing some nomads in far-away mountains.

Yet try this with a properly lead and armed, modern column of army vehicles, which should be stacked with AA stuff.

And I'm not talking about Russians in Ukraine right now.

Did they try to "use it" against column of US Army?

Il-2, 36 thou+ produced, mostly to cover losses, which in low level sorties were horrendous.

Zig

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rob Lyttle said:

I remember thinking that 40 mile convoy /traffic jam was a dream come true for any and every A10 pilot. But I don't think the US has ever supplied one to any other airforce or nation . And who could blame them?? 

When you consider the capability and sheer firepower of the beast, are you going to take the slightest risk of it ever being used against you? 

They will supply F 16 and 18, and this and that fancy piece of expensive aircraft, but when it comes to the A10 it's "whoa, buddy, we don't sell them!" 

John, I think you should build a kit and learn to love it. Every design element is derived from the function of the whole thing, and most essentially that GAU gatling gun.

By the time you've finished I think you'll love it 😎Personally I'd recommend the Indiana ANG Blacksnakes nose art and decor. It is Bad to the Bone!! 

But I don't think they are going to be touring in Ukraine any 

 

The US never exported the A-10 simply because nobody was interested in buying the type! South Korea for a while looked into a possible purchase but in the end they decided it would have been a waste of money. There never was any export restriction on the A-10, simply nobody else wanted them. The A-10 is a very specialised aircraft that can do one thing only and generally need certain conditions. The USAF can afford to keep a single-role aircraft in service but most other air forces do not have the money to field types only suited to a narrow range of missions. That's all, there never was any secret reason for the lack of export success of the A-10.

 

If the Ukrainians had A-10s it would make no difference, the Russians generally have air superiority above the frontline and an aircraft like the A-10 can't operate freely in such conditions. The USAF have always used the type in conditions of total air superiority, that makes the threat of enemy fighters irrilevant, a very different situation. 

The Russian Su-25s are operating in conditions of air superiority above the frontline, so they at least have little to worry about enemy fighters. Of course they still suffer losses because the Ukrainians have a good number of SAMs. 

 

Similar comments apply to the Il-2: the type was built in huge numbers and was a great success but also suffered terribile losses and many German pilots tallied dozen of victories over the type.  It can also be debated if an Il-2 was in the end so much more effective than a Typhoon or a P-47 or  Fw.190 used in a fighter-bomber role.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, Giorgio N, but, the same time, I reckon, that in modern army, it does not matter if there is air superiority, or not.

Low level attack aircraft (or helicopters) will always be vulnerable to a small guy with modern, shoulder mounted, AA rocket.

Every man & his dog sending them to Ukraine right now. Well, nothing like a testing in the field, ay?

Z

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zigster said:

You're right, Giorgio N, but, the same time, I reckon, that in modern army, it does not matter if there is air superiority, or not.

Low level attack aircraft (or helicopters) will always be vulnerable to a small guy with modern, shoulder mounted, AA rocket.

Every man & his dog sending them to Ukraine right now. Well, nothing like a testing in the field, ay?

Z

I disagree ....depends what the manpad guidance system is ,depends in skill of the operator and if you cant see it it kinda makes things difficult ...low level low flying targets in marginal weather are incredibly hard to hit plus if the aircraft has an defensive aids suite that helps too.

RPK being simple are quite good at hitting targets but again the projectile has to be in the same bit of sky as the target .....few helos were downed in Afghanistan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logistic nightmare of forward operating aircraft is something we trained for at length when I was flying just a few short years ago. One of the Chinook Helicopter's not-often mentioned capabilities is a mission called "Fat Cow". We load three 800 gallon fuel tanks inside with a pumping station and can become a mobile fueling station anywhere any time. Often we would train with two aircraft, one pumping, one going back to the rear to get another load of fuel. This capability is often used in the real world here in America fighting wildfires in the western states. We can reduce turn-around time for "mission birds" significantly by reducing the distance to the fight.

 

There are also C&C pallets that can be rolled into a Chinook. Effectively being able to put up a control tower anywhere, anytime, and able to "bug-out" just as quickly as we got there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a couple pictures that I plucked from wikimedia that shows a Fat Cow mission in Lithuania in 2015:

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

...you can see the fuel lines stretched out to the taxiway, forming two fueling points. The second aircraft is either another fuel aircraft, providing another 2400 gallons of fuel, or could also be configured for re-arm duties with ammo/rockets at hand, or as a communications platform.

 

And an old brochure (from the year 2010) from the manufacturer of the ERFS system showing who was then using them:

 

http://www.robertsonfuelsystems.com/pdf/aircraft/brochure_44_ch-47_erfs_ii.pdf

Edited by RainierHooker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rob Lyttle said:

I remember thinking that 40 mile convoy /traffic jam was a dream come true for any and every A10 pilot. But I don't think the US has ever supplied one to any other airforce or nation . And who could blame them?? 

