A10 Replacement

[Smitty]

B-52s, B-1Bs, F-15Es, F-16s, all have their place in the CAS portfolio, but there are a lot of CAS missions badly served by the fast movers and heavies. What saved the Rangers in Mogadishu was, to a substantial extent, helo gun runs. I have yet to see any description of a bomber munition that would have helped in Mog (barring the obvious Douhet solution).

188343[/snapback]

 

Viper Strike? Don't know if there's any desire to integrate it with the BUFF.

 

Or low-altitude, supersonic B-1 flyby!

[Smitty]

Dedicated CAS platfrom - AC-130, delivering rifled goodness every night.

With Spooky on station and cealred to fire, you just have to point the target spot out with a PEQ-4 and watch it vanish.

188368[/snapback]

 

The AC-130s also perform BAI, IIRC.

[Samson]

Dedicated CAS platfrom - AC-130, delivering rifled goodness every night.

With Spooky on station and cealred to fire, you just have to point the target spot out with a PEQ-4 and watch it vanish.

188368[/snapback]

 

I agree that the AC 130 is awsome, but I think an even more precise weapon would be desireable for the surgical stuff that a BUFF or AC 130 just cant do without collateral damage.

 

This vid is a good example...that mosqh likely has a few holes in it, and nothing like sniping at a guy running along a road with half a dozen 105mm rounds....

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AC130_GunshipMed1.wmv

 

A VTOL UAV could get in much closer and use its pop gun to do minimal damage to no intended targets.

[Smitty]

I agree that the AC 130 is awsome, but I think an even more precise weapon would be desireable for the surgical stuff that a BUFF or AC 130 just cant do without collateral damage.

 

The AC-130 can be VERY accurate with its 20/25mm and 40mm and produce little collateral damage. They're also talking about mounting Viper Strikes, JDAMs, SDBs and other bombs on them.

Edited June 28, 2005 by Smitty

[Burncycle360]

The AC-130 can be VERY accurate with its 20/25mm and 40mm and produce little collateral damage. They're also talking about mounting Viper Strikes, JDAMs, SDBs and other bombs on them.

 

Indeed. You're not going to get much more precise than an AC-130, even flying at 10-12k.

 

Too bad there are so few of them, and they're so high value. That's why I'd like to see a modern version of the Bronco gunship to serve as an interm platform until UAV's mature enough to take over the role. It won't have the loiter time of the AC-130, or the wide variety of ordinance, but they'd be inexpensive enough to develop and produce that they'd be around when you need them.

 

I think something along those lines would stand apart from other COIN aircraft in that it could still be effective in a MANPAD environment as long as it takes precautions (fly at night, fly at 10-12k, like the AC-130). In an environment like Iraq where MANPADS are scarce, they could fly lower, and in the daytime if needed.

Edited June 28, 2005 by Burncycle360

[EchoFiveMike]

E5M, I seem to recall you saying something about the BUFF about how inefficient communications makes it not as effective as it could be at fleeting targets. (forgive me if I'm wrong or misquoted). What would be the best way to go about fixing something like this so that the time from the target of opportunity presenting itself to the bomb on target is as minimized as possible, assuming she was already on station in the AO and waiting for a call?

 

I'm going to assume that the BUFF has a standard UHF radio setup that will work on HAVEQUICK hopsets and/or theater standard crypto fills, in which case you won't have any problems talking to the ground troops. Worst case, you can use guard freqs in the clear. The problems we had dealt with the clearing of fires, any fires. The default way to do this is "silence is consent" the FSCC monitors the freq and if the mission is good they don't say anything. We've gone the other way, everything needs clearance and it's FUBAR. That's the problem. Other than the massive overkill of a JDAM or other ordnance on the plane, there's nothing wrong with the BUFF for CAS. S/F...Ken M

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The B-52Hs were upgraded inthe 1990s with the AN/ARC-210 to provide the secure and anti-jam UHF/VHF capability. The radio also has a SATCOM capability as shown by the new antenna on the aft fuselage.

 

The 2000 lb GBU-31 is problematic for "danger close" CAS which is why the USAF is pushing hard on the 250 lb GBU-39 SDB.

 

I'm going to assume that the BUFF has a standard UHF radio setup that will work on HAVEQUICK hopsets and/or theater standard crypto fills, in which case you won't have any problems talking to the ground troops.  Worst case, you can use guard freqs in the clear.  The problems we had dealt with the clearing of fires, any fires.  The default way to do this is "silence is consent"  the FSCC monitors the freq and if the mission is good they don't say anything.  We've gone the other way, everything needs clearance and it's FUBAR.  That's the problem.  Other than the massive overkill of a JDAM or other ordnance on the plane, there's nothing wrong with the BUFF for CAS.  S/F...Ken M

188612[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The AC-130 has never been and is not now a dedicated CAS platform. In Vietnam it was mostly used for supply line interdiction. The US has never fielded a dedicated CAS platform at any time for any service.

