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

[Colin Parkinson]

Any news on the possible deployment to Afghanistan of small turboprops CAS aircraft by the USAF or SF types?

 

[a_majoor]

Some historical perspective:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4468

Martin “Mighty Midget”

In 1952, the Martin Company produced a design for a single-seat ground attack plane. Check that… a single *couch* ground attack plane. It didn;t have a seat, as the pilot lay prone. The result was a plane of remarkably small frontal section… and remarkably small overall dimensions. The Mighty Midget was designed to be a small, tough, cheap proto-A-10, able to dish out a truckload of industrial strength whoopass; small, fast and nimble enough to evade enemy fire; and tough enough to take whatever did hit it.

A modernized version could very well do great service in today’s wars.  The Marines and the Army would almost certainly love to have such a plane (although the Army would tick off the Air Force if they actually went ahead and bought something like this).

To get more info on the Mighty Midget, check this out.

Or if you like gunships:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=3908

Gun, guns, *holy crap* helicopter artillery

A Boeing-Vertol design study from October 1972 for the US Army Weapons Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois (just about my home town). The idea was to strap an XM204 105 mm “soft recoil” howitzer to either side of a CH-47C Chinook helicopter. This was not for the purpose of transporting the weapons from place to place, but to actually use them in an air-to-ground “lay down some whoopass” role. A nine man gun crew and 96 rounds of ammo would be carried. Mission radius was 100 n.mi.

The helicopter could be used in two ways:

1) Land, and fire the right-hand gun. A special platform was built for the weapon for crew servicing while on the ground. The left-hand weapon was a complete field piece, and was meant to be easily removed and located for firing.
2) Fire while in flight. As reported:

both XM204 soft-recoil howitzers are
mounted for forward direct air-to-ground firing with automatic
ammunition-loading mechanisms provided for rapid firing (30
rounds per minute each). The copilot is provided with a
simple, fixed, depressible-reticle sight and laser rangefinder
for aiming the helicopter/gun system for firing in this mode.
Preflight adjustments of the howitzer elevation settings will
allow for aiming the weapons with the helicopter at various
airspeeds, rates of climb, and heights above the target.

Yow.

Sadly, the illustrations are of suck quality, but they get the idea across.

 

[a_majoor]

More retro future; the CL-84 as a gunship. The illustration seems to indicate a minigun in the nose, a gun turret in the belly (20mm?) and pylons for bombs or rocket pods.

 

[a_majoor]

A rather bizzare proposal; as I read it, the idea is the sniper rifle is carried in the blimp and used to take out individual targets via remote control. At least collateral damage will be almost eliminated. The second half of the piece is a case where common sense just would not do (dropping a nuke from a blimp?):

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/army-eyes-man-h/

Army Eyes Man-Hunting Mini-Blimps?
By Noah Shachtman  December 10, 2008  |  7:57 am  |  Categories: Air Force

We’ll get to the real substance in a second. But first, let’s focus on the man-hunting mini-blimps.

Stephen Trimble flags this odd, odd paragraph in an otherwise straight L.A. Times story about the spending choices facing Defense Secretary Bob Gates in a new administration.

Some Army officials are pushing development of a small blimp equipped with an automated high-powered sniper rifle that could provide a form of inexpensive but effective air support for platoons in Afghanistan.

"Surely, the army is really asking for a small aerostat linked to an actual soldier on the ground with a sniper rifle, no?" Trimble asks.

Maybe a sniper detection system, mounted on an airship? A "Sniper" targeting pod, put on a blimp? The mythical "AirSniper" mini-drone, come to life? Or perhaps some folks in the Army really do want to have a small blimp, floating in the sky, taking out enemies, one by one.


Of course, all of those ideas are pretty wimpy, when you compare ‘em to 1957’s "Operation Plumbob." As part of a series of above-ground nuclear weapons tests, the government hung a-bombs "as large as 74 kilotons beneath blimps," Popular Mechanics says.
And then the unmanned airships dropped the weapons, to see what would happen. Needless to say, the blimps didn’t fare particularly well, after the blasts.

Three years later, notes Airminded, the Navy ran a pair of trials, to see if airships could drop nuclear depth charges on Soviet submarines. The results:

The first airship exposed to overpressure experienced a structural failure of the nose cone when it was rammed into the mooring mast, together with a tear of the forward ballonet which necessitated deflation of the envelope. The second airship broke in half and crashed following a circumferential failure of the envelope originating at the bottom of the envelope, forward of the car.

