Who should own CAS & why it can't be trusted to an Air Force (from A-10 retirement thread)

[a_majoor]

An interesting site to surf: http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/

It is in the form of an internet "magazine", which covers various aviation topics. Of interest is the March 1998 "issue" with an article on COIN: French counter insurgency aircraft 1946-1965, and Nov-Dec 1998 Tigers and Lions in Paradise: Siri Lanka's Civil War. This same issue also talks about "Combat crop dusters"; a black program to harden and potentially arm crop-dusters to carry out spraying operations against narcotics fields in South America.

Various other articles throughout the site talk about trench strafing and "contact patrol" aircraft from the end of the Great War, so there is an overall view of the evolution of CAS from 1918 to the end of the insurgency in Siri Lanka.

One thing that becomes clear overall is the evolution of CAS aircraft is a drawn out and expensive program to create a small number of specialized aircraft with few other possible roles; one reason air forces in general hate them. The resources needed to devote to this role are great, and with the end of the war you are left with a bunch of planes parked at the end of the runway and no one willing to pay for them. In the back of the mind is also the feeling that the next time there is a call for this service, the existing fleet of airplanes will be obsolete or operating in an unsuitable area they were never designed for (imagine if the British had carried out operations in Turkey in the early 1920's, flying heavy and underpowered Contact Patrol aircraft in the mountains of Anatolia....).

Certainly the A-10 is operating in a much different environment than envisioned in the 1970's when it was designed, and some of the factors above are indeed in play (the EW, SAM and GBAD environments are orders of magnitude more lethal than they were 30 years ago, while masses of armoured targets are no longer a factor on the battlefield).

 

[daftandbarmy]

How about the infantry getting their medium mortar platoons back?

And the 60, fercrissakes!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The removal of mortars from the infantry is the type of insanity that makes us suspicious of all the promises that are given to the PBI. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

The removal of mortars from the infantry is the type of insanity that makes us suspicious of all the promises that are given to the PBI.

That's probably why everyone is so concerned about the 5.56mm calibre these days. If we had adequate integral indirect fire support, like we used to, the rifle/LMG can be relatively inconsequential.

 

[KevinB]

Further to that  - we are dispersing small units further and further - and asking them to dominate more ground with less support...

 

[OldSolduer]

Further to that  - we are dispersing small units further and further - and asking them to dominate more ground with less support...

I have a question - Kev is right - why not go back to 7.62 mm or something with a bit more pizzazz.....not a fan of the 5.56

 

[a_majoor]

Changing rifle calibre bullets really won't make much of a difference in this particular argument. CAS is really a form of indirect fire, so bringing back the mortar platoon, reissuing a 60mm mortar at platoon level, using advanced missile weapons like FOG-M or SPIKE, re emphasizing indirect fire from tanks and building up the artillery park with, you know, guns are all means of achieving the end using Army resources.

Attack helicopters, armed UCAVs or large, armed quad copters are another means of achieving this sort of fire support without the use of fixed wing aircraft, and of course using fixed wing platforms as bomb trucks and missile platforms is the "modern" means of doing CAS.

 

[daftandbarmy]

An interesting article on the subject of CAS from 1990 when they were thinking about getting rid of the aging A-10  :

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/1990/1990%20garrett.pdf

 

[KevinB]

Changing rifle calibre bullets really won't make much of a difference in this particular argument. CAS is really a form of indirect fire, so bringing back the mortar platoon, reissuing a 60mm mortar at platoon level, using advanced missile weapons like FOG-M or SPIKE, re emphasizing indirect fire from tanks and building up the artillery park with, you know, guns are all means of achieving the end using Army resources.

Attack helicopters, armed UCAVs or large, armed quad copters are another means of achieving this sort of fire support without the use of fixed wing aircraft, and of course using fixed wing platforms as bomb trucks and missile platforms is the "modern" means of doing CAS.

My experience from Iraq say that Helo's and Drones do not fly in lower visibility dust storms.   

Not really solving the Close issue - but a C-130 with pod setup could loiter a lot longer and be above local issues like choking sand...

 

[YZT580]

My experience from Iraq say that Helo's and Drones do not fly in lower visibility dust storms.   