I'd think that even in this badly orchestrated 40 mile convoi air defence would be rel. strong. Add to that the need to take off and return back to somwhere.... hard to imagine Ukraine airforce being capable of that with Rusdian overwhelming airpower.

It us not that US Awacs and F-15 would protect those A-10s continously.... 

But if yes... than the A-10s would be perfect for this... or B-52s carpet bombing like in the Iraqi Highway of Death in Desert Strom...

Ukraine has nowhere were to really fall back to... :( all within Russian reach...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RainierHooker said:

The logistic nightmare of forward operating aircraft is something we trained for at length when I was flying just a few short years ago. One of the Chinook Helicopter's not-often mentioned capabilities is a mission called "Fat Cow". We load three 800 gallon fuel tanks inside with a pumping station and can become a mobile fueling station anywhere any time. Often we would train with two aircraft, one pumping, one going back to the rear to get another load of fuel. This capability is often used in the real world here in America fighting wildfires in the western states. We can reduce turn-around time for "mission birds" significantly by reducing the distance to the fight.

 

There are also C&C pallets that can be rolled into a Chinook. Effectively being able to put up a control tower anywhere, anytime, and able to "bug-out" just as quickly as we got there.

So thats a FARP ...forward refuelling and arming point....got a dit about that .....🤣

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, junglierating said:

So thats a FARP ...forward refuelling and arming point....got a dit about that .....🤣

Yes, a “Fat Cow”, is a FARP, but not all FARPs are “Fat Cows”.

 

the distinction is that Fat Cow allows the FARP to be continuously moving. Whereas most FARPs tend to be stationary on a Forward Operating Base (FOB) or Combat Outpost (COP) and are largely dependent on ground based tankers. This is a pretty big distinction as it allows a much more fluid approach, such as with highway based airfields or landing strips set up on unimproved fields. Also, we can set up or break down in less than ten minutes. It’s hard for the other guy to target an airfield that just got up and left.

Edited by RainierHooker
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RainierHooker said:

Yes, a “Fat Cow”, is a FARP, but not all FARPs are “Fat Cows”.

 

the distinction is that Fat Cow allows the FARP to be continuously moving. Whereas most FARPs tend to be stationary on a Forward Operating Base (FOB) or Combat Outpost (COP) and are largely dependent on ground based tankers. This is a pretty big distinction as it allows a much more fluid approach, such as with highway based airfields or landing strips set up on unimproved fields. Also, we can set up or break down in less than ten minutes. It’s hard for the other guy to target an airfield that just got up and left.

Similar concept of ops with Junglie squadrons with the help of a tame crab 🦀 chinook....only APFC (fuel b###@$ks) are underslung....problem with chinook is that whilst they can shift 3 at a time ....they aint dainty and trust me if they land the wrong way up you cant shift 'em....enter a Sea king or Merlin to put them the right way up.....we still move after say 24 hours only sounds like you have a dedicated flying tanker....such is the advantage of a huge military.

Still just shows the adaptability and the importance of good logistical back to the pointy end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logistic is the main problem in any war. No matter if it is fuel or anything else.

If I reconsider the Iraq war, the wars in Israel, or in the past WW2 on russian soil.

The logistic & required manpower must be there. And you must probide such a system over a time periode you never know before hand.

If you built up a system like Swiss, Sweden or Finnland it may work. A short time just, until the backbone is broken.

 

Actually each system can be hit. There is absolut no way out.

The bigger the system so more less efficient. More easy vulnerable.

 

The major problem I see in the past: developement of aircraft system so complicated and sofisticated that it is simple impossible to feed them.

Be reslistic: Consider the wonder aircraft F-35. How to act with this in such auster condition. Even the exchange of spare parts is not possible!

 

I say, it is a self made trap, by designing systems far away from hard rwality!

 

Happy modelling 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armchair generals discuss tactics. real generals discuss logistics.  Of the five items Eisenhower credited with winning WW2, only one was a weapon.

 

However, if you wish to survive, let alone win, in a sophisticated environment, you must build sophisticated weaponry.  Having a rough-field capability widens your possibilities, but does not allow for continuous operations for the logistics reasons described.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2022 at 11:22 PM, rob Lyttle said:

John, I think you should build a kit and learn to love it. Every design element is derived from the function of the whole thing, and most essentially that GAU gatling gun.

By the time you've finished I think you'll love it 😎Personally I'd recommend the Indiana ANG Blacksnakes nose art and decor. It is Bad to the Bone!! 

