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

[Bird_Gunner45]

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.

Even modern non-western nations such as China and Russia have made significant developments in Counter Precision Guided Munitions (C-PGM) technology, including the addition of the S1- Pantsyr C-PGM system.  Having seen the effects of US PGMs on the Iraqi and Serbian AD systems the Russians and Chinese have made their systems more survivable by developing systems such as the Pantsyr to intercept PGMs and by making their higher level AD systems more mobile and avoiding static installations like the Iraqi's had.

A modern near-peer nation armed with HIMAD systems, SHORAD systems, MANPADs, and C-PGM would have few issues dealing with small numbers of systems, particularly if they have strategic depth that forces our aircraft to go further into their territory to engage. A single solution, in a conventional fight, is a poor solution.  A c-130 gunship is an easy target against high level AD while the A-10 is susceptible to low level systems. You need the mix (whether that is in a coalition or national context) to be effective against a near peer. Canada needs to find its niche, accept that it's not going to be a big player like the US, and purchase an aircraft that allows it to fill that niche and/or focus solely on NORAD tasks.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Our niche is self-escort strike/CAS.  No, we are not going to be doing OCA or DCA in a shooting war.  We will deliver A/G weapons.

At home, we will provide Air Defense capabilities. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Self-escort strike I could see.  CAS...so you say, but I am highly doubtful.  Never been done, likely never will be done - the Army sees more of Top Aces' Alpha-jets than they do 18s...

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on why you would never no OCA in a shooting war, particularly if the opposition was flying?

 

[SupersonicMax]

We just don't have the capabilities other platforms have in terms of A/A employment. We do train for it (it is in our mission set) but it consists of 1 mission on each upgrade, more to give the guys an idea of what is OCA and what it involves rather than being experts at it.  Also, OCA is a much more agressive mission set and the risk levels associated with it are, imho, well beyond what we, Canadians, are ready to accept.

For CAS, it doesn't make sense to use CF-18s for training all the time.  It's way more expensive and it removes FG hours from us (as you know, it is severely limited these days).  FAC training level CAS is very simple and well within the grasp of even most junior wingmen.  The training value for us is very limited.  When doing more complex scenarios (like SOJTAC training), now it becomes some really valuable training.

 

[Good2Golf]

So OCA is likely too dangerous (even with 583R2?) and CAS training of Army FAC/JTACs isn't cost effective for the 18s to actually do it, so what are you saving all your FG effort for? NORAD DCA? Strike/SCAR?  You might have to forgive those of us who see the fighter force's sentiment about doing things other than supporting their fellow CAF comrades as confusing and perhaps...un-teamlike?

 

[dapaterson]

so what are you saving all your FG effort for?

Looking cool in leather jackets.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So OCA is likely too dangerous (even with 583R2?) and CAS training of Army FAC/JTACs isn't cost effective for the 18s to actually do it, so what are you saving all your FG effort for? NORAD DCA? Strike/SCAR?  You might have to forgive those of us who see the fighter force's sentiment about doing things other than supporting their fellow CAF comrades as confusing and perhaps...un-teamlike?

OCA:  yes.  Higher risk tactics with (generally speaking) acceptable losses for mission success. 

FG, these days, is strictly limited to procducing combat ready wingmen and leads.  We have 0 capacity for continuation training.  Those syllabi are dictated by the SET under recommendations from the community.  It consists of NORAD, BFM, ACM, TI, DCA, OCA, Range, CAS, XINT and AI. Focus is on the A/G portion and heavily biased towards AI as it is the more complex mission set we do.

I would love to be able to support FAC courses (and we still actually do.  Wainwright in July and November) and SOJTAC (we did in California back in January).  We used to do more,  a couple years ago but YFR was not an issue then.  We support when we can and we do bend over bavkwards to do so.  I am intimately involved in the planning of our exercises and we do our best with what we are given.  But we are not given nearly enough to accomplish what we are mandated to do.

IMO, the alphajets are more cost effective on the initial stages of the course.  Imstead of having a Hornet at 40K an hour and limited YFR to orbit for an hour for a talk on, get the alphajet with pretty much unlimited hours (no training requirement for those guys) and much cheaper.  They will even get drop capability soon.  Once the baby FACs get proficient, get the Hornets with live weapons to top up their training.

Supporting the Army is one thing we do.  Not all we do. Both in Training and combat.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Looking cool in leather jackets while strolling across the ramp...that you have to take off before you actually fly something.

 

[dapaterson]

Common sense was never stated or implied as part of the equation.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

OCA:  yes.  Higher risk tactics with (generally speaking) acceptable losses for mission success. 

FG, these days, is strictly limited to procducing combat ready wingmen and leads.  We have 0 capacity for continuation training.  Those syllabi are dictated by the SET under recommendations from the community.  It consists of NORAD, BFM, ACM, TI, DCA, OCA, Range, CAS, XINT and AI. Focus is on the A/G portion and heavily biased towards AI as it is the more complex mission set we do.

What are the chances that you can explain some of the alphabet soup/abbrev's? 

