Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#3915048 - 02/21/14 08:57 PM Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ?  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
I am a fan of what the A10 stands for. Single role, austere / affordable design focusing on important tactical areas i.e. what will help the grunts on the ground. (Please note in this respect my thinking has been polluted by the writings of Boyd and Sprey.) The fact that it has put the nose out of USAF hierarchy is just a bonus. But....and it's a big BUT I can't see how it could effectively operate until a reliable method for evading low level IR missiles is invented.

How did I come to this conclusion....braces himself for hysterical laughter....DCS A10 A&C. Okay okay it's a game, it's impossible to fly co-operatively with the AI, in the real world I am sure there are all sorts of systems we are unaware of. But if the effectiveness of just one SA 10 is remotely accurate then its' combination of mobility, passive tracking and aiming coupled with IR missiles able to engage almost down to ground level, make employing the A10 almost suicidal.

I read recently that if the balloon had gone up during the Cold War then the attrition rate of A10's in Germany (that would have been Andy Bush and his mates) was predicted to be eerrhhh very high. With modern day double digit SAM's especially short range low level I'd worry it would be total carnage.

Am I being too pessimistic about the role of CAS as typified by the A10 in the modern battlefield against peers. Are people being too sentimental about the hog and the days of low and slow are over? Is there anyway to counter a launched low altitude IR missile ?

TIM

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3915064 - 02/21/14 09:27 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
Originally Posted By: RANSs9
But....and it's a big BUT I can't see how it could effectively operate until a reliable method for evading low level IR missiles is invented.


THat's what the MLWS + CMDS are for.

Quote:
How did I come to this conclusion....braces himself for hysterical laughter....DCS A10 A&C. Okay okay it's a game, it's impossible to fly co-operatively with the AI, in the real world I am sure there are all sorts of systems we are unaware of. But if the effectiveness of just one SA 10 is remotely accurate then its' combination of mobility, passive tracking and aiming coupled with IR missiles able to engage almost down to ground level, make employing the A10 almost suicidal.


There's no 'passive tracking' in the SA-10, but that said, there's also no A-10C's flying where there's SA-10's. SEAD goes in first.

Quote:
I read recently that if the balloon had gone up during the Cold War then the attrition rate of A10's in Germany (that would have been Andy Bush and his mates) was predicted to be eerrhhh very high. With modern day double digit SAM's especially short range low level I'd worry it would be total carnage.


Yes, it would have been high because the ADA density was high. In that scenario the A-10's weren't there to support grunts, they were there to smash their 6 AGM-65's into the advancing wave of soviet tanks, go back, arm up and come back to do it again.

Quote:
Am I being too pessimistic about the role of CAS as typified by the A10 in the modern battlefield against peers. Are people being too sentimental about the hog and the days of low and slow are over? Is there anyway to counter a launched low altitude IR missile ?


You're being too focused on judging based on a game. How many A-10's were brought down due to MANPADS over Iraq, Afganistan, or the balkans?

The game doesn't represent the MLWS/CMDS function well, nor the missile's susceptibility to flares.


--
44th VFW
#3915233 - 02/22/14 08:31 AM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
Apologies I didn't mean SA10 I meant to say ..SA13.

I am getting my digits mixed up and not for the first time; must be an age thing.

As far as I am aware they can track and launch passively and this appears how they are modelled in game. although I am no authority this doesn't seem to be beyond belief since aircraft have this ability. If this is the case you face a mobile, concealable, low level significant threat which will give you NO indication it's tracking or firing apart from possibly smoke. In this environment MLWS and CMDS won't help, manoeuvring low level to defeat an IR missile most likely acquired late isn't going to fill me with joy either.
True lessons from previous conflicts need careful interpretation . My understanding is that most tanks killed by A10's in Gulf War were by Mavericks not gun; just look at the numbers of alarms fired in the Balkans and number of radars actually hit frightening ; not sure about density of manpads in Iraq/ Afghanistan or Balkans but pretty sure 9K-37M2 is quantum leap ahead in capability.

