WI/Feasibility of "Tactical Air Groups"

Found an article written just after the 1991 Gulf War where the author argued in favor of multi-plane "Tactical Air Groups" in place of the old single-type squadrons and wings.

Leaving the V/STOL claims of the author aside, what's the feasibility of this, and what PODs could make such a force structure occur, however implausibly?
 
Current NATO practice includes launching "strike packages" that include a variety of airplanes from different squadrons. For example, to bomb an ISIL headquarters, they need a few bombers, some Forward Air Controllers, some Wild Weasels (to distract enemy AAA), Combat Search and Rescue helicopters, tankers, photo-recce, AWACS, etc. with spy satellites and drones overhead. Assembling a complex strike package is hard work for staff officers.
 

Caspian

Banned
Current NATO practice includes launching "strike packages" that include a variety of airplanes from different squadrons. For example, to bomb an ISIL headquarters, they need a few bombers, some Forward Air Controllers, some Wild Weasels (to distract enemy AAA), Combat Search and Rescue helicopters, tankers, photo-recce, AWACS, etc. with spy satellites and drones overhead. Assembling a complex strike package is hard work for staff officers.

We now have computerized tools that do a lot of the hard work of scheduling air sorties (the air tasking order), so its not quite that difficult.

There are several problems one might have with a "tactical air group" concept - if one critical element of your group is out of service for whatever reason, the capabilities of the entire TAG are severely compromised (for instance, if one of your two electronic warfare aircraft is shot down/out of service); logistics become difficult as your group must now carry spares for every type of aircraft and you will need to manage more ground crews and pilots, including maintaining their certifications; such a force will necessarily have a larger footprint; what do you do when you just don't need all the capabilities of your TAG on a deployment.
 
The author clearly show that support aircraft just complicate the mix, and that different type of aircraft with similar role complicate logistic.
He simplify his tactical air group by using F-15 and variant plus support aircraft. The F15 and variant made up the roles of fighter/cas/interdiction/recon and electronic warfare.

Today with most multirole aircraft it is possible. Rafale can make this, super-hornet with his growler variant can, I think the newest variant of Su-27 can. In fact only the electronic warfare part is less frequent.

I would personally see several air group type:
-combat air group (fighter/interdiction/recon and lethal electronic warfare)
-support air group (long range recon / airborne radar / airlift / air to air refuelling / ELINT / rescue)
-CAS air group (Attack helicopter and CAS aircraft / medevac), even maybe giving this to ground force branch, they know what they need to support themselves better than air force.

Adding for some rich countries a "strategic air group" with long range bomber and support.

The key is, as he said, affordability, with one common combat aircraft (maybe some slight variants like growler), one or two common hull for support (MRTT + C-17/A-400 for example), a CAS aircraft and drones, you keep number high enough to lower development cost. You wouldn't avoid some small number of specialized aircraft (U2 type recon, very heavy transport...) but it would be logical and manageable for logistic.

In the future Drone will also change some things, a drone with different package can switch role between missions. Put camera you're making recon, put jammer you're blinding the enemy radar, put bomb you have your interdictor.
 
Top