Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?

[Kirkhill]

Just take a look at the Iran programme for a credible use of the USAF as a strategic force. Especially with the PGM standoff capability and the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses as well. 

In the G&M article Pike declares that the USAF isn't likely to be able to eliminate all the targets and that in another 10 years the Iranians will be right back where they are today.  I reckon that a "whackamole" sortie once every decade or so would be just about affordable enough to be able to repeat as necessary.  Long enough for the mullah's to eventually get the message.

The USAF as a Strategic Air Armada would seem to be appropriate.  The only problem that I see with that is that doesn't appear to work very well for the fighter community.  Much of the work would be done by Bomb Trucks, and not all of them need to be stealthy once the Air Defences are suppressed.  The B1s and the B52s are still getting a workout.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect by the next decade even the USAF will have a hard time getting most of their B-52's into the air, talk about getting good bang for the buck out of those airframes.

 

[a_majoor]

Not to mention the "Talon" jet trainer.

 

[rampage800]

Admittingly I haven't taken the time to read this entire thread but I'm not so sure we need a new a/c, Hornets just need a new pod ie. what we were in the process of getting, the SNIPER pod I believe.
Our pilots are still CAS capable but their hands are a little tied trying to look through that piece of junk called the NIGHTHAWK, been told its like looking at the target area through a straw.
My 2 cents

 

[spitty]

Ok... I'm sure this is not something the CF would buy. I'm simply curious.

The requirements listed in this thread included something "low and slow", dirt strip friendly, etc, not to mention dirt cheap, easy to mass produce and hopefully useful for something else, like crop dusting, highway patrol, and other assorted low altitude duties. It's cheaper per unit to build a few thousand of them. More fun for the rest of us too, since most of us will never get anywhere near the gazillion dollar kit currently in fashion. A reasonable target price would be $150,000 with no armour or weapons.

The best configuration for cheap, low, slow, and fantastically durable is a bi-plane. Something about 25 ft long, with a wing area of ~300ft2 designed for use under 5,000ft. With no armour and the "experimental" engines I've been looking at the weight is ~1000lbs, with an ideal weight of ~2,500lbs and max 3,500 - 4,000lbs to keep the wing loading reasonable and the handling easy. Light weight also keeps it street legal -- it won't damage roads or sink too far in mud. Plus with the wings detached you could tow it home with a Honda. Keeping the height and disassembled width under 9ft means you could fit a pair in a C130.

Best to use a fixed undercarriage for durability on rough strips. Wing loading less than 15 lbs per ft2. Modern steel frame with fabric covered wings and fuselage. Probably kevlar, something that resists tearing but allows larger small arms fire to pass right through.

I have seen such things fly. You could blow 3ft holes in the wings and it would stay up. They glide so well that engine failure is rarely fatal (it is legal to install uncertified engines in these), and they are so stable a 12 year old can fly one. Speed range is 50 - 175 knots. With 1,000lbs of armour it could carry a single 30mm ADEN Mk5 with 200 rounds or 3 250lb bombs, but not much more. Like I said, it all comes down to weight.

I don't know how much spotting gear / FLIR weighs. I should go look that up.

 

[Kilroy]

I think gunships/ armed reconnaissance helicopters would be of greater utility than fixed wing... that being said I would love to see some A10s with a maple leaf on them...

Now wouldn't that look sweet. Dang, anyone good with Photoshop?? I'd love to see what one WOULD look like.   

 

[geo]

Spitty - not in my lane but, why don't you look at the specs for the A10.  It's a titanium bathtub with wings.

Else... look at the specs for the Cobra or Apache gunships for weight distribution.

 

[a_majoor]

Looking at the requirments to fly low and slow off minimal airfields and FARP's I think the aviation art reached its peak near the end of WWII. Fighters and fighter/bombers could operate in these conditions and carry useful loads of weapons (multiple HMG's in the case of US planes, 20mm cannons for most UK designs and even a PAK-75 in the case of one German ground attack plane. Bombs and rockets were also carried in useful amounts).

The prime disadvantage of WWII era aircraft was either a lack of power, or growing to immense size when engines of sufficient size were fitted (i.e. the P-38 Lightning and the P-47 Thunderbolt). Only the P-51 Mustang seems to have evaded this trap, and even then the A-51 dive bomber which originated the line was a real dog with its low powered Allison engine.