For sure "Fulga Gap" scenario is extreme. The problem with going back to reload with more Mavs is you need to be able to go back and the analyst suspected that many wouldn't be. Also the density of ADA would have been high but so would the density of defending forces; in a lower intensity peer/peer action there wouldn't be that density of ADA and most likely there wouldn't be that many A10's.

I fully agree with you that e3xtrapolating from entertainment games is verging on the absurd but it makes you think.

#3915275 - 02/22/14 01:33 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
Originally Posted By: RANSs9
If this is the case you face a mobile, concealable, low level significant threat which will give you NO indication it's tracking or firing apart from possibly smoke. In this environment MLWS and CMDS won't help,


Yes, they will. It is exactly what they are there for.

Quote:
My understanding is that most tanks killed by A10's in Gulf War were by Mavericks not gun; just look at the numbers of alarms fired in the Balkans and number of radars actually hit frightening ; not sure about density of manpads in Iraq/ Afghanistan or Balkans but pretty sure 9K-37M2 is quantum leap ahead in capability.


I don't know what you're trying to say about ALARMs. They're SEAD missiles, their job is to make the other guy shut down the radar or eat the missile, and in that respect they worked as they were supposed to. As for MANPADS, there's no reticle seeker in the world that won't eat flares.

Quote:
I fully agree with you that e3xtrapolating from entertainment games is verging on the absurd but it makes you think.


Extrapolating from the game can make you think, but it often leads to wrong conclusions.


--
44th VFW
#3915340 - 02/22/14 05:26 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
I stand corrected.
I didn't realise that MLWS (AN/AAR -47) gave indication of IR missile launch irrespective of any radar activity. Should play more A10C than A. That's definately a step in the right direction as using the mark one eyeball smacks of task saturation.

Does the A10C have IRCM or evem directional IRCM. The manual just talks about chaff/ flares and ECM. If just flares I be interested to know if A10 crews felt that manoeuvre/ flare dispensing gave reasonable protection. How does it play out in the game ? I find when I setup a scenario with the A10A , a single SA13, flying with labels so I know exactly where it is and when it shoots (so my equivalent of MLWS); if I survive the first missile the second normally gets me. Perhaps they are over modelled or perhaps their more sophisticated sensors are not so easily spoofed by flares. However directional IRCM may even things up.

I suppose what I was trying to say about HARMs and ALARMs is that SEAD to reduce threat level to point where A10 could deploy maybe easier said than done. In Kosovo 743 Alarms were launched (at a cost of approx $220 million !!!!) which eliminated static air defences but didn't touch the mobile air defences; leaving air operations below 15,000' high risk. CAS from 15,000' is stretching the term "close" and tends to lead to high "toy tank" kills which are not much of a help to people on the ground.

#3915457 - 02/23/14 12:25 AM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
Originally Posted By: RANSs9
I stand corrected.
I didn't realise that MLWS (AN/AAR -47) gave indication of IR missile launch irrespective of any radar activity. Should play more A10C than A. That's definately a step in the right direction as using the mark one eyeball smacks of task saturation.


Sorry, I didn't realize that you were referring to the A-10A. The A can also deal with things, but as you know, your head needs to be on a swivel (and can't always be), so the way of dealing with things is pre-emptive flaring. This is not modeled right now, ie. pre-emptive flaring won't help you.

Quote:
Does the A10C have IRCM or evem directional IRCM. The manual just talks about chaff/ flares and ECM. If just flares I be interested to know if A10 crews felt that manoeuvre/ flare dispensing gave reasonable protection.


Real crews might not give you a very direct answer, for a couple of reasons: One, details of effectiveness and employment of countermeasures is classified, and two, well, it depends on a lot of things.

What they can and will tell you probably is that you always use CMs + Maneuver. In some cases, the maneuver is absolutely necessary, in others, a good idea.

There's no IR jammer on the A-10.

