Article

2007-10-22 Science & Technology

Air Force - A Day Late and a Dollar Short

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-10-22 11:41|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Thus there has not been a huge demand for SDB

Was just reading an article somewhere( wretchard's?) that said the Predator and its variants were going to carry the SDB. Capacity: 16, IIRC. Seems like a good fit. Is there something in current use that makes a good replacement for arming UAVs?

Posted by SteveS 2007-10-22 13:02|| 2007-10-22 13:02|| Front Page Top

#2 I thought the really interesting features of the SDB were its standoff range (60 miles?), increasing the safety factor for airstrikes on defended localities, its difficulty of interception - unlike cruise missiles, its not going to be easily shot down - plus the large number that could be carried, which offered the possibility of saturating air defenses - a dozen F-15's could drop hundreds of SDB's on an enemy airfield at once.

The article is correct about the large number of options available for counterinsurgency operations, but the really interesting features of the SDB apply to more conventional warfare like suppressing air defenses, or attacking airfields or ships in port.

Posted by buwaya 2007-10-22 13:55|| 2007-10-22 13:55|| Front Page Top

#3 The army has its own conflict, in that infantry units need what amounts to a light, direct fire cannon. But over a certain size, the artillery lays claim to cannon.

The round would be designed to penetrate fairly thick concrete. Unlike the M72 LAW, barrels would be multiple use, possibly bolt action.

The round itself could be 100 caliber or larger, with the bulk of the weapon devoted to recoil reduction. Barrel length would not be needed for long range accuracy, as with a 50 caliber rifle, but only long enough for suppressor equipment.

The purpose is to *quickly* deny enemy cover in an urban environment. Right now, it may be several minutes or longer after an enemy is known behind concrete cover to use air power or a heavier weapon to remove them.

But if that cover doesn't work, they will either have to leave immediately, or trust to luck that they don't get hit.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-10-22 14:21|| 2007-10-22 14:21|| Front Page Top

#4 SDBs and the Predator make a good fit. The Air Force is trying to get full control of all UAVs of any size. If the Army gets contol of Predator Q series it even further marginalizes the Air Force.

If you're in country with GPS Artillery and GPS MRLS, who needs F-15s standing off 60 miles away. Too expensive and too time sensitive to help the troops in need.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-10-22 14:49|| 2007-10-22 14:49|| Front Page Top

#5 GolfBravoUSMC, the AF already lost the battle for control of UAV development. In sort of a Pyrrhic victory, control of UAV development was pulled up to the DoD level and is now a purple suit function. The AF has been floundering about looking for a mission since the collapse of the Soviet Union (case in point is Cyber Command). The fighter pilot generals want to fill the skies with shiny new planes, F-22s, F-35s, C-17s, etc. That isn't going to happen. The AF has been getting steadily smaller since 1989 with no end in sight.

Posted by RWV 2007-10-22 15:28|| 2007-10-22 15:28|| Front Page Top

#6 The folks that don't think we will need F22, f35 forget that first you have to have control of the skies before all of the rest of the close air support stuff can be used. It may only be 3 days from the start but it is a critical 3 days. And if a quick response how do you think the troops, supplies & guns were transported to the fight? Gliders? Rockets? The Navy can't do it all.

I can't bring down arty fire if someone is blowing up my guns or spreading submunitions all over my TOC. And it's really hard to send numbers to the guns when someone has put shrapnel into my radios and I'm busy bleeding.

We won't always be fighting "insurgents".

Posted by Throger Thains8048 2007-10-22 15:46|| 2007-10-22 15:46|| Front Page Top

#7 There is certainly a place for the Air Force. I'm not sure it's orbiting F-22s and F-35s over Afgahnistan waiting for a support mission.

If you're talking about Iran, Syia, etc, They have to be taken down first and the AF is the outfit to do it.

You all may be aware of the story in Afgahnistan when a CH-46 load of Rangers went onto a mountain top to try to find a lost Seal. They got ambushed and were stuck on the mountain all day taking a beating from Talibunnies dug in at the top. It took time for the fast flyers to get there and then they could not be of complete help because the targets were danger close.

They made runs as close as they could but were called away leaving the Rangers pinned down. Finally a CIA Preditor happened by and took out the enemy bunker.

All I am saying is if we had the ground based GPS weapons availble at that time, how many brave men could have been saved.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-10-22 17:52|| 2007-10-22 17:52|| Front Page Top

#8 Throger Thains8048: I agree with you that in future war, the AF will not only be needed, but needed in numbers that haven't been seen since WWII.

Though the vast majority will be drone aircraft, once anybody makes a move towards drone aircraft, sheer numbers will once again come into play against quality. An F-16 might be able to engage six targets simultaneously, but what if there are twenty-five targets, all of whom are gunning for that F-16? And even if they are as cheap as a Toyota, each, and have only a machine gun, the F-16 can't stop them or even defend against them.

This, in turn means armadas of drones duking it out, with manned aircraft operating as a second echelon, taking out enemy drones that have penetrated the front.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-10-22 17:59|| 2007-10-22 17:59|| Front Page Top

#9 THere is still such a thing as "too many" separate armed services - "too many" is good for election-minded Pols but not good for War/Battle space Management and winning Victory. The day is coming when the USAF will lose control of tactical strike and airlift to the Army, and will be in charge of ICBM and LR heavy bomber [UAV] strategic strike, and prob OTH Global BMD. As America moves towards cheaper, effective, pervasive "Genius" unmanned technology, Amers should anticpate the curr separate armed services to become more unified/centralized and into top mgt-style strategic centricity. NO FIELD SOLDIERS, ONLY ROBO HANDLERS = REMOTE? OPERATORS, REPAIR TECHNICIANS. and ultimately only PAPER/BUREACRATIC-ADMIN "TOP MANAGERS". NOW LETS ALL BE GOOD OWG AMERIKANS OF THE MIGHTY WORLD CONQUERING USSA = WEAK ANTi-SOVEREIGN USR/GLOBAL SSR AND SING THE "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA/I, ROBOT" MOVIE THEME.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-10-22 18:48|| 2007-10-22 18:48|| Front Page Top

#10 Moose, those robots may win the war but men will still be required to win the peace as we have learned in both Iraq & Aphganistan. Reliance on tech (plus well trained men) rolled up the "formal" opposition but left us to learn how to deal with "informal" opposition.

In addition I think it will be a long time before the eyes on the ground, the combat engineers and all of those odd-ball specialties that require judgement are not required. I suspect "robots" will be specialized tools in their toolbox.

Of course, if you don't care where the blood, bones and debris land then robots will work fine.

Posted by Throger Thains8048 2007-10-22 23:20|| 2007-10-22 23:20|| Front Page Top

23:53 Verlaine
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:51 Verlaine
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:35 treo
23:32 Zhang Fei
23:32 Verlaine
23:24 Verlaine
23:23 Phinater Thraviger
23:20 Throger Thains8048
22:48 eLarson
22:45 eLarson
22:32 Glenmore
22:31 Barbara Skolaut
22:22 Glenmore
22:19 Glenmore
22:16 Barbara Skolaut
22:13 CrazyFool
22:02 Zenster
21:57 twobyfour
21:42 Frank G
21:41 Zenster
21:33 lotp