# Bombers Replace Artillery in Afghanistan



## tomahawk6 (23 Nov 2006)

The zoomies have tried to convince the Army that artillery is no longer required. CAS is certainly valuable but it depends on the terrain and weather.

Bombers Replace Artillery in Afghanistan

November 22, 2006: While artillery has replaced air power as the primary source of fire support in Iraq, U.S. troops in Afghanistan are still using lots of smart bombs. As was discovered in late 2001, it's much easier to bring in bombers, armed with smart bombs, than to deploy artillery in Afghanistan. The high casualty count for the Taliban during their "Summer Offensive" was the result of some 2,000 air attacks between June and October. Not all of these attacks were with bombs (only about 45 percent were), the rest involved aircraft like A-10s and F-16s coming low and using cannon (30mm and 20mm respectively.) New fire control equipment has made these strafing runs much more accurate. Still, each cannon attack involved, on average, only about a hundred rounds fired.  

The tactics in Afghanistan are still very similar to those used in 2001. Small groups of troops move around in vehicles (usually hummers) and, with the aid of UAVs and Afghan scouts, find the large groups (up to several hundred) of Taliban. Once discovered, the Taliban either gather in a village or cave complex to fight it out, and get smart bombed, or scatter, and get chased down. Even small groups (less than a dozen men) often got hit with air strikes. These included attacks by AC-130 and helicopter gunships. While the 500 pound smart bomb is preferred in Iraq, Afghanistan still sees 2,000 and 1,000 pound smart bombs used. 

Bombers also make much use of their new targeting pods, which enable pilots 20,000 feet up, to make out individuals on the ground, and whether or not they are carrying weapons. Troops on the ground often rely on this sort of air reconnaissance, from the same aircraft that will either drop smart bombs or come low for a strafing run. Unfortunately, the B-1 and B-52 bombers do not have this high altitude recon ability, but do carry most of the smart bombs dropped. The fighting in Afghanistan this year has led to the use of more air delivered munitions (987 bombs and 146,000 cannon shells), than in all the time since U.S. forces entered Afghanistan in late 2001 (848 bombs and 118,000 shells). The heavy bombers spend most of their time just circling high in the spy, waiting for someone to call for a smart bomb. To enable the bombers to stay up there longer, they are now based in the Persian Gulf (Qatar), which is closer to Afghanistan than Diego Garcia island (in the Indian Ocean.)

In Iraq, the preferred fire support weapon now is the 227mm MLRS GPS guided rocket. With a range of 70 kilometers, and a 200 pound explosive warhead, a few GMLRS (G for "Guided") vehicles (each carrying eight rockets), can cover a huge area with very accurate fire. The air force and navy still provide reconnaissance, and cannon fire support, but not as many bombs. The troops have missiles (TOWs, usually) fired from the ground, or from helicopter gunships. Moreover, most of the fighting in Iraq is being done by the Iraqi army.


----------



## boondocksaint (23 Nov 2006)

I kinda preffered the artillery. Helo CAS is also really good, fixed wing is my 3rd choice, when it works, it works great, but.....


----------



## Teflon (23 Nov 2006)

When it didn't,.... Duck and cover! 

Still remember that day I almost lost the dismounted portion of my Pl!


----------



## peaches (23 Nov 2006)

As an Airforce guy I'll say it again, Canada needs more effective Tac Hel, Apaches, or Cobras, at least a full squadron.  The fighter guys have too many bases to cover, OCA, DCA, BAI, CAS, and more.  Jack of all trades, master of none.  Why can Canada not purchase a few HIMARS rocket launchers.


----------



## hammond (23 Nov 2006)

Wow, I was under the impression the B-52 was retired, apparentlly it received operational upgrades that give it an extended lifespan past 2045. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1632521.stm

Concerning the use of 2,000 and 1,000 pound bombs in Afghanistan, is this not a little excesive for small insurgant groups?, as the 3,000 feet fragmentation range, and 1,200 ft and 600ft sharpnel radius would produce additional causalties and damage to buildings and infrastructure. 
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm

I am also for a CAS helicopter platform, as it has many pros that have been outlined in many threads. I know I am way out of my lane, and probably way off topic, just was intrigued. Thanks


----------



## boondocksaint (23 Nov 2006)

As for the bomb sizes, they are EXACTLY the right sizes. Insurgent groups range in many different sizes, and there are many ways to 'deal' with them. Fixed wing usage is a more difficult option because we were often very close to the insurgents. Proportionallity is a fluid concept when timmie is pasting your positions.

For every time things have gone wrong with fixed wing support, they have also bailed us out numerous times. I could not imagine flying XXX km/hr and trying to pick out a target on the ground, my hat is off to those guys. My preference for arty is because it tended to be available all the time. And we had alot of first round hits in a quick time frame. Helo CAS was also outstanding and saved us many times, they got in nice and close and hit hard.


----------



## HItorMiss (23 Nov 2006)

+1 Boondock

I still have vivid memories of watching a 500 pounder skiping towards my postion, I was transfixed by it, really screwed the battle plan though that big thing siting so close to us...aaahhh well when it works it works. I preffer Arty and Mortars then Hel Cas, Fast Air CAS is great to soften up the position. It all works in layers of course


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2006)

While CAS & tactical bomber runs are all well and nice, they require someone on the ground to tell them where to go and what to do.  We have been the victim on two occasions where our own troops have been "nuked" by friendly aircraft.