Quote:
How does it play out in the game ? I find when I setup a scenario with the A10A , a single SA13, flying with labels so I know exactly where it is and when it shoots (so my equivalent of MLWS); if I survive the first missile the second normally gets me. Perhaps they are over modelled or perhaps their more sophisticated sensors are not so easily spoofed by flares. However directional IRCM may even things up.


There are things that the AI does that you might consider cheating ... however ... that SAM is there to shoot you down. It's designed for it. Part of not getting shot down by these things are avoidance tactics.

Quote:
I suppose what I was trying to say about HARMs and ALARMs is that SEAD to reduce threat level to point where A10 could deploy maybe easier said than done.


That won't do anything for MANPADS or any IR SHORAD.

Quote:
In Kosovo 743 Alarms were launched (at a cost of approx $220 million !!!!) which eliminated static air defences but didn't touch the mobile air defences; leaving air operations below 15,000' high risk. CAS from 15,000' is stretching the term "close" and tends to lead to high "toy tank" kills which are not much of a help to people on the ground.


I don't think anyone goes hunting after man-portable stuff in RL. You simply can't find'em, but they see you. Sure, you can blow up the area the smoke trail points to after they launch. You operate based on your acceptance of risk, and in Kosovo the USAF did not accept the risk of their A-10's being engaged by MANPADS.


--
44th VFW
#3915545 - 02/23/14 06:46 AM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
So out of interest how do you cope in game with SA13's ?. I have a practice scenario with a single SA13 parked on the edge of a village with our boys requesting CAS on the other side of the village in relatively flat featureless plain.

#3915622 - 02/23/14 02:55 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
MigBuster Offline
Member
MigBuster  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
UK
If you are in the A-10A then pick it out with the Maverick video view and fire. If you have to fly low then stay over friendly troops as much as poss.


'Crashing and Burning since 1987'
#3915654 - 02/23/14 04:25 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
Yep, take it out, or stay above its effective altitude - don't dive below 10000'. The gun will still deliver against infantry.

Other possibilities: The ground troops can mark it for you (you'd have to program that into the game, or at least add a JTAC) so it's easy to find.

Seeker behavior and AI behavior is always being looked at, so changes will come, even if slowly.


--
44th VFW
#3915665 - 02/23/14 05:22 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
Thanks for the info guys.

#3916207 - 02/24/14 09:09 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,330
Stratos Offline
Hotshot
Stratos  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,330
Amposta, Spain
Originally Posted By: RANSs9
I stand correctedI suppose what I was trying to say about HARMs and ALARMs is that SEAD to reduce threat level to point where A10 could deploy maybe easier said than done. In Kosovo 743 Alarms were launched (at a cost of approx $220 million !!!!) which eliminated static air defences but didn't touch the mobile air defences; leaving air operations below 15,000' high risk. CAS from 15,000' is stretching the term "close" and tends to lead to high "toy tank" kills which are not much of a help to people on the ground.


Where have you found this info about the number of missiles fired? Is very interesting as I'm reading about Balkans operations.


-Sir in case of retreat, were we have to retreat??
-To the Graveyard!!

sandbagger.uk.com/stratos.html
#3916712 - 02/25/14 10:00 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
I stumbled across these facts while reading articles and seeing videos of discussions with a Pierre Sprey. He presents a viewpoint about western military procurement especially combat aircraft which is interesting.
An outspoken critic of;
F22 and F35
US and and by default western military procurement
the military-industrial complex
the obsession with high tech
the effectiveness of stealth
the effectiveness of BVR engagements
the effectiveness of strategic bombing

the list goes on!

Whether you agree or disagree with the views as one intimately involved in the design of 2 of the most iconic modern US military aircraft F16 and A10 he deserve listening to. Part of Boyds' "Fighter Mafia" it comes as no surprise they eventually disowned their creations; A10 having become too big and underpowered F16 for BVR capability necessitating widening of the nose cone to fit the more complex radar leading to high AOA lateral instability and the necessity to restrict max alpha (and therefore max manoeuvre) to 27 degrees)I think).