Not really solving the Close issue - but a C-130 with pod setup could loiter a lot longer and be above local issues like choking sand...

big slow moving vulnerable.  If they aren't having problems picking off SU-25s they sure as hell aren't going to have any problems with a circling C130. 

 

[a_majoor]

Bit surprised the USAF crowd hasn't jumped on the vulnerability of Ukrainian SU-25's as an argument to get rid of the A-10. Of course, that argument also puts a big dent in letting the F-35 anywhere near a combat zone....

 

[YZT580]

Bit surprised the USAF crowd hasn't jumped on the vulnerability of Ukrainian SU-25's as an argument to get rid of the A-10. Of course, that argument also puts a big dent in letting the F-35 anywhere near a combat zone....

There own experts have already critiqued the F-35 as being too fast and too expensive for ground support, too small to be a practical bomber, not maneuverable enough in head to head combat and the software doesn't deliver what was promised.  Other than that it is a great airplane for combat. 
  My recollection is that at least have of the SU-25 losses have been in the mid-altitudes and not during CAS operations.

 

[OldSolduer]

There own experts have already critiqued the F-35 as being too fast and too expensive for ground support, too small to be a practical bomber, not maneuverable enough in head to head combat and the software doesn't deliver what was promised.  Other than that it is a great airplane for combat. 
  My recollection is that at least have of the SU-25 losses have been in the mid-altitudes and not during CAS operations.

Your quote reminds me of Stormin Norman's assessment of Sadaam in Gulf War 1.

Head scratching here...if it's no good.....why see we looking to buy it?


I think I know the reasons......

 

[KevinB]

big slow moving vulnerable.  If they aren't having problems picking off SU-25s they sure as hell aren't going to have any problems with a circling C130.

At 30,000 launching JDAM's?

I'm not talking a AC-130 running low level passes.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm pretty sure that the Spooky is pretty solid from its operational posture and gear that it has on board...FROGFOOT's SPO-15 was pretty much programmed with a lot of Western radar systems, so not sure it would have been much (if any) help against the GADFLY...protective systems are only as good as the data they are programmed to detect.

Regards
G2G

 

[daftandbarmy]

Maybe we need to start another run of these things:

Vintage bomber wasn’t built for comfort

http://www.timescolonist.com/vintage-bomber-wasn-t-built-for-comfort-1.1265250

 

[OldSolduer]

Maybe we need to start another run of these things:

Vintage bomber wasn’t built for comfort

http://www.timescolonist.com/vintage-bomber-wasn-t-built-for-comfort-1.1265250

The Mosquitoe. Twin engine, go like a bugger. Versatile and capable of several different missions from recce to
CAS.  :nod:

 

[YZT580]

The Mosquitoe. Twin engine, go like a bugger. Versatile and capable of several different missions from recce to
CAS.  :nod:

And all the materials are available in the forests of BC and Quebec.  Be reasonably safe against heat seekers and with a little tweaking of the hull design you could make cause radar seekers to have problems too.  A little chaff out the window.  Not sure about the 50 cal. vs. plywood duel though.

 

[OldSolduer]

And all the materials are available in the forests of BC and Quebec.  Be reasonably safe against heat seekers and with a little tweaking of the hull design you could make cause radar seekers to have problems too.  A little chaff out the window.  Not sure about the 50 cal. vs. plywood duel though.

Not being a pilot, but I think if the Super Mosquitoe were to fly low and fast enough, the gunners have no chance to react.....

 

[a_majoor]

Having been in the sights of an A-10 during it simulated gun run, I can attest that it can also come in very low and fast, much faster than any hand held weapon could react.

Of course we (or at least modern Western military forces) don't defend against low flying aircraft with pintle mounted machine guns and open sights either...

It is instructive to look at some of the capabilities we let evaporate over the years. 35mm Skyguard cannons with AHEAD ammunition and integrated into the ADATS/GBAD system were reputedly capable of intercepting not just the aircraft, but even incoming bombs and missiles. If modern GBAD can do that, then a big bomb truck would be needed to saturate a high value target and ensure the target is "serviced" properly.