 

Dedicated CAS platfrom - AC-130, delivering rifled goodness every night.

188368[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I agree that almost everything has its place and everything has its limitations. If you want to do "danger close" CAS in an urban environment, then an AC-130U is the CAS platform of choice.

 

We are past the era of primary use of unaided vision in CAS. If you are relying on the unaided eyeball in a fast mover at medium-high altitude, you are prone to fratricide. If you are using the unaided eyeball in a fast mover at low altitude, don't blink because you'll miss the target. Low and slow in an urban environment is very, very dangerous as we saw in Mog and also the Apache battalion that got its ass shot off in Iraq in 2003. Anybody flying low is primarily concerning with not hitting the ground or obstacles, secondarily keeping an eye out for threats, and then third looking for the target and friendlies. There's been a lot of urban CAS in Iraq, mostly F-16s and F/A-18s dropping GBU-12 (500 lb Paveway II laser-guided bombs), but the pilots are not just eyeballing it, they are using targeting pods and I believe they are attacking from medium altitude.

 

Classic low level CAS is a relic of the past. It assumes a tolerance of fratricide and aircraft losses which are characteristic of WWII and Korea, not the 21st Century. It also ignores the advances in navigation, communications, sensors and precision-guided weapons.

 

I'd like to see the USAF and the USMC get together on a buy of new gunships based on the C-130J airframe.

 

Ken, you're beating a dead straw horse again. Despite all the Buck Rogers gear, we are still in an age of visual scan and ID. Hell, we had blue-on-blue deaths in ODS from Apache fire because of the lack of an integrated air-ground IFF system. In terms of scanning, identifying, and targeting, closer is better. And CAS takes place far closer to friendlies in reality than doctrine maintains. Even if the B-52 fleet downsizes to GPS or laser guided 100 pounders, that's a pretty course tool for a close fight.

 

B-52s, B-1Bs, F-15Es, F-16s, all have their place in the CAS portfolio, but there are a lot of CAS missions badly served by the fast movers and heavies. What saved the Rangers in Mogadishu was, to a substantial extent, helo gun runs. I have yet to see any description of a bomber munition that would have helped in Mog (barring the obvious Douhet solution).

188343[/snapback]

[Burncycle360]

I'm going to assume that the BUFF has a standard UHF radio setup that will work on HAVEQUICK hopsets and/or theater standard crypto fills, in which case you won't have any problems talking to the ground troops. Worst case, you can use guard freqs in the clear. The problems we had dealt with the clearing of fires, any fires. The default way to do this is "silence is consent" the FSCC monitors the freq and if the mission is good they don't say anything. We've gone the other way, everything needs clearance and it's FUBAR. That's the problem. Other than the massive overkill of a JDAM or other ordnance on the plane, there's nothing wrong with the BUFF for CAS. S/F...Ken M

 

Thanks for the clarification

[Ivanhoe]

Low and slow in an urban environment is very, very dangerous as we saw in Mog

 

The Mogadishu lesson has been poorly learnt by many. Low and slow is dangerous, but what the Army did there was much dumber than just low and slow in an urban environment. They hovered and circled rooftops at pistol ranges. This is like saying infantry is useless because of the example of Pickett's Charge.

 

and also the Apache battalion that got its ass shot off in Iraq in 2003.

Great example of how to learn the wrong lesson. 32 aircraft go into a massive ambush, only two lost, no aircrew KIA, rest of aircraft returned to service in theater. If that is getting one's ass shot off, the other services should take notes.

 

Anybody flying low is primarily concerning with not hitting the ground or obstacles,

 

Army pilots aren't just anybody. Those guys aren't afraid to hit ground clutter because they do it all the time.

 

Classic low level CAS is a relic of the past. It assumes a tolerance of fratricide and aircraft losses which are characteristic of WWII and Korea, not the 21st Century. It also ignores the advances in navigation, communications, sensors and precision-guided weapons.

 

Source, please.

[5150]

Army pilots aren't just anybody. Those guys aren't afraid to hit ground clutter because they do it all the time.

188645[/snapback]

 

Having worked with the 8-229th at Ft. Knox for a period of years, I can say with some confidence that you're mistaken about this. During the work-ups prior to their deployment to Bosnia in 1999, "ground clutter" such as power lines and radio towers was of prime concern for those men. I had the pleasure of flying with some of the old hands that had been around since the Vietnam era occasionally. What did they worry about? Incomplete charts and unmarked obstacles. In familiar areas it was no big deal. They knew the terrain like the back of their hands. But in unfamiliar territory? They considered it to a huge threat to both their missions and their lives--and rightly so!