The particular information about harms came out in these discussions. I've seen it reproduced else where. If you want more Bprey like analysis try defenseissues.wordpress.com.

It would help to hear direct counter argument to be able to form a better opinion but the discussions are interesting and lead by people with no seeming financial interest.

It is their blunt/brutal analysis that makes me feel that in a Peer/Peer engagement A10's attempting true close air support would, like Blenheims fighting 109's in the Battle of Britain, not last 24hrs.

As Patton said; "If everbody's thinking the same then nobody's thinking!"

#3916731 - 02/25/14 10:39 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
He can be an outspoken critic of anything he likes. If you want a comparison to his era, it would be like criticizing replacing P-51's with 'big, expensive, underpowered F-86's that can't turn', or perhaps he might complain about replacing the F-4 with F-15's.

He's basically wrong.

As for the HARMs, it's well known and no one is disputing that many were launched and few if anything hit anything of value. But that isn't the point. The point is that you could call 'magnum' over the radio and the SAM operators would shut down their radars. Sure, there were SAMs, and they didn't get destroyed by HARMs. They were also mostly useless, which is the entire point of SEAD.


--
44th VFW
#3916975 - 02/26/14 01:43 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
"He can be an outspoken critic of anything he likes. If you want a comparison to his era, it would be like criticizing replacing P-51's with 'big, expensive, underpowered F-86's that can't turn', or perhaps he might complain about replacing the F-4 with F-15's."

Interesting choice of aircraft. Not sure how F86 would cope with P51; maybe in a bounce / snapshot situation possibility but if P51 pilot had visual F86 would have a hard time getting any sort of tracking shot given closure rate and relative poor turining circle. I read a report from one of the F14 pilots in the F14 v Zero scene from the film "The Final Coutdown"; they nearly lost one of the F14s in a low level incipient stall and if you watch the scene closely enough you'll see just when it happens. Given that Boyd was involved in F15 development (although according to him too sophisticated and expensive), and I suspect thought the F4 was ...errrhhh not very good he'd be with you on that one.


"He's basically wrong."

As I said there are different viewpoints. Some people think the world and everything in it was created in 4,000years; others 4 billion years plus through random events and evolutionary mechanisms. Since I am not anthropologist/ geologist / astrophysicist etc in the end for me it comes down to evidence and belief. Generally I put more trust in groups that are actively critical of their own views as well as others. I am used to enviroments with high levels of active criticism...........I have a wife.


"As for the HARMs, it's well known and no one is disputing that many were launched and few if anything hit anything of value. But that isn't the point. The point is that you could call 'magnum' over the radio and the SAM operators would shut down their radars. Sure, there were SAMs, and they didn't get destroyed by HARMs. They were also mostly useless, which is the entire point of SEAD."

I suppose there are a number of ways the Balkans episode could be viewed. An alternative to your view might be that despite $220 milliion's worth missiles, a relatively small mobile IADS system all but prevented air activity below 15,000'. Personally I'd call that a result. Even the fixed IADS which did suffer was able to destroy 2 F117's one in the air the other damaged beyound repair. That may not make you think but it sure has Western and Eastern air forces. Calling Magnum is a sneaky trick; the mistake is to think the bad guy isn't just as sneaky. The CoolShades/ Big Watch/ Brylecream Boys would suggest at the merge you assume the other guy is the Red Baron and manoeuvre accordingly. Then be pleasantly surprised if he turns out not to be. What's stopping the bad boys locking you up, firing a simple modified firework, both of which would be enough to trigger your MLWS / RWR. Jettison all stores and lets call it a "Soft Kill". Maybe go for an active shot as you egress, particularly stragglers, as they did in the Balkans.

