• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Who owns long range precision fires?

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,225
Points
940
Okay. Who had July 9th in the crazy inter-service rivalry pool?

Arguments are starting to arise that the US Army's Long Range Precision Fires initiative under their "Big Six" ought to be an Air Force resource seeing as it's "over-the-horizon"

Long-Range All-Domain Prompts Roles & Missions Debate

By  THERESA HITCHENS
on July 09, 2020 at 10:35 AM

WASHINGTON: Service rivalries over roles and missions are coming to the fore as DoD and Congress begin to assess what to build for all-domain operations — with a dust-up looming over whether the Army or the Air Force should make platforms for taking out over-the-horizon targets.

Air power supporters argue that the Army’s top-priority Long-Range Precision Fires program, which aims to rebuild the artillery with new long-range cannons and surface-to-surface missiles to hit far-way ground targets, is stepping over traditional service boundaries.

“It’s ridiculous, to be quite candid. It is encroachment on roles and missions,” Dave Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant-general and dean of the Mitchell Institute, says. “The fact of the matter is the services need to adhere to their core competencies. And the United States Army reaching out to develop weapon systems that operate at thousand-mile range truly is encroachment.”

While top Air Force officials, including outgoing chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein, have downplayed potential roles and missions clashes by citing the benefit of having overlapping capabilities, Deptula argues that tough choices are going to soon become imperative due to downward budgetary pressures stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

...

See full article here

:stirpot:
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
889
Points
940
shh...tell the Navy not to tell anyone about their Tomahawks
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
377
Points
910
Only reason the Air Force exists is because the Army had to tie a Bombardier to a bullet to hit targets over the horizon.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,113
Points
940
Simple, tell the USAF that they have to provide the gunners for the guns and they have to live, eat and sleep like army people, the bloom will be off the rose quite quickly. Unless of course the USAF want to control it, so they can kill it as it's deemed a threat to their role.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
479
Points
860
So a ground based artillery system, meant to provide indirect and direct fire support for ground units, is somehow an Air Force asset?  Just because they want the distance to outmatch the distance of enemy artillery?

Yeah, okay...  ::)



Is Russian long range artillery somehow an Air Force asset, because it can fire over the horizon?  No.  Because that wouldn't make any sense...

Heaven forbid BOTH branches can reach out and kill people from far away.  Because that would just be ludicrous...  (Like Dimsum said, does the USAF know about the USN's Tomahawk capability?)
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
213
Points
680
Effective range of a M777 is 24 to 40 Km depending on the type of shell being fired. Horizon from ground level is 3-4 km.

Does the Air Force want to operate all the M777?

I mean, once you are over the horizon, you are over the horizon, so actual range (25 Km or 1000 Km) shouldn't matter. Seems to me the definition should be based on  how the warhead is delivered: If you fire it or drop it from a land based airplane, it's Air Force, if it is fired from fixed land platform or land vehicle, it's Army, and if it is fired or dropped from a water borne platform or water based airplane, it's Navy.

Seems simple enough to understand.
 

quadrapiper

Full Member
Reaction score
44
Points
330
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Effective range of a M777 is 24 to 40 Km depending on the type of shell being fired. Horizon from ground level is 3-4 km.

Does the Air Force want to operate all the M777?

I mean, once you are over the horizon, you are over the horizon, so actual range (25 Km or 1000 Km) shouldn't matter. Seems to me the definition should be based on  how the warhead is delivered: If you fire it or drop it from a land based airplane, it's Air Force, if it is fired from fixed land platform or land vehicle, it's Army, and if it is fired or dropped from a water borne platform or water based airplane, it's Navy.

Seems simple enough to understand.
Which would mean the USAF would have to start caring about rotary mud-moving and skulking about.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
889
Points
940
quadrapiper said:
Which would mean the USAF would have to start caring about rotary mud-moving and skulking about.

If someone told them that, they would immediately cease and desist. :nod:
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
55
Points
480
As a geriatric mud gunner who has dabbled in the relationship between artillery and air since the Great War, the air power advocates have claimed that they should be allowed to select and destroy the most important targets, while the army is merely fighting the land battle. A major difference between the two is that virtually until weapons release, the air force can change the target selection, while the artillery looses control of the weapon's destination once it is fired. (The shell is the weapon of the artillery; the gun, rocket or whatever is the means of delivery.)

Gunners and the folks they support believe that is a good thing, while the air force is not convinced. There was quite a bit of debate in the first years of this century that precision guided weapons delivered by the air force had supplemented artillery, but events in a real, nasty shooting war did not support that argument. I am ambivalent about the issue as far as long range precision conventional weapons are concerned, and can understand both sides.

At first glance, it comes down to targeting, but I suspect it is more about cap badge politics, to use a Canadian Army phrase.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,601
Points
890
Old Sweat said:
A major difference between the two is that virtually until weapons release, the air force can change the target selection, while the artillery looses control of the weapon's destination once it is fired. (The shell is the weapon of the artillery; the gun, rocket or whatever is the means of delivery.)