Now the design parameters reached the post WWII apogee with the Skyraider (AKA "SPAD"), but an even better way ahead was developed into prototype form: a turboprop engine was fitted to a P-51 airframe to create the Piper "Enforcer".  This combined the speed and manouevrability of the P-51 with roughly double the payload. Less successful was the "Skyshark", which was a turboprop rendition of the Skyraider. Other turboprop COIN aircraft which did make it into production include the PUCARA and OV-10 Bronco.

You see where this is going; if we are looking for just COIN or CAS, then a turboprop powered "bomb truck" is the way to go. Since I am thinking there are both a limited amount of resources (pilots, ground crews, training bases among other things) and lots of other things we need combat aircraft to do, then a small, multi-role fighter/bomber with most of these attributes will suit our needs. Something like the JAS-37 Gripon seems to be the modern iteration of the CF-5, although more capable. Really high end aircraft like the F-35 are too expensive and resource intensive for our needs.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Spitty,

How would your biplane fair against Dishkas (12.7mm) and RPGs, not to mention 7.62mm rounds from any number of weapons?  Low and slow is one set of requirements that have been offered here, but I don't know if they are the official ones.

What kind of speed and range would this have with a useful payload?  Have you factored in all the aiming bits to your unit cost?

Cheers

 

[spitty]

Hi Thucydides. That's precisely where I'm coming from. I found this thread through a blog called The Torch and immediately thought of a guy in Australia who bought the Supermarine name and started making modern (civilian) kits -- 80% and later 90% scale reproductions of the Spitfire with 6 cylinder Isuzu engines. This was a while ago, and I've been thinking about it on and off ever since.

Air superiority requires very new, sophisticated, and impossibly expensive machines that require extensive training to fly and large crews to maintain. We have a bomb truck / fighter in the CF18. I started thinking about the revival of old brands like the Spitfire (a phenomenon similar to the old mini-cooper / new mini-cooper cars) and possible uses for a light cheap ground attack plane that even Canada could field a few hundred of easily. Large numbers of cheap easy to fly planes would make the Air Force a lot more fun and allow larger numbers of reserve pilots to spend their weekends in the air.

I started with the WWII aircraft like the Spitfire and P51. I am especially fond of the Spitfire, and chose spitty as a username because that is where I started. I gave up on that idea for a couple of reasons. The biggest was the wingspan and power needed to keep a heavy monoplane in the air at low speeds. Monoplanes like the Spitfire and P51 were designed as interceptors -- they were as fast as possible and notoriously short-legged. Their optimum speed and maneuverability were too fast and too high up.  The P51 was a good tank killer, but there getting in and out quickly was a good thing. We have newer better planes for that now. Monoplanes like the A10 need a proper airfield and freakin' huge wings. There is no way I can see that the slender wings of a Spitfire could be armoured to protect all the various gear inside them -- landing gear, guns, and sometimes extra fuel tanks. This problem is overcome in the A10 with a lot of power and weight and expense. The A10's cannon alone is heavier than an entire Spitfire with a 200lb pilot and full tanks of gas.

The bi-plane hasn't been used as a British military aircraft since the late 30s. Bi-planes were never designed as interceptors. In WWI they patrolled roads or would loiter over the trenches looking for targets of opportunity. They dropped 20-25lb frag grenades, strafed targets on the ground with Vickers .303 machine guns, and acted as spotters for artillery. The more I read up on them, the more I liked them. The design seemed much better suited for putting an infantryman on patrol 200 ft up with a heavy machine gun, some large frag granades, and maybe a single bomb, 30mm anti-tank cannon or anti-tank missile -- all for very low cost. I said earlier that these could make the Air Force more fun  -- I have to add that I don't see this as an Air Force role, not really. An infantry patrol's bullet magnet / spotter / machine gun 200-500 feet up is more what I had in mind. Something that can run on the same fuel as other vehicles, and which comes in at no more than 50% of the LAVIII's 10,000lb tow rating became design goals.  I live in a trailer ('68 Avion T-28) and for civilian purposes on good roads I would avoid pulling more than 75% of a vehicles' rated gross combined weight. Hence a maximum 5,000lbs or 50% of the LAVIII tow rating published on Wikipedia. I don't know if the LAV even has a hitch or not, but I wanted it to be a possibe to drag one home if necessary. A $250,000 price tag is another design goal.