#3917026 - 02/26/14 03:27 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,431
Originally Posted By: RANSs9
Interesting choice of aircraft. Not sure how F86 would cope with P51; maybe in a bounce / snapshot situation possibility but if P51 pilot had visual F86 would have a hard time getting any sort of tracking shot given closure rate and relative poor turining circle.


Right, so we should still be flying P-51's.

Quote:
As I said there are different viewpoints.


Yep, and his is wrong. Or irrelevant. Whatever you want to call it. If opinions/viewpoints are all equal and there's no right or wrong opinion, then they're not worth anything.

Quote:
I suppose there are a number of ways the Balkans episode could be viewed. An alternative to your view might be that despite $220 milliion's worth missiles, a relatively small mobile IADS system all but prevented air activity below 15,000'. Personally I'd call that a result.


And you would be wrong, because those missiles were never meant to do anything about MANPADS, nor is that the job of SEAD.

Quote:
Even the fixed IADS which did suffer was able to destroy 2 F117's one in the air the other damaged beyound repair.


And the one we actually know something about had to fly right over that radar to get shot down. What about all the other F-117 flights, and all the other, thousands of sorties which did not suffer because the IADS was suppressed?

Quote:
Jettison all stores and lets call it a "Soft Kill". Maybe go for an active shot as you egress, particularly stragglers, as they did in the Balkans.


They didn't do anything particularly useful in the balkans. They had a constant umbrella of NATO airpower hanging over them. Their best defended emplacements got bombed more than once. I'd call that a result.


--
44th VFW
#3917152 - 02/26/14 06:46 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Remember, there are many types of CAS. High threat, low threat, no threat. The threat will drive the tactics.

The A-10 is challenged in high threat scenarios by its lack of speed. As was mentioned previously, maneuver plus countermeasures defeats missiles, countermeasures alone may not. The A-10 though, as well as many other platforms, has addressed the increased low level threat with standoff. Standoff is only possible with increasingly accurate targeting and weapons delivery.

Modern FACs, can provide far more accurate target marking than even ten years ago, and the quality of airborne targeting devices combined with weapons, like the JDAM, that can overcome the traditional limitations of long standoff engagement allows even legacy aircraft a much better opportunity to stay above the MANPAD's most effective altitudes while still allowing for a substantial chance of finding and hitting CAS targets, which are notoriously hard to find.

The big thing that is missing in most sims, including DCS, is the larger overall targeting network that exists in real life. In sims like DCS, much of the benefit of a good FAC is missing, requiring you to find the target yourself. There are also techniques like artillery suppression of enemy air defenses, which we used to practice extensively in the Marines, that are entirely absent in most sims...it's frankly just too hard to simulate I think and the purpose behind such aids like labels, lest you never find the enemy at all.

Now, once you start elevating the threat level and denying the CAS assets access to an altitude sanctuary, you may effectively force the CAS provider to accept the increased (though lower by comparison) risk of going low...or abandoning CAS support until altitude sanctuary can be regained.

Of course, even 20 years or so ago when I was flying, the MANPAD threat was less robust and, while dicey, it was still considered survivable to stay low and engage targets via pop up or ramp up attacks. At least it was considered preferable to getting zapped by a Radar missile if you poked your nose too high.

Deacon

#3918653 - 03/01/14 11:45 AM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
"Right, so we should still be flying P-51's."


Hilarious...would you believe it yes.
It was called the "Enforcer" and was a program in 1979 to develop a cheap Air to ground attack plane based on a modified P51. Slowly working way through "The Revolt of the Majors" by Marshall Michel III (the enforcer is p362) a counter to the Boyd / Sprey / Riccioni view of the wotld. The counter arguement to the "critics" (Boyd and co.) was that South Vietnamese Air Forces propeller attack aircraft had been driven out of the Skies by SA7 manpads according to the author these were useless against jets but not against propeller aircraft (didn't US use Skyraiders to good effect?). Not quite sure about the logic behind that but even so given how vunerable to small arms the Mustang was low level i personally would want a heavly modified P51 (.....i.e. a different airplane). Maybe a Super Tucano / Texan AT6 which seem to be usefully employed by the South Americans.