Except with Excalibur and some other modern rounds, there remains a degree of control - the phrase "Rounds in the air, where do you want them" is no longer ironic.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
55
Points
480
dapaterson said:
Except with Excalibur and some other modern rounds, there remains a degree of control - the phrase "Rounds in the air, where do you want them" is no longer ironic.

In terms of "big picture" delivery, not so much. Changing the target location in the context we are discussing refers to at a minimum several kilometres and usually more.
 

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
119
Points
430
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Effective range of a M777 is 24 to 40 Km depending on the type of shell being fired. Horizon from ground level is 3-4 km.

Does the Air Force want to operate all the M777?

I mean, once you are over the horizon, you are over the horizon, so actual range (25 Km or 1000 Km) shouldn't matter. Seems to me the definition should be based on  how the warhead is delivered: If you fire it or drop it from a land based airplane, it's Air Force, if it is fired from fixed land platform or land vehicle, it's Army, and if it is fired or dropped from a water borne platform or water based airplane, it's Navy.

Seems simple enough to understand.

Yeah, but interservice rivalry in the United States has never been that straightforward. Historically there have been mobile missile launchers operated by both the US Air Force (Mace and GLCM) and the US Army (Pershing and Lance) -- this isn't a new problem, the Air Force and Army have been fighting over this turf since the 1950's.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
2,830
Points
1,060
Ostrozac said:
Yeah, but interservice rivalry in the United States has never been that straightforward. Historically there have been mobile missile launchers operated by both the US Air Force (Mace and GLCM) and the US Army (Pershing and Lance) -- this isn't a new problem, the Air Force and Army have been fighting over this turf since the 1950's.

The Airforce still shoots the Nukes. Maybe they should hand that over to Space Force now? :)
 

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
119
Points
430
dapaterson said:
As does the Navy.

And the US Army had nuclear weapons right up until the 1990's. None of it is straightforward, all of it involves politics, money and power.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
377
Points
910
I'm guessing that the Air Force is feeling the pinch from the addition of the Space Force.

They're four primary commands are:

Air Mobility
Air Force Special Operations
Air Combat
Global Strike

The heart of the Air Force is in the Air Combat fighters, designed to bring down bomb carriers, and the nuclear capable forces in Global Strike.

Global Strike consists of the B52s and other long range bombers of the WW2 vintage 8th Air Force and the  1950s vintage ICBMs of the 20th Air Force.

It doesn't want to do ground support and won't let the Army do it the way it wants to.
It already has competition from the Navy on ICBMs with subs being less vulnerable (and less of a risk to the local population).
I think that the Space Force can also make a play for the ICBMs of Global Strike.

The Navy can supply a greater variety of firing points than the Air Force - Even with the cost of carriers how do they compare to the cost of a hard surface airfield with hardened hangars, fuel storage, command facilities and air defences?  And co-operating allies?

And every UAV deployed merely demonstrates not the need for the UAVs but the capabilities that can be added to bullets and missiles that don't need the infrastructure.

The Air Force is in danger of going the way of the Horse Cavalry.  It was designed around a specific technology in a specific era.







 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
479
Points
860
That's probably true in many regards, but the need for fighters & bombers isn't going away anytime soon.

The Navy can't have carriers everywhere planes are based & needed, so the USAF - with the ability to fight enemy fighters & bombers, conduct air strikes, provide CAP, etc etc - will be around for a while yet
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
2,830
Points
1,060
CBH99 said:
That's probably true in many regards, but the need for fighters & bombers isn't going away anytime soon.

The Navy can't have carriers everywhere planes are based & needed, so the USAF - with the ability to fight enemy fighters & bombers, conduct air strikes, provide CAP, etc etc - will be around for a while yet

Speaking as an infantry guy, I don't mind knowing that there's a bit of 'overlap' out there in the fire plan :)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,113
Points
940
The Chieftain just did a video on the development of Soviet tank doctrine and at one point serious consideration was given to lumping tanks with the air force.

The USAF is also in danger of losing GPS and everything satellite to Space Command, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force#Duties
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
460
Part of the problem (assuming there is an actual problem, and not a dick measuring contest) is technology changes the abilities and roles of platforms, and allows capabilities that were never imagined initially.

Railgun rounds are being adapted for 155mm artillery. This provides the possibilities of being able to strike targets 70km away, or use 155mm artillery as GBAD against various sorts of air targets, incluing enemy missiles (realistically, a powered mount such as on a surface warship would be needed to use a 155 cannon that way).

Several of the proposed "Skyborg" UCAV aircraft are puported to be able to use limited ground facilities rather than airfields and bases. ideal for front line CAS, even though "Skyborg" is meant to provide "Third Offset" support to conventional air to air and air to ground missions.

Nuclear SSN's are becoming strategic weapons carriers. The 6000 ton  Arihant class of the Indian Navy and the USN's Virginia class SSN both have the capabilities of carrying strategic nuclear weapons.

It would probably be better to allow overlap and not worry about "who" is controlling the fire. A 1000 mile range cannon isn't going to be affected by weather the way aircraft are, but will also have limitations aircraft don't. The end user on the ground isn't going to be too worried about where the round comes from, so long as they can put down the handset and see a satisfying "boom" at the target location.
 
Top