But I don't think they are going to be touring in Ukraine any time soon 

 

 

I may just do that, thanks  - I find it a good way to get a better feel for the machine. The design intention of replaceable exchangeable parts was impressive. I don't know how well that turned out by the production phase !  (Often good intentions in Conceptual Design have to be sidestepped due to Detail Design level constraints, and costs...)

 

John B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/19/2022 at 8:35 PM, junglierating said:

.depends what the manpad guidance system is ,depends in skill of the operator and if you cant see it it kinda makes things difficult ...low level low flying targets in marginal weather are incredibly hard to hit plus if the aircraft has an defensive aids suite that helps too.

RPK being simple are quite good at hitting targets but again the projectile has to be in the same bit of sky as the target .....few helos were downed in Afghanistan 


Generally correct, but the risk management/mitigation factors associated with those threats can make compelling arguments.

 

You can plan to fly the best route with the best TTPs for avoidance of those threats, but can any commander/aircrew truly know what threat weapons are where, and in what quantities?

Added to that, what if the only aircraft shot down happens to be carrying an infantry section, or food/fuel, or is seconds away from executing a critical CAS action for troops in contact?

Plus, while TTPs and countermeasures can improve chances of survival - and ultimately, mission success - they can never guarantee it!

 

In many instances, even the presence of MANPADS or HMG-armed combatants is enough to force a political and/or military rethink - if not a scrub, for some sorties. (think of Russian airmobile ops near Kyiv).

It’s one thing to consider an overall likelihood of engagement/shoot down as ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ low, but it’s another, to gamble overall mission/objective success and attrition - plus lives and mission creep - on what is often a medium-to-low confidence assessment on the likelihood of enemy strength/success.

 

Admittedly, one doesn’t cancel an air war because the enemy’s where you don’t want them to be, but by the same token, one must be careful to not get too blasé with an assumption of success  and enemy shortfalls in all operating areas.


Welcome to the compromise (or, should I say, headache) that is mission planning!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weeks passed on this thread, but I will stand by my opinion, that any low flying AC does not have much chance to survive.

In the modern battlefield, I meant.

I think, USAF recognized that long time ago, they were fighting (more- or less) anti guerrilla wars.

Try that against army saturated with "on shoulder AA missile".

It is a matter of getting resources. What "they" saying, Ukr got to much, and using  very expensive rockets to bang a truck.

Who cares, they got them free (sorry -paid by taxpayers of the donors)!

Yet, it is a modeling forum, and I like all those COIN themes😀

Zig

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Since the last post here it's become clear that this is becoming the first drone war. Drones operate from austere fields, in fact fields. 

The abortive river crossing that looks like a repeat of the Falaise gap massacre was probably led by drones, accurate artillery fire and possibly killer drones. 

People are talking about the demise of the tank but we might also be seeing the demise of manned close air support.

 

I  also saw a video of four tanks tens of kilometres behind the front line being knocked out by artillery using a laser designator on the watching drone. 

 

Cheap and cheerful battlefield drones are the future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2022 at 6:11 PM, junglierating said:

So thats a FARP ...forward refuelling and arming point....got a dit about that .....🤣

I feel the sarcasm force is strong in this one Skywalker..........

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, noelh said:

Since the last post here it's become clear that this is becoming the first drone war. Drones operate from austere fields, in fact fields. 

The abortive river crossing that looks like a repeat of the Falaise gap massacre was probably led by drones, accurate artillery fire and possibly killer drones. 

People are talking about the demise of the tank but we might also be seeing the demise of manned close air support.

 

I  also saw a video of four tanks tens of kilometres behind the front line being knocked out by artillery using a laser designator on the watching drone. 

 

Cheap and cheerful battlefield drones are the future.

It is amazing how these things are changing the battlefield, it will be interesting to see how forces look to counter this development, and how these developments shoot off into the Civilian sphere.  You can be sure some smart boys and girls are having bright ideas as we speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2022 at 12:26 AM, PLC1966 said:

it will be interesting to see how forces look to counter this development


The kids today probably haven’t heard of All Arms Air Defence - what’s old will be made new again!

 

VW_3LVrt03Oz81d60FzvyvLiG-Mbph3HeQbrRVCH

 

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that what the Americans  call  the  'golden BB'. In the war museum in Hanoi is a roughly made gun allegedly use by a simple  peasant farmer to shoot down an American bomber. Yesssss, very  plausible.😗

 

The problem with drones is their  small size. From several videos it's clear the people  below are simply unaware of their presence. The bigger, Global Hawk type drones are vulnerable to  AA missiles. But  not the smallest drones. I saw a video where  a Ukranian soldier mentioned it was the kids operating the drones. The PlayStation generation. In fact several  video games almost predicted this.

 

So when  you interrupt your teenagers telling them they're wasting their lives playing video games. You're wrong, they're preparing for the next war.😔

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...