 

[SupersonicMax]

BFM: Basic Fighter Manoevers - 1v1 close fights
ACM: Air Combat Manoevers - 2v1 or 2 close fights
NORAD: self-explanatory
TI - Tactical Intercepts - 2 or 4 v X Air-Air basic flows and tactics
DCA: Defensive Counter Air - 2 or 4 v X - Area/Point/High Value Assets protection
OCA: Offensive Counter Air - 2 or 4 ship escorting bombers to a target
Range: Academic A/G range (dive deliveries and basic LGB deliveries)
CAS - Close Air Support
XINT - SCAR - Strike Coordination Armed Reconnaissance
AI - Air Interdiction - Self-Escort Strike

 

[Eye In The Sky]

copy, tks.

 

[daftandbarmy]

BFM: Basic Fighter Manoevers - 1v1 close fights
ACM: Air Combat Manoevers - 2v1 or 2 close fights
NORAD: self-explanatory
TI - Tactical Intercepts - 2 or 4 v X Air-Air basic flows and tactics
DCA: Defensive Counter Air - 2 or 4 v X - Area/Point/High Value Assets protection
OCA: Offensive Counter Air - 2 or 4 ship escorting bombers to a target
Range: Academic A/G range (dive deliveries and basic LGB deliveries)
CAS - Close Air Support
XINT - SCAR - Strike Coordination Armed Reconnaissance
AI - Air Interdiction - Self-Escort Strike
BITFTM - Back in time for tea and medals

FTFY  ;D

 

[Loachman]

a little tweaking of the hull design you could make cause radar seekers to have problems too.

The fuselage and wings, being plywood, are already invisible to radar. No tweaking is required there.

 

[a_majoor]

Some retro ideas about how CAS could have been implemented in the 1980's. The Scaled Composites ARES jet was perhaps the closest thing to a private contractor creating a ground attack aircraft in the post war period; it used a jet engine from a business jet, carried a 25mm Gatling cannon which fired the same sort of ammunition we use in chain guns and actually was flight tested for a while. The second illustration is a speculative design from the ILM group developed under the "ADDAX" name, this resembles an attack helicopter fuselage with wings in place of the rotors, and the two jet engines mounted above and behind the pilot.

The ADDAX project was based on the idea of using the volumetric space of an airframe more efficiently and to separate critical items to reduce the effects of battle damage. Two other designs for high speed aircraft were also developed, and used compressor air "bled" over the airfoil to develop huge amounts of lift from a F-16 sized package. However, there were no interested customers for the ARES ro ADDAX, so both projects died

http://www.scaled.com/projects/ares

AGILE RESPONSIVE EFFECTIVE SUPPORTS (ARES)

The ARES, Scaled Model 151, was designed initially in response to a U.S. Army request for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). A design study was performed by Rutan Aircraft Factory in 1981 for such an aircraft. Its mission goals were low-altitude, close air support, with long endurance, and with adequate field performance to operate from roads.

Scaled followed up with the concept, and ultimately decided to build a demonstrator aircraft with internal funds. The ARES first flew on February 19, 1990. ARES has flown more than 250 hours, and demonstrated all of its design performance and handling qualities goals, including departure-free handling at full aft stick. During November of 1991, tests of the GAU-12/U gun system installed in ARES were performed, with outstanding results.

Movie buffs may also remember the ARES in its role as the secret ME-263 jet in the screen classic Iron Eagle III.

ARES is currently available for use as a research test bed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's get back on track folks. This isn't about what airframe should replace the A-10, but who should own CAS.

Further posts not adhering to the thread topic run the risk of deletion.

---STAFF---

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

What are the chances that you can explain some of the alphabet soup/abbrev's?

Max, I'm a bit of a latecomer to the discussion but if fellow Airforce guys are asking you to unshmuck the lingo then isn't that possibly a bit of a ping in your mind that you aren't exactly on the same sheet of music as everyone else is? 

At the end of the day, we are discussing the disconnect between the elements.

 

[SupersonicMax]

This was a but of a sideteack from the actual discussion, but there is a disconnect with Army types.  However, the FAC community is fairly well educated on what we do and how.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

You know what, not going there.  Max- you're on your own song sheet buddy.

 

[Ralph]

OCA:  yes.  Higher risk tactics with (generally speaking) acceptable losses for mission success. 

FG, these days, is strictly limited to procducing combat ready wingmen and leads.  We have 0 capacity for continuation training.  Those syllabi are dictated by the SET under recommendations from the community.  It consists of NORAD, BFM, ACM, TI, DCA, OCA, Range, CAS, XINT and AI. Focus is on the A/G portion and heavily biased towards AI as it is the more complex mission set we do.

I would love to be able to support FAC courses (and we still actually do.  Wainwright in July and November) and SOJTAC (we did in California back in January).  We used to do more,  a couple years ago but YFR was not an issue then.  We support when we can and we do bend over bavkwards to do so.  I am intimately involved in the planning of our exercises and we do our best with what we are given.  But we are not given nearly enough to accomplish what we are mandated to do.

IMO, the alphajets are more cost effective on the initial stages of the course.  Imstead of having a Hornet at 40K an hour and limited YFR to orbit for an hour for a talk on, get the alphajet with pretty much unlimited hours (no training requirement for those guys) and much cheaper.  They will even get drop capability soon.  Once the baby FACs get proficient, get the Hornets with live weapons to top up their training.

Supporting the Army is one thing we do.  Not all we do. Both in Training and combat.

The AJs can also support low-level controls (and the majority are retired Hornet pilots with a gajillion hours). Other than not being able to drop and not having the same pod capabilities, the Alphas are what we need in these fiscal times IOT get FACs trained. That being said, new Hornet pilots need to learn how to talk to the guys on the ground too.