A biplane design adds about 20% lift and a lot more drag. I've looked at quite a few of the old ones. There may be some older guys around who trained on Tiger Moths. It and the Stearman were too small. Too little payload. There was a torpedo bomber called the Fairey Swordfish, which I thought was too big, but which was very versatile and popular. It's pilots called it the Stringbag (like the old mesh bags women used to shop with) because it took on so many roles. My favourite -- the Bristol Bulldog -- was discontinued because it could not keep up with the newer monoplane bombers it was supposed to be defending against. They saw no combat as British fighters, but were used by the Finns during the Winter War largely in a ground attack role. A biplane has optimal maneuverability at slow speeds and low altitudes and can take off from much shorter, rougher runways. These are barnstorming machines. A bi-plane needs less power (more fuel efficient at low speeds) and can be fitted out with one of the newer diesel / multi-fuel rotaries that are just coming onto the market, or failing that with a converted car or truck engine. The Renesis out of a Mazda RX8 would do in a pinch. The heavy steel framed Bulldog had 440hp, a lot less than the 1200hp Spitfire and a lot more than its lighter wooden frame antecedents. Today's engines get much more power per pound than they did in 1936. The original Bulldog has a maximum take-off weight of 3,400lbs and weighted 2,200lbs empty. With newer materials and engine technology I am hoping it might be possible to add armour and keep the 1,200lb payload.

An original Bristol Bulldog, 609 Squadron RAF​

An ADEN Mk5 with 150 rounds weighs 800lbs according to Wikipedia. An M18 minigun with a few thousand rounds would likely weight about the same. I did some quick googling for FLIR and I found several cheap mount-anywhere infra-red or night vision cameras which could be mounted along with a gun and hooked up to an LCD panel in the cockpit. Cheap, simple, and less than 5lbs. As I understand it the Army also has some sort of laser pointing device which is used to guide artillery or smart bombs over the radio. I don't know what it weighs but I expect it might fit.

Flying one of these on a patrol down an Afghani highway would attract a lot of fire. It's going to be a bullet magnet. It is also slow and steady but maneuverable enough to shoot back at a single person on the ground with. The more I looked at it, the more I thought that a bi-plane could be made survivable at less cost and weight than a monoplane, and much much cheaper than a helicopter. The low speed and extra wing area mean that engine failure (or the prop shot off) is usually non-fatal. It glides well. Skipping the ejection seat in favour of automotive airbags is a possibility.

The most common threats (from my own limited reading) are small arms fire, RPG rounds, MANPADS, and anti-aircraft cannon like the ZSU.

The wings and most of the fuselage would contain nothing but air or styrofoam. Small arms or cannon fire would pass right through, leaving holes in the skin or even in one of the beams. A MANPAD missile or RPG would do far more damage. These are almost all explosive / fragmenting warheads, and these go fast enough to pass through the wing completely. Careful design of the interior structure should allow a couple of fair sized holes to be blown in the wings without it falling out of the sky. The fabric and other materials should resist tearing as much as possible. Careful location of the exhaust plume might mitigate the danger from some of the most common infra-red MANPADS. The Bulldog has most of the features from the last years of the biplane era: the top wing is much larger than the lower wing, and they are staggered slightly. The top wing does most of the lifting. The lower wings should be designed to take explosive hits without (much) damage to the top wing.

The only part of a bi-plane that would need to be armoured is the roughly 3ft x 5ft engine / cockpit / fuel tank at the front of the plane. I'm not sure at this point how well armoured. If a 30mm cannon can cut through a tank's shell then I don't see a small biplane stopping one. Armour enough to deflect a fragmenting RPG or MANPAD missile and small arms fire might be possible at a reasonable weight. Stopping a 30mm anti-tank cannon or anti-tank RPG round would be harder if not impossible, but to be fatal these would have to hit the pilot or ignite the fuel. Extra plating at the floor and firewall combined with a V shaped bottom and rear might do it. As always, it is a trade off.

Call me crazy, it looks to me like a very interesting engineering and design problem. I like those. The Bristol brand is now owned by BAe. Dunno if they would want toi build it or sell the name.