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Anybody who is flying at low level and is sane is afraid of hitting the ground or an obstacle. If you aren't afraid, you are soon to be dead. Obviously afraid doesn't equate to paralyzed in terror. We used to fly at low level in the B-52 at 390 knots IIRC and you can bet that everybody was concentrating on avoiding making a hole in the ground, even the flight test engineer along for the ride in the cockpit jumpseat.

 

Army pilots aren't just anybody. Those guys aren't afraid to hit ground clutter because they do it all the time.

188645[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

As a point of fact, almost every account of American CAS about which I have read that has been flown since October 2001 has been from medium-high altitude and has used some combination of GPS, PGMs and targeting pods. Why would the military buy a whiz-bang jet, hang a Litening pod and JDAMs or LGBs on it, and then use it like a P-47D supporting Patton's Third Army?

 

Source, please.

188645[/snapback]

[A2Keltainen]

Wouldn't it be both easier and cheaper in most scenarios to have adequate amounts of mortars and artillery, instead of having to depend on CAS? The only scenarios I can think of where access to CAS seems to be needed are forced entry operations, some types of special operations and when the enemy is hiding in heavy fortifications like caves and bunkers. What am I missing?

[EchoFiveMike]

As a point of fact, almost every account of American CAS about which I have read that has been flown since October 2001 has been from medium-high altitude and has used some combination of GPS, PGMs and targeting pods. Why would the military buy a whiz-bang jet, hang a Litening pod and JDAMs or LGBs on it, and then use it like a P-47D supporting Patton's Third Army?

 

On Nov 12-13 we got a flight of Cobras shot to shit by SAF after they went Winchester on rockets and were making multiple gun passes. They limped back to Kalsu and had to have rotors replaced IIRC.

 

When we did the forced entry into Yusifiyah, I believe there were a few 20mm passes from F18's. S/F...Ken M

[Simon Tan]

CAS, particularly rotary wing, is a DF platform that can rapidly vary elevation and aspect from which it can work a target. This is useful when working with friendlies in close proximity or when targets are otherwise obscured. JDAMs and LGBs are much more like indirect fire, albeit increasingly self-observed and accurate.

Nonetheless the view from 15K is still substantially different than from 1K and Ken's postulation that everyhting you could possibly desire from CAS can be acheived from theis viewpoint is I feel quite fallacious. It does however fit with the Air Force's view of the world.

 

Curiously the CAS that I have read about that seems to have the most impact for the troops on the ground seems to be A-10s turning up and working targets with combinations of Maverick, bombs and gun. Admittedly they probably just feel better because they can actually see the plane working rather than a fireball erupt out of the blue.

 

A-10s suffer from excessively prmitive cockpits and the lack of a back seater to compensate. HMCS is probably as or more important for the Hog driver than it is for the F-15 but it will not be integrated for the A2G mission despite the obvious benefits.

 

The A-10s could probably be given the cast-off LANTIRNS as the F-15Es move to Sniper XR.

[Smitty]

Wouldn't it be both easier and cheaper in most scenarios to have adequate amounts of mortars and artillery, instead of having to depend on CAS? The only scenarios I can think of where access to CAS seems to be needed are forced entry operations, some types of special operations and when the enemy is hiding in heavy fortifications like caves and bunkers. What am I missing?

188661[/snapback]

 

You may never be able to have adequate numbers of mortars/artillery available in many cases. In Op Anaconda, they only had enough lift to bring in ONE 120mm mortar and a handful of 81s and 60mms. IIRC, they didn't even have artillery in country at that point. (a small number of 105mms came later)

 

Airpower has the unique ability to concentrate firepower at any point over a huge area, relatively quickly. Land-based indirect fires are limited by mobility, range and logistics tail.

[Samson]

The AC 130 is good....

 

 

But did you guys watch that gun video (link on last page).

 

IIRC 5-6 rounds of 105mm to get one guy running down a road.

 

That off limits Mosqe definatly had a few scratches....

 

It is still not a precision instriment like a low flying aircraft with a gun.

[JOE BRENNAN]

The A-10s could probably be given the cast-off LANTIRNS as the F-15Es move to Sniper XR.

188669[/snapback]

A-10's carry Litening pods. Part of "A-10C" is fully integrating the pod. Once carrying latest gen pods it continues the same trend as the use of GPS weapons, the speed of the plane makes less difference, and there's less special disctinction for the A-10, little apparent reason to develop and build a specialized replacement plane, which is 0% likely to happen in reality anyway. I don't think there are any A-10's in Iraq right now, recon support type missions heavily emphasize use of latest gen pods on fast jets (in addition to unmanned, gunships etc), which as mentioned can and do strafe in the 10% or so (USAF stat quoted in AWST) of support missions now involving ordnance delivery v the 90% that are ISR.