Arty wakes up and delivers only at out request........

Wouldn't pack away those M777s at this time.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Nov 2006)

Arty can be as deadly on friendly forces as an errant CAS run. I agree the key is the eyes on the ground guiding the fire support is the key element to the success or failure of a fire mission or call for air support.


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2006)

Arty won't start up unless someone asks for it....
A visit by your Air support might come in - uninvited.

Don't get me wrong, I like to have both options in my back pocket
and have had friends who have had their proverbial heinies pulled out of the fire by CAS mission...... then again, I have a friend who had his heinie served to himself, on a platter.... go figure.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (23 Nov 2006)

Hammond said:
			
		

> Concerning the use of 2,000 and 1,000 pound bombs in Afghanistan, is this not a little excesive for small insurgant groups?, as the 3,000 feet fragmentation range, and 1,200 ft and 600ft sharpnel radius would produce additional causalties and damage to buildings and infrastructure.
> http://www.cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm



Wow,

There is just so much wrong/unclear with that table you got the figures from.  What is the difference between fragmentation and blast shrapnel.  Come to think of it, what exactly is blast shrapnel?  Bits of rock picked up and thrown...1200 feet, possible but not probable  Why is the fragmentation range the same between the 1000lb and 2000lb bombs?  50% of the people within 400 metres of a 2000 pounder will die!  Dumb Mk 82 (doesn't say if its Snake-eye or not) is more accurate than JDAM.
Someone needs to be introduced to the inverse-square law as a starting point and even then I have no doubt whoever manufactured those stats would screw it up.

D


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Nov 2006)

Here are some interesting tidbits.



> At the outset of the Vietnam War, tactical aviation pilots were achieving a 750-foot circular error probable (CEP)--the radius from the aim point that half of the bombs dropped will fall within. This number is sufficient for the impact of a tactical nuclear weapon but is far from adequate for conventional weaponry. It took several years for the CEP to be lowered to a manageable 365 feet.





> The advantage of guided bombs was revealed when compared with the F-105’ s work in Vietnam. The F-105s achieved a circular error probable (CEP) of 447 feet and 5.5 percent direct hits during the end of Rolling Thunder, compared with guided bombs’ CEP of 23 feet and 48 percent direct hits during the period of February 1972 through February 1973.



The CEP today is under 20 feet. Fragmentation range is up to 3000 feet regardless of bomb size.Admiral Stuffelbeem said as a pilot dropping a 2000 pound bomb he wanted a minimum of 4000 feet of seperation from the weapon.Safe distance from a 2000 pound bomb is 400 m. Lethal blast radius is 110 feet. Blast/shrapnel range is 1200 feet.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (23 Nov 2006)

Let us not confuse accuracy with kill effects. Accuracy dependent on the mission and the target will drive an operator to select a specific weapon that will deliver the kill effects desired. As HOM has said layered effect is best. As for the usage of large sized weapons on targets, one cannot armchair the choice, you must ask the operator why they choose that weapon. As a past operator I can think of no better weapon to use on en in the open in a desolate terrain than a 2000 or even 3000 pound bomb. But if I'm asked to drop a section beside a home I may use a 500 pd with a specific direction and attitude to ensure kill effects but maintain the building survivability.

It is all relative and hard to armchair.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Nov 2006)

Now there is the Small Diameter Bomb. ;D

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1820045.php


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Nov 2006)

And with this:


> Now there is the Small Diameter Bomb.
> 
> http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1820045.php



A 250lb bomb

We are all the way back to this on your first post on this thread T6:



> ....In Iraq, the preferred fire support weapon now is the 227mm MLRS GPS guided rocket. With a range of 70 kilometers, and a 200 pound explosive warhead, a few GMLRS (G for "Guided") vehicles (each carrying eight rockets), can cover a huge area with very accurate fire. The air force and navy still provide reconnaissance, and cannon fire support, but not as many bombs. The troops have missiles (TOWs, usually) fired from the ground, or from helicopter gunships. Moreover, most of the fighting in Iraq is being done by the Iraqi army.





> The Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) consists of two variants of rockets fired from the M270A1 or High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers. The GMLRS Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (DPICM) variant carries 404 bomblets, while the GMLRS Unitary rocket will have a single, 200-pound class, high-explosive, Unitary warhead. Both variants use an inertial measurement unit guidance system that is aided by the Global Positioning System.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mlrs-g.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/

Or as Peaches asks:


> Why can Canada not purchase a few HIMARS rocket launchers.



Some of the other work mentioned in that article could as easily be done with CP-140s stooging around at 20,000 ft.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Nov 2006)

The MRLS may well be a great investment for the CF. Better yet might be HIMARS as it is deployable by C-130.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> As an Airforce guy I'll say it again, Canada needs more effective Tac Hel, Apaches, or Cobras, at least a full squadron.  The fighter guys have too many bases to cover, OCA, DCA, BAI, CAS, and more.  Jack of all trades, master of none.  Why can Canada not purchase a few HIMARS rocket launchers.



Amen to that. Or a few warthogs or equivalent. It must be better to have your own slow/fast air support than constantly begging off the allies...


----------