 

[rampage800]

Spitty

I'm not shooting down your ideas but theres a few more factors at play in CAS then just shooting up the bad guys. As was noted earlier what is this plane going to have for "play time" ?, how is it going to guide PGMs or drop JDAMs ? (that laser you talked about is an actual IR pointer not a LTD), what about pilot protection and survivability ? what about payload ? (your minigun will be good for about 2 passes before winchester), how are you going to hook a pod up to it to make it ROVER capable ?
Anyhow its a legit idea but I think were just trying to re-invent the wheel here, take the money invested in this, buy some new pods and were good.

 

[spitty]

Spitty

I'm not shooting down your ideas but theres a few more factors at play in CAS then just shooting up the bad guys. As was noted earlier what is this plane going to have for "play time" ?, how is it going to guide PGMs or drop JDAMs ? (that laser you talked about is an actual IR pointer not a LTD), what about pilot protection and survivability ? what about payload ? (your minigun will be good for about 2 passes before winchester), how are you going to hook a pod up to it to make it ROVER capable ?
Anyhow its a legit idea but I think were just trying to re-invent the wheel here, take the money invested in this, buy some new pods and were good.

Hi rampage,

Play time depends on the engine, weight and fuel capacity. The original 1927 Mark II model had a range of 275 miles, or ~3 hours of play time cruising at highway speeds (80-90MPH). ie not enough. It's hard to calculate play time in a new version without knowing some of the other details first. I know that endurance is a big concern.

I have no idea how guidance systems work (as you can tell). Something this small can't carry JADAMs they are large & need to be dropped from higher altitudes if I'm not mistaken. That's what B52s are for. Thucydides started this thread talking about something small, light, and capable of operating without a proper airfield, even from a FOB, so that limits the options. A ROVER would be most excellent. When I looked up the cameras I wondered how hard it would be to feed the camera to a Panasonic Toughbook on the ground (I know, I know, it's civilian tech, but it's what I have access to). Biplanes were often used as spotters -- I tend to see that as the main role. Its ability to bounce rocks would likely be better than a UAV but still very limited for all that. Wiring up military grade spotting and targeting equipment is not something this civilian would have any clue how to do, and every airforce has their own gear -- they don't come from a factory with that stuff, do they? The approximate weight and bulk would determine if existing systems could be used. x number of feet of usable space in the fuselage behind the armoured pilot & engine pods and a capacity for y weight. I don't know about those things. Where OPSEC is a concern I'd rather not know.

My first question was about the thickness and weight per ft2 of a commonly used armour I saw mentioned elsewhere. I was told it's a secret. Such a craft would be a big bullet magnet, so pilot protection would be a paramount concern. If that won't work then it's time to drop the idea and move on to something else.

Don't worry about shooting down ideas. Posting in this forum is the fastest way I can think of to determine if it's completely stupid or merely half-baked.

 

[McG]

What of something completely different?
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2004/07/05/daily3.html

 

[karl28]

Here is my thought on a possible candidate for close air support .  I am most defiantly not an expert on the topic but if we are going for a older new version of an aircraft thinking than why not something that is already in service such as the hawk

BAE Systems  CT-155  Hawk  (115)  –  NFTC  ‘Advanced’ Trainer
Crew: 2  Dimensions: Span  9.94m x  Length  12.43m x  Height  3.98m
Performance: max. speed  1000km/h, ceiling 1372m, range 2622km [4]
Weights: empty 4442 kg, gross 9100kg, MTOW 9100kg, land n/a kg
Powerplant:  26.6  kN  Rolls-Royce Turbomeca  Adour  871  turbofan
[4] The CT-155 has seven hard points including wing pylons, two of latter being plumbed for twin external fuel tanks (590L capacity each

The way I would see it is the F-18 would be used as a pure air dominance fighter and the Hawk would handle all the CAS .

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Spitty,

Protecting a pilot in a slow bi-plane is going to be a problem.  From being involved in a couple of TUAV recoveries gone wrong I also would not bet on a soft crash-landing.

Some of the things you are describing can be seen to some extent in the various UAVs out there.  The Spitfire had her moment of glory. 

If CAS means that an expensive plane gets to me in five minutes no matter where I am and drops a JDAM from heights unseen then I'm cool with that.  If CAS means I have to wait for Snoopy's plane to arrive overhead and then get shot down I'd rather not have the help.  Adding a downed pilot rescue to the grouping and task matrix during the firefight is not helping.