 

[GAP]

At leat colateral damage will be almost eliminated. The second half of the piece is a case where common sense just would not do (dropping a nuke from a blimp?):

Well, if it's a remote controlled blimp, you wouldn't have to hurry away to get out of the blast radius...... :nod:

 

[daftandbarmy]

The most amazing thing about this piece is the apparent immediate assistance provided by the Air Force. Well done them....

Precision Close Air Support Takes Over

August 16, 2010: The U.S. Department of Defense is developing a device that enables the ground controller, who usually talks pilots down to the location of a ground target, to take control of sensors (cameras and ground radars) and weapons on UAVs, or even manned aircraft, and pull the trigger himself. Developing this gear (PCAS, or Precision Close Air Support) is actually not a major undertaking, because some of it already exists.

That all began eight years ago, when a Special Forces soldier, just back from Afghanistan, walked into the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and asked the technical people why his guys could not have a device that would allow them to watch the video being generated by a Predator, AC-130 or other aircraft overhead. In particular, the soldiers wanted the capability of the AC-130 getting video from a Predator that had spotted something the AC-130 was being sent to destroy. Since it was the Special Forces troops on the ground who were running, and fighting, the ground battle, it would help them a lot if they could see the real time video from Predators and combat aircraft. At that time, the video was being viewed by people in the aircraft, or the UAV operators (who were back in the United States, running things via a satellite link), but not the guys closest to the fighting, on the ground.Thus ground troops had to radio and ask the air force what could be seen on the video, and there was usually a delay in getting that information. It would be much better for all concerned if the ground troops could see that video in real time.

The air force went to work, and in two weeks had a prototype that Special Forces personnel could take back to Afghanistan. Called ROVER I, the device  was not terribly portable, but the Special Forces could haul it around in a hummer, and see what any Predators overhead were seeing. This proved very useful. A few months later, ROVER II appeared, which allowed troops to view UAV vids on a laptop computer. By late 2004, Rover III, a 12 pound unit built to be carried in a backpack, was put into service. New models kept appearing, and the current one can grab video feeds from army, marine and air force UAVs and bomber targeting pods (which have great resolution, even when the aircraft are 20,000 feet up.) The latest Rover allows users to point and click on targets to be hit. With ROVER IV, the bomber pilot, or UAV operator, is looking at the same video as the ground troops, and can confirm that the indicated target is what is to be hit. This is particularly important in urban warfare, where the building next door might be full of innocent civilians.

The ROVER gear was initially operated, mostly, by air force ground controllers. The larger number of Rover units out there now allows platoon leaders and company commanders access, as well as Special Forces teams and some army or marine ground patrols. PCAS will replace Rover, and enable ground controllers to take control of any aircraft within range, and use its sensors to more quickly find the target (which the controller can usually see from the ground) and release the smart bomb. PCAS will also be able to control the A-10's 30mm autocannon, as well as unguided rockets and guided missiles like Maverick. PCAS will also reduce errors, and generally improve the quality of air support. The first live demonstration of PCAS is supposed to take place within four years.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/20100816.aspx

 

[thunderchild]

Could this be used by our CF-18's now that they have been updated? Or is there more upgrades needed.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The Sniper Pod is Rover Capable.

But, a big But...

I would never be willing to let a guy on the ground with no Aviation weapons knowledge or flight experience with them take a weapon on my jet and drop it.  I'll let him talk my pod on a target, but not take weapons on my plane.

 

[Old Sweat]

Rover has been used by the CF in Afghanistan since midway through TF 3-06. Before then, in cases where ground troops were not able to observe a target located by a UAV for example, the FSCC had to guide the pilot onto the target by means such as a Mark mission using 155mm illuminating. I don't want to get too specific for a couple of reasons, but Rover provides an extra bit of confidence to both the air and ground forces.

 

[Journeyman]

But, a big But...

I would never be willing to let a guy on the ground with no Aviation weapons knowledge or flight experience with them take a weapon on my jet and drop it.  I'll let him talk my pod on a target, but not take weapons on my plane.

Well that's should make the planners' and taskers' job even more difficult -- assuming we get the equipment and develop suitable techniques, they'll have to factor in whether each individual pilot thinks the ground controller is sufficiently worthy.  :

 

[Loachman]

In the interests of fairness, perhaps a reciprocal arrangement could be reached: give jet jockeys remote control of a few tanks and guns each.

Think of the frivolity and mirth that woiuld ensue.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Well that's should make the planners' and taskers' job even more difficult -- assuming we get the equipment and develop suitable techniques, they'll have to factor in whether each individual pilot thinks the ground controller is sufficiently worthy.  :

The day you sign for the bomb and the Jet, I'll give you full control over it.  Until then, I signed for the aircraft and the weapons.  I decide who uses them.  According to 1 Cdn Air Division orders, the Aircraft Captain (that would be me) is responsible for the safe conduct of a flight.  It includes weapons.