 

Joe

Edited June 28, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[A2Keltainen]

You may never be able to have adequate numbers of mortars/artillery available in many cases.

 

You can buy a respectable number of mortars and/or howitzers for the price of a single F-35 or F/A-22.

 

In Op Anaconda, they only had enough lift to bring in ONE 120mm mortar and a handful of 81s and 60mms.

One could blame that on not bringing enough lift capability and expecting to much of the promised CAS. As I've already mentioned, there are scenarios where CAS is the only realistic option for massive fire support, but in my eyes they seem to be pretty few. I wonder how much of the current US use of CAS is a result of USAF trying to find a mission, when air to air combat is non-existent in both Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the world for the moment, and the US Army not saying no to some "free" fire support?

 

IIRC, they didn't even have artillery in country at that point. (a small number of 105mms came later)

 

According to what I've read, the reasons for that were mainly political and not logistical.

 

Airpower has the unique ability to concentrate firepower at any point over a huge area, relatively quickly.

 

And how about response time, availability, all weather performance and cost effectiveness?

[Smitty]

The AC 130 is good....

But did you guys watch that gun video (link on last page).

 

IIRC 5-6 rounds of 105mm to get one guy running down a road.

 

That off limits Mosqe definatly had a few scratches....

 

It is still not a precision instriment like a low flying aircraft with a gun.

188751[/snapback]

 

They also fired 40mm rounds at those guys. Besides a few scratches on the Mosque isn't collateral damage.

 

Remember, the GAU-8 isn't exactly a sniper rifle either.

[Smitty]

You can buy a respectable number of mortars and/or howitzers for the price of a single F-35 or F/A-22.

 

Buying the actual gun/mortar is only the tip of the iceberg. You have to actually field it along with all its associate infrastructure and support and move it into and around the theater of operations.

 

One could blame  that on not bringing enough lift capability and expecting to much of the promised CAS. As I've already mentioned, there are scenarios where CAS is the only realistic option for massive fire support, but in my eyes they seem to be pretty few.

 

I disagree. In this day and age, "doing more with less" is expected to be the norm rather than the exception. Massed battalions of artillery will be reserved for the major theater wars. Anaconda was a huge command and control mess. It wasn't just the Air Force's fault.

 

I wonder how much of the current US use of CAS is a result of USAF trying to find a mission, when air to air combat is non-existent in both Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the world for the moment, and the US Army not saying no to some "free" fire support?

 

I would say very little.

 

According to what I've read, the reasons for that were mainly political and not logistical.

 

Logistics played a role in the political decision. And just because it was political doesn't mean they won't make the same decision next time.

 

And how about response time, availability, all weather performance and cost effectiveness?

 

How 'bout them? I never said airpower was a complete substitute for artillery/mortars. They are complimentary.

[A2Keltainen]

Buying the actual gun/mortar is only the tip of the iceberg.  You have to actually field it along with all its associate infrastructure and support and move it into and around the theater of operations.

 

The same applies to aircraft. I guess a single plane or helo is both more maintenance and logistics heavy than a whole motorized mortar platoon.

 

Massed battalions of artillery will be reserved for the major theater wars.

How often do you need massed artillery battalion fires in LIC, and especially when the combat takes place among civilians in urban terrain?

 

Anaconda was a huge command and control mess.  It wasn't just the Air Force's fault.

 

I agree.

 

And just because it was political doesn't mean they won't make the same decision next time.

You have a point there. My impression is that the US decision not to bring any artillery to Afghanistan was based on not wanting to been seen as "too aggressive". On the other hand, basing of aircraft is often a non-trivial and highly political issue.

 

How 'bout them?  I never said airpower was a complete substitute for artillery/mortars.  They are complimentary.

 

And I never said artillery/mortars was a complete substitute for airpower. They are complimentary.

[Smitty]

The same applies to aircraft. I guess a single plane or helo is both more maintenance and logistics heavy than a whole motorized mortar platoon.

 

True, but an aircraft's logistics train is back at its base (and to a lesser extent in the air in the form of tanker aircraft), hundreds or thousands of miles away. B-52s and B-1s flew CAS sorties from Diego Garcia. F/A-18s flew from carriers.

 

They did not have to hitch a ride on a C-17 or C-130, get fed, fueled, supported and housed in theater, and and then drive across Afghanistan's wonderful road network with all their entourage to the battlefield.

 

How often do you need massed artillery battalion fires in LIC, and especially when the combat takes place among civilians in urban terrain?

 

Well, that's what the planners of Op Anaconda thought. The enemy has a funny way of surprising you when you least expect it.