Some of these low-tech planes would be very suitable for the airforce of a developing nation.

 

[rampage800]

Spitty

First of all I'm not sure of your background at all or anything but you do have a pretty good imagination and a better grasp on the working of the ROVER than you actually think you do,lol, it does indeed use the Toughbook, theres a little more to it than you describe but you're in the ballpark, I'm not sure whats on the Internet about it but I won't go any further.
WRT JDAMs your a bit off, there are smaller ones now, the GBU-39 SDB comes to mind, and they can be released from "lower" altitudes but once again I'm not sure how much of it is open source and I really don't feel like looking right now so I'll leave it at that too.
A plane though that is too small to carry much of a payload isn't going to be of much use to the SAC/JTAC on the ground and as T2B posted, a downed pilot only hampers the situation, a plane showing up with only guns, except in a X or E-CAS situation would probably just add to the confusion of deconflicting airspace.
I guess one other thing that hasn't been mentioned is the ability of this supposed a/c to be night capable...........a CAS platform that only flies daylight is...well......shortsighted.
My 2 cents.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

What of something completely different?
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2004/07/05/daily3.html

The concept of a tilt-rotor replacement for both the AH-1 and AV-8 in Marine Corps service has been tossed around for sometime, so that they're actually going to be spending some money on development doesn't surpise me at all.  It could turn out to be a very interesting concept; Range and speed of a conventional fixed wing aircraft, with the ability to hover like a helicopter, combined with the armaments and targeting systems of an attack helicopter.

 

[spitty]

Spitty,

How would your biplane fair against Dishkas (12.7mm) and RPGs, not to mention 7.62mm rounds from any number of weapons?  Low and slow is one set of requirements that have been offered here, but I don't know if they are the official ones.

What kind of speed and range would this have with a useful payload?  Have you factored in all the aiming bits to your unit cost?

Cheers

I don't know if they are accurate or not, but the specs I found for the A10 "bathtub" is 1/2" - 1 1/2" titanium with a kevlar spall shield. It is said to be capable of taking multiple hits from a 23mm (is that the ZSU?) and weighs 900lbs. The weight is doable. I found a supplier in Germany selling .5 to 45mm sheets and plates. 1 1/2" is 38mm. If it doesn't have to be some secret alloy it might do. The weights are similar.

Tango: The idea is to have a Snoopy to take with, not wait for. And to patrol those carefree highways. The original could do 175MPH, that's not much slower than the A10. You're right about the poor countries. I figured something like this could be left behind for the ANA. Might be useful for highway and border patrol (if the range is good enough).

rampage: I've been trying to figure out what kind of armour is needed or possible. No point worrying about electronics if the thing won't fly or stay up under fire. If it can't handle getting shot at at least as well as an A10 then there's no point, is there?

Who am I? Why am I here? I'm new and I never did introduce myself.

I'm a Currie. No relation to Aurthur, but our families come from the same county in N. Ireland and both run long on schoolteachers writers and science geeks.

I started out in the computer industry as a laptop repair guy at OTA (College & Bathurst, Toronto) in 1994. Before that I was a hobbyist. Entirely self-taught. The guy who hired me became a good friend and mentor. He now works for the DND but we are no longer on speaking terms. Long story short: he thinks I did his wife. Back then the coolest toy ever was the GRiD, a laptop developed for the first gulf war. I loved that thing. The first Toughbook came out a year or so later. I'm more of a software guy now, into wireless (cellular mostly) networking, XML, WCAG. I was an IBM guy for years, mostly OS/2 and later Lotus Domino. I'm a perennial hobbyist.  I'm the kind of guy who will spend two weeks figuring out how to use a well directed Hunt's Spaghetti Sauce can to extend free 802.11b wireless internet to a cute blonde's house two miles down the road. Yep. Inventive *and* stupid. I want to build one of those Spitfires for myself. I'm running OpenBSD on a 12" iBook G3 right now (that's my laptop). Couldn't afford the Toughbook, so I got four dead iBooks off eBay and built two that work. The blonde has three kids and they are expensive. I read the family law act when I was a kid, and decided never to marry until it was repealed. No kids. Only mistresses and none of them marriageable. I've been wanting to start playing with radar for years now but it's highly illegal for a civilian. I'd be better off growing weed in the front yard.

