Otto--

The COIN mission needs to come back full bore for the war on terror.  There are several big questions--what is the mission?  what are the tactics? who needs it?  who owns the capability?  Is it integrated with the "host country"?  

The T 6 platform you have highlighted is an interesting starting point, recognizing that it is a trainer that is being converted into a tactical aircraft.  (but then, COIN has always been a "makeup" game).    I would like to encourage a discussion which starts with the ground warfighter (who may be indigenous) and what he needs in the way of ISR and precision fire support, how it gets integrated and immediately available to him?  

I don't see a warm reception for your concept with USAF or AFSOC.  The aircraft doesn't have a "burner",  isn't supersonic, and the pilot may have to deal with a few foreign languages to get the "stud" to drop the gear.  The genes necessary to press the COIN approach left the DNA of our military leadership a few generations ago.  

Otto,

Great start on a much needed capability.  Here is another idea.  Instead of a tandem seat rainer for the COIN CAS mission why not use something like the Cessna 208 Caravan or Pilatus PC-12.  Equip it like a gunship.  You can carry more firepower and more ammo plus take advantage of some of the COTS sensor packages.  When the aircraft is being used to scorch earth it can be earning it's keep winning hearts and minds.  This also provides cover.

Smokey

WSnumbers and Smokey,

Great posts!  This is exactly the kind of dialogue that serious folks need to have on a serious forum.  

WS I can't agree more with you, but I did want to throw my first brief out there to get the conversation going.  Our system has the combatant commander setting the requirements and the services filling them.  The USAF is not at all jumping at the prospect of smaller, cheaper, COIN support.

If you want to talk DNA of USAF leaders, check this out.  Of the 4-stars in the USAF, I counted 8 of 11 (I might have missed one) that flew single seat F-15's.  Of course, they also flew many other a/c and this is not any criticism of them personally, but as a service, the air to air mission has been preeminent for a long time.

Now Smokey, you are also right on as a utility a/c and the idea of a multi-use light a/c should definitely be pursued but I still see value in a light attack/ISR a/c with an ejection seat, especially for countries that don't need high end fighters. AFSOC already has the PC-12's (here www2.afsoc.af.mil/.../factsheet.asp ) and the Caravan looks like it's a great a/c too.

BTW,

two of those other 4-stars are worthy of note, General Lance Smith the JFCOM CO flew A-1's out of Naked Fanny (Nakhon Phanom RTAFB) and my old boss General Norty Schwartz as fine a SOF aviator who has ever strapped an airplane on, I just hope the system will still allow non air to air guys and gals to move up.

Otto, I'm with Smokey on using a Caravan for some of this, particularly as a small gunship.  Put a FLIR/ EO turret on it, stick a gun out the door, and you have something that is simple yet effective. (hey, wasn't this done before??)  One might even pack a rack of Hellfires onboard for those pesky moving targets.

Again, somebody's going to have to lay down mission and tactics, but I think a gunship has some advantages over a more conventional fixed wing attack craft, particularly in its ability to watch a ground target without interruption.  

I don't know what this would cost, but am guessing it's somewhat less than our $250M, AC 130 U-boats.  

Pingback from  counterinsurgency aircraft