Close Air Support and the Modern Battlefield

[RiflemanPhil]

I was talking to Michael O'leary earlier today on the subject of close air support. I brought up a few questions. a) in the CF how accesible is c.a.s, especially for people in say, Afghanistan? What things might you receive? How do you receive it and what are the procedures? b) what method is generally the favourite for the troops on the ground, fast-movers like the F-18 or F-16, slow and low like the A10, or helos like the Longbow? I was thinking about the general infallability, at least in the infantry's mind, of the A10. However, in the 1st gulf war,  F-16 falcons flew more sorties, delivered more ordinance and destroyed more targets, had fewer friendly fire incidents and lost fewer aircraft than the A-10.
The theory was you needed something slow to kill tanks and provide CAS. Fast movers were thought to be too likely to have friendly fire.
Well, the highest friendly fire aircraft in the war was the Apache followed by the A-10. Hell, the Apache can hover at a standstill and it still had FF. Not slamming the Apache or A-10 for that, FF happens, but it goes to show that speed of the aircraft isn't a factor in those type of incidents. Therefore, what are you looking for in your CAS? discuss

 

[Michael OLeary]

Phil,

another point we did not touch on besides the discussion of relative speed vs time to acquire targets, and the effectiveness of smart weapons; was the increases in night-time engagements and the possibilities of incorrect recognition of targets under II/TI sights.

Mike

 

[pbi]

Based on what I saw in Afghanistan during my time with ISAF VI and CJTF76, I would guess that until Canada deploys its own CAS element into Afgh, our force can expect to get CAS from the Air Component of CJTF76 (or its successor force), or from the Coalition air elements assigned to the theatre by CENTCOM ( both these elements had access to 18s, 16s, A-10s, B-1s, etc).   NATO CAS was also available when I was there (Dutch F-18s, UK Harriers). NATO FACs (incl the Cdns with TFK) regularly cross-trained with Coalition air in order to ensure that CAS would go off OK when needed. I assume that the same continues today.

AHs are not really CAS: they are actually an integral Army or Marine fires element that is employed much like any other part of the Land Component.

What I saw the CJTF76 forces do at the tactical level was assign certain assets to what was called "X-CAS" in which assets loitered in a possible strike area waiting for a call-this gave much faster response than flying a B-1 in from the Gulf. Normal pre-planned missions also existed, but X-CAS seemed to be very useful since it increased the responsiveness. Usually only a couple of aircraft were needed to make a show of force or deliver ordnance, particular as given the political situation in Afgh strikes had to be very precise in order to absolutely reduce collateral damage in otherwise friendly areas.

I suspect (but don't pretend to know...) that the relatively higher fratricide figures for the lower-altitude systems like A-10 and AH can be attributed to the environment they spent their time in: much closer to the ground confusion, dust and rapidly shifting situation, much more vulnerable to all forms of GBAD, much more likely to collide with obstructions or other AC, etc than the the fast movers which, although they may have flown more missions in total probably spent far fewer flying minutes in such dangerous situations.

Cheers

 

[3rd Horseman]

F16s carry a light load so they are not the most effective CAS aircraft, Id have to see the data on the GW1. F16 spent more time doing top cover vise dropping bombs so sortie time will be high but bomb weight volume would be low in my opinion.

Speed to time and Friendly Fire issues based on air frame is a stretch. FF is an operator problem not an airframe problem. Fast air does not select the target normally and dropping the bomb on target is not the pilots issue most times it is the FAC or Air FAC or the Weapons Officers problem. It is of interest to note that the participation of any to all three key people in a CAS mission at the pointy end reduce the chance of FF.(Air weapons,Fac, Air FAC).

My choice is to have all the kit flying that I can get so I can select the best plane with the best weapon system using the best launch system for the specific target result I desire. If I get lots of F-15 Es then I want them all loaded different in pairs. My choice if I had to pick one would be F-15E.

As for the comment about night....night is like day if you use the correct procedures, chances for error should be only slightly higher at night.

 

[a_majoor]

Part of the question is the relative value of "fast movers" vs dedicated ground attack aircraft.

While it was true in the past that fast movers were not considered to be good support platforms, much of that was due to overspecialization. A Viet Nam era pilot driving a "Hun" (F-100 Super Sabre) would be moving pretty fast over the target simply to stay airborn. The Hun was designed as a jet interceptor, so everything from the pilot's field of view to the flying qualities were optimized for that role. Doing bomb runs with planes like that (F-4 Phantom, F-105 Thunderchief etc.) was something like taking a Dodge Neon to "Sleep Country" to pick up your new king sized bed. You could do it, but probably would rather not.

Dedicated ground attack aircraft like the "Spad" (Douglas "Skyraider") could move low and slow, allowing the pilot to remain close to the target area and get a visual fix on the target before rolling in with bombs and cannons. There was a large community of intermediate aircraft in that period, ranging from the Cessna "Dragonfly" to the F-7 Corsair which were versatile enough to combine the performance of jet fighters with the virtues of being stable bomb trucks and gun platforms, so there was nothing intrinsically "better" or worse about jet or propeller aircraft.

Today, most aircraft are multi-role by design. Going low and slow like an A-10 is trolling for trouble, and the AC-130 is a pretty expensive way of delivering a 105mm shell. (Mind you, I would NEVER say no to having them in support of me....). The requirement is mostly operational; making sure you always have some aircraft orbiting nearby for quick response, and technological; the ability to carry the sorts of weapons you need to do the job on the ground and launch them accurately at your target.