Dear "Deacon" if your still around and have the time / inclination I'd be interested in your views about modern day CAS. As an ex- menber of what I would view as the epitome of CAS (Marine Corp Aviation).

What does CAS bring to the Force Commander / Grunt on the Ground that artilery mortars etc can't ?

In your opinion can meaningfull CAS be performed at 15,000' ?

Given the need to co-ordinate with the ground forces, possibly search/ identify targets while also flying (possibly low level) is a two seater a high priorty or can these problems be overcome by modern avionics single ship mutual support ?

How much of an issue is loiter time? AIrcraft are always compromises how high on the priorty list would you put it?


Coming from across the pond and thinking about modern IAD; I suspect in this present fiscally tight enviroment we could make sweeping cuts in our own budget. Instead relying on routine total cloud cover, a large number of telephone lines / Power Lines and the fact that "Who in their right mind would want to invade us ?"

#3922839 - 03/10/14 07:33 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Deacon211 Offline
Senior Member
Deacon211  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,509
Louisville, KY
Well, my modern CAS experience isn't really all that modern. The last time I FACed was in 2002. But I think I can give you a flavor of the answer in any case. Ill try to keep it short, but I usually fail.

"What does CAS bring to the Force Commander / Grunt on the Ground that artilery mortars etc can't ?"

CAS is generally more accurate than artillery, which is really an area weapon (groovy late era smart rounds aside). IIRC an FO is going to fire for effect once he breaks the 100 meter bracket, blanketing the target area with rounds. This will certainly cover the target area with fire, but may not be of sufficient concentration to destroy reinforced structures, well dug positions, armored vehicles, etc which may require a direct (or at least a nearly direct) hit. Aircraft, on the other hand, can choose to scatter their ordnance for area targets or attempt to put as much steel on a point target itself as possible. Greatly simplified, artillery is shooting where someone told you something was with a shotgun, while air support is shooting at something that you (ideally) see yourself with a rifle. Modern targeting optics only increase this distinction and it is even possible that the CAS pilot may see the target area better than the FAC, since he is looking at it from a higher vantage point. Artillery also tends towards a fairly flat trajectory, which may limit where it can shoot in the worst circumstances. At times aircraft may also be limited by terrain and threat in their delivery angle, but usually have greater flexibility.

CAS is also almost infinitely portable. A CAS aircraft can be diverted from hundreds of miles away to act (or react) to the flow of war. Artillery is largely immobile by comparison and is highly dependent on a logistical trail that, by necessity, needs to remain fairly close to the battle area. As an example, Strike Eagles flew CAS missions from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. This isnt an example of a particularly efficient use of assets, but it demonstrates the flexibility of air power.

There are a lot of shades and exceptions to the above distinction but, in general, CAS is no less effective than artillery and is, at its best, much better.

Mortars are generally short range, low explosive yield weapons that really cant compete with either aircraft or artillery delivered ordnance, but share many of the same limitations as artillery.



"In your opinion can meaningfull CAS be performed at 15,000' ?"

CAS can be performed at almost any altitude and range as long as you can overcome any inherent obstacles. Remember that the "close" in Close Air Support refers to how close the friendly troops are to the target, not to how close the aircraft is from the target. CAS really requires only four things:

1. The FAC must be able to locate and identify the target to the CAS pilot.

2. The CAS pilot must be able to acquire the target and be reasonably assured that it is the correct one.

3. The FAC must be reasonably assured that the CAS pilot is going to hit the target, not him.

4. The CAS pilot's weapons must be able to reach the target and have effects on it.

So, there are inherent limitations to high altitude CAS, primarily slant range distance from the target area. But you can overcome this limitation partially by increasing the optical or targeting ability of the pilot and/or by increasing the ability of the weapon to correct for targeting errors and mil dispersion errors (basically scattering type errors).