 

[Brutus]

The day you sign for the bomb and the Jet, I'll give you full control over it.  Until then, I signed for the aircraft and the weapons.  I decide who uses them.  According to 1 Cdn Air Division orders, the Aircraft Captain (that would be me) is responsible for the safe conduct of a flight.  It includes weapons.

I think one could logically assume that if control of an aircraft's weapons shifts to a ground controller, so would the responsibility for them. Obviously, that would take some changing of orders, such as the one you quoted.

I THINK the poster was saying that if control of the weapons is given to a ground controller, it is no longer the Air Force Captain's purview to question the ground controllers 'jurisdiction' on the matter.

editted to correct spelling.

 

[Old Sweat]

The people that operate the Rover ground stations are, as far as I can determine, all FACs and/or JTACs. As such they are qualified and authorized to clear or to deny you authority to deliver your ordnance. By "as far as I can determine" I mean that I have not come across any examples of other people employing Rover tactically.

Max, you do not decide who uses your weapons. The competent ground controller ie a FAC or JTAC decides if your weapon load is appropriate and if so, clears it for use. Rover is a tool that allows that controller to ensure that you are being directed on the correct target and are not endangering friendly forces. I would suggest that actually firing/dropping your weapon remains your responsibility, but I cannot speak for every situation.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Max, you do not decide who uses your weapons. The competent ground controller ie a FAC or JTAC decides if your weapon load is appropriate and if so, clears it for use. Rover is a tool that allows that controller to ensure that you are being directed on the correct target and are not endangering friendly forces. I would suggest that actually firing/dropping your weapon remains your responsibility, but I cannot speak for every situation.

But I have a pretty good influence on his decision. I know what I can do with the weapons and which weapon is most suited for the target he is giving me.  He doesn't have weaponeering experience on our weapons, I do.  And I can at any time decide not to drop for any reason I deem sufficient.  The FAC will get my eyes on the target and the friendlies.  By eyes, I mean eyes, not only Sniper.  If I do not see both, I am not dropping.

 

[McG]

He doesn't have weaponeering experience on our weapons, I do. 

Do you know that, if the tool were introduced to the inventory, we would not modify our FAC/JTAC training so that operators might have the full range of knowledge necessary to properly (effectively & safely) operate said new tool?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Do you know that, if the tool were introduced to the inventory, we would not modify our FAC/JTAC training so that operators might have the full range of knowledge necessary to properly (effectively & safely) operate said new tool?

Well, today, FACs are supposed to decide the weapons we are going to use and they do not get that training.  I don't see how it will change because of a different version of a piece of equipement.  Also, weaponeering a bomb is actually fairly complex and has many, many variables (arm time, fuse time, altitude dropped, angle at impact, angle at release, airspeed at impact, safe separation, safe escape, etc etc) that are all related one an other in some way.  Sometimes, only experience in weaponeering will give you a proper solution, especially on the spot.  That experience a FAC cannot get, unless he is involved in quite a bit of mission planning cycles.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Old Sweat and others;

Max is correct on this one.  The way our Air Div Orders are curently written, the Aircraft Captain is responsible, fully, completely, 100% for how all of his/her weapons land.  Doesn't matter what the FAC or anyone else says- it is still the Aircraft Captain's responsibility.

Now, with developing technology, it might be possible to rewrite the orders- but a lot of thought about possible unforeseen implications should go into it before we go down that road.

 

[rampage800]

I can't really think of a reason why a Controller would want to be the actual trigger puller as well, it makes sense to me that if there's a pilot onboard then why wouldn't you use them, that being said;

SM,

How do you know what JTACs receive for weapons trg at their units ? Why exactly do you need a Friendly talk on before you drop, what pam does that come out of ? What about a BOC, why exactly do I need to give a Fr talk on for that ?

As much as you say if you don't get the info required then your not dropping you have to remember that the reverse is also true, you're certainly not the only show in town !

 

[Old Sweat]

With apologies to Max, who is quoting from his book, I once was on the receiving end (1973) of a near miss from a 250-pound iron bomb from a CF5 whose pilot decided he knew more than the (ex-fighter pilot) FAC who tried to direct him onto the target. This was during a demonstration in Petawawa and only a stand of trees prevented splinters from spraying a couple of bleachers full of dependents.

I have read logs kept by FOOs and FACS who have directed literally hundreds of missions in the sandbox and to say that they do not undertand employment of aerial delivered weapons is condescending claptrap. Having said that, which is verging on the argumentative, I am going to check out for the night and cool down.