I like toys. I heard you guys needed stuff, like a CAS aircraft. Right now I'm into restoring an old Avion all-aluminum travel trailer (and hopefully soon a truck camper). It's a silver twinkie, sort of like an Airstream only better built. So far it's good to -15C. Water pipes and the water heater are the weak spots temperature wise. When I'm done I'm going to tow it to Tuktuyuktuk in February and camp out for a few days. And not freeze to death. The Dempster is my favourite highway. A childhood friend designed this year-round trailer recently. It's awesome. Since I started following news from Afghanistan I've had recurring dreams about building an armoured trailer similar in size to an Airstream Bambi. Fridge, stove, real dishes and a potty. Roof-top solar & satellite internet, large batteries, 25 gallons of water and a hot shower. Four bunks for hauling journalists/wounded as necessary. I'd call it the "Crusty" after a certain columnist. I'm starting a 7 month RV Technician course in September, if they let me in. My marks are terrible. I'm not fond of Marxists, and I like to argue. Not a good combination in a state-run university. My GPA at King's College / Dalhousie is 2.0. I dropped out (Classics / Economics) in '94 1/2 credit short of a BA. Not my finest moment. I do better when I read up and teach myself, and I don't feel so bad about it any more. When some asshat tries to put a Marxist/lefty spin on The Pelopennesian War and ignore everything else we know of Hellenic culture it's not a bad thing to call him on it. Is it? Thucydides? With hindsight I feel kind of bad for my profs. They always seemed surprised when a student actually read and remembered the assigned books.

I live on Vancouver Island. Lots of older guys here. My neighbour drove a Cromwell tank, my other neighbour flew a variety of bombers. The Legion is lively. In my spare time I drive a 1990 Nissan taxi -- the only one in this small town. The other day I drove an old guy in a wheelchair around.  His name is Arty. He's been in that chair since the Korean War and at the end of the ride he wants to give *me* a tip. Chokes me up sometimes if I think about it. We have the same argument every time I drive him home from the Legion.

My Dad served on the Lanark. My step-dad flew Banshees off the Bonaventure. He tells great stories. Nobody knows what my Grandfather did, he was always off on "training missions" and when the war ended he joined the Toronto Argonauts. He died young. I never heard his stories. I have his medals and a few pictures. His father was an officer with the Lieutenant Governor's Horse Guards in Toronto. I have his sabre and a few pictures. There is an officer's training college sitting where his house and the stables used to be. I went to elementary school a few blocks away, at Armour Heights. His father died in WWI. Beyond that I won't say. It would take too much time. My mom's side is French. Been here since 1615.

My kid brother wants to be a combat engineer. He's 20, almost 300lbs and is having trouble passing the physical. He played center in high school football, refused scholarships to McGilll and Queens. He has been bulking up since he was 14. He can lift anything but can't run far enough fast enough. I think he'll get in if he keeps up with the endurance training. Me.... I'm too old now (almost 40) and they weren't hiring in the early 90s, not with my low marks and poor eyesight. I'm more of a mad hillbilly inventor than a soldier in any case. I am an associate member of the Legion (in Wilberforce, Ontario). Every man I looked up to and emulated as a kid was at one time a member of the Canadian Forces. If there is now some need then I will do whatever is in my limited power to fill it.

If there is equipment needed I don't expect the CF will be very quick to build it or buy it. I've seen "government" computer systems. They suck and cost double what everyone else would pay. I can find people who can design and build damned near anything. Dad's old company had some pretty good engineers and my step dad worked at Indal after the Bonny was paid off. I'd donate stuff to the CF, if it's needed badly enough.

Come to think of it... how much does an A10 cost? If private citizens came up with the dough would it be possible to buy one and donate it? Could you keep one flying?

Bah. This is waaaay off topic. I've had too much whisky just sitting here typing. I'm drunk and it's time to turn in.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Spitty,

Open source Specs are admittedly dodgy, but the A-10 is given a cruise speed roughly twice your plane's speed.  If you wanted one of these over every platoon or convoy's head you would a large number of airframes and aircrew.  Again, some of things you are talking about are good for a UAV and that is an area in which I believe there is much promise. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If CAS means I have to wait for Snoopy's plane to arrive overhead and then get shot down I'd rather not have the help. 

OK now that was f'n funny.