So, lofting or dive tossing an LGB with terminal laser guidance from a FAC? Perfectly effective CAS. JDAM high angle delivery with high accuracy grid coordinate from the FAC and sweetened by a late model targeting pod? Also perfectly effective CAS. Any combination of accurate targeting and guided weapons can be used to provide effective CAS at high altitude. It just requires more technology out of the CAS provider.

In fact, even if there werent an effective low altitude air defense, medium altitude CAS would still be the preferred method of delivery 45 degree dives minimize the foot to mil ratio minimizing range errors and medium altitude provides greater overall SA and (if allowable) a longer tracking run that will allow the pilot more time to stick his sensors in the target area and make last minute corrections.



Given the need to co-ordinate with the ground forces, possibly search/ identify targets while also flying (possibly low level) is a two seater a high priorty or can these problems be overcome by modern avionics single ship mutual support ?

Personally speaking, its always beneficial to have a second set of eyes in the cockpit. Manipulating targeting controls is extremely work intensive and will always take away from the pilots overall SA no matter how good he is. How much depends on the quality of the cockpit design. Whether the weight and space of a second cockpit and pilot is worth the reduced fuel or reduced agility is always the source of lively debate.

How much of an issue is loiter time? AIrcraft are always compromises how high on the priorty list would you put it?

Well, like the second crewman, there are no free lunches in aircraft design. Loiter time is really only a subset of overall fuel availability since the fuel itself doesnt care whether its being used for travelling or circling. The importance of the issue is largely dictated by external factors. If you get to the target area and you dont have tasking, can you stay or do you need to RTB? Can you keep your bombs or will you need to dump them? How far is your CAS base from the battle area and do you have enough aircraft to keep CAS on station? Etc, etc.

Coming from across the pond and thinking about modern IAD; I suspect in this present fiscally tight enviroment we could make sweeping cuts in our own budget. Instead relying on routine total cloud cover, a large number of telephone lines / Power Lines and the fact that "Who in their right mind would want to invade us ?"

The cost of defense. The dilemma faced by every civilization in history. But it sounds like you are speaking of CAS defense, rather than CAS. CAS is going to help YOUR ground troops, not the enemys. Just because your country abandons CAS, doesnt mean that your adversary will as well.

Long winded as usual.

Deacon




#3922897 - 03/10/14 09:32 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
RANSs9 Offline
Member
RANSs9  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 233
Hi Deacon,

Thanks for the effort/time in replying. Not long winded just interesting.

TIM

(PS the stab at humour was more about the UK's IADS requirement than its' CAS requirement. Our CAS presently supplied by a sweep wing high speed fighter bomber designed to penetrate IADS at low level or a euro-canard designed for high altitude high MACH BVR....go figure!)

#3923118 - 03/11/14 12:25 PM Re: Close Air Support not possible in peer/peer modern conflict ? [Re: RANSs9]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,330
Stratos Offline
Hotshot
Stratos  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,330
Amposta, Spain
Deacon thanks for sharing your point of view on the subject.


-Sir in case of retreat, were we have to retreat??
-To the Graveyard!!

sandbagger.uk.com/stratos.html
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Andy Bush, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
I'll be damned !!
by NoFlyBoy. 05/11/21 07:13 PM
RM Jet Suit Boarding
by Red2112. 05/08/21 02:07 PM
Idiot for the day
by rwatson. 05/07/21 10:55 AM
The cost of Epic free games
by Blade_RJ. 05/06/21 08:28 PM
That mettalic smell you feel is actually yours !
by Blade_RJ. 05/06/21 05:15 PM
Shiny American Rocket, cheaper by the dozen
by Nixer. 05/06/21 12:48 AM
House of the Dragon
by PanzerMeyer. 05/05/21 05:45 PM
Some funny Facebook observations
by PanzerMeyer. 05/05/21 11:53 AM
Chinese Rocket
by carrick58. 05/05/21 12:26 AM
Hope everyone is having a good day
by oldgrognard. 05/04/21 02:09 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0