|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 9, 2014 21:00:58 GMT -6
Depends on how you define CAS. If it can be defined as "having about 20 crap-tons of PGMs orbiting over my head at 20,000 feet and calling them down here and there as needed until he runs low on gas," a B-1 or B-52 can perform CAS.
On the other hand, if you want something where the guy unloading the ordnance is a little closer to the ground and using weapons with a much smaller "danger close" factor (90 feet for a 30 mm round rather than 200 feet for a 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb), a B-1 is not the best option.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2014 21:56:49 GMT -6
Depends on how you define CAS. If it can be defined as "having about 20 crap-tons of PGMs orbiting over my head at 20,000 feet and calling them down here and there as needed until he runs low on gas," a B-1 or B-52 can perform CAS. On the other hand, if you want something where the guy unloading the ordnance is a little closer to the ground and using weapons with a much smaller "danger close" factor (90 feet for a 30 mm round rather than 200 feet for a 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb), a B-1 is not the best option. The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines CAS as "air attacks against hostile targets which are in close proximity to friendly forces and which require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces."
Air Force Manual 1-1, Basic Aerospace Doctrine, says: "Close air support is the application of aerospace forces in support of the land component commander's objectives. Since it provides direct support to friendly forces in contact, close air support requires close coordination from the theater and component levels to the tactical level of operations. Close air support produces the most focused and briefest effects of any force application mission; consequently, close air support rarely creates campaign-level effects
Army Field Manual 100-5, "Operations," defines CAS as "missions (that) support land operations by attacking hostile targets close to friendly ground forces. CAS can support offensive operations with preplanned or immediate attacks. All preplanned and immediate CAS missions require timely intelligence information. CAS missions require positive identification of friendly forces and positive control of aircraft
Marine Corps FMFM 5-41, "Close Air Support," states: "The Marine Corps fights using maneuver warfare through the application of combined arms. CAS is fully integrated with other supporting arms to support the Marine air-ground task force (MAGTF) commander's plan. The MAGTF commander uses CAS at the decisive place and tim to achieve local combat superiority or take advantage of battlefield opportunities. CAS is employed for operational effectiveness and is weighted to the main effort. Air Force Manual 1-1 Volume 1 - Basic Aerospace Doctrine of The United States Air Force also lists the combat (warfighting) missions as counterair, counterspace, strategic attack, interdiction, and close air support. Notice that close air support is number 5 priority and a distant one at that.
One USAF general in 1994 stated it this way: "One of our goals is to try not to be involved in close air support, to try and do a better job a little deeper so that you can, with (airborne battlefield surveillance) and other equipment, avoid direct contact with the forward line of troops and relieve, to a great extent, the Army's direct contact. That's where we can make a tremendous contribution".
Lots of wishful thinking in that statement. In other words, if we do strategic bombing missions and interdiction, then the ground troops will just be able walk in, with no opposition or very little. What world is he living in?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 10, 2014 9:07:38 GMT -6
For those of you who think the use B-1B's for CAS is strange, the manual on page 7, does say "Aerospace forces and platforms are not limited to particular roles or missions. For example, heavy bombers can perform close air support, fighter-bombers can attack strategic targets, and special operations forces can perform a variety of roles and missions.
It later says "Although close air support is the least efficient application of aerospace forces, at times it may be the most critical by ensuring the success or survival of surface forces".
The USAF attitude throughout its career has been one of a strategic force designed to win wars, not battles. Shades of Mitchell and Douhet, if you will. To them, CAS is limited in scope and effects, and therefore causes unnecessary casualties to its forces. Forces better used to "bomb the opponent back to the stone age" as one of their biggest stars, Curtis Lemay, once said of Japan. The A-10 just doesn't fit their persona.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Dec 10, 2014 11:13:07 GMT -6
The USAF attitude throughout its career has been one of a strategic force designed to win wars, not battles. Shades of Mitchell and Douhet, if you will. To them, CAS is limited in scope and effects, and therefore causes unnecessary casualties to its forces. Forces better used to "bomb the opponent back to the stone age" as one of their biggest stars, Curtis Lemay, once said of Japan. The A-10 just doesn't fit their persona.
Well, tough cookies, I say. They get paid to do a specific job, so they´d better do it. *I* certainly never got to pick and choose which parts of the job description I signed up for fit my persona.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 10, 2014 12:20:48 GMT -6
The USAF attitude throughout its career has been one of a strategic force designed to win wars, not battles. Shades of Mitchell and Douhet, if you will. To them, CAS is limited in scope and effects, and therefore causes unnecessary casualties to its forces. Forces better used to "bomb the opponent back to the stone age" as one of their biggest stars, Curtis Lemay, once said of Japan. The A-10 just doesn't fit their persona.
Well, tough cookies, I say. They get paid to do a specific job, so they´d better do it. *I* certainly never got to pick and choose which parts of the job description I signed up for fit my persona. In actual fact, if the JCS says "you will do CAS", they will do CAS and like it. Either that or they will be managing supply in Eielson or Elmendorf AFB's in Alaska. The USAF has always thought of itself as the elite service, that's why during the Vietnam war, it did not accept draftee's and probably still doesn't, I believe it is an all volunteer force and you have to have at least a high school diploma or better.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Dec 11, 2014 8:45:13 GMT -6
They know they must do and will do CAS when asked; so there is really no excuse not to prepare themselves for doing CAS - even if it is by, instead of replacing the A-10 with a better CAS aircraft, getting an armed drone into service that has CAS-compatible performance and load-out.
Actually, a drone might be the way to go - CAS means a higher risk to the platform doing it than most other roles, and drones are a lot more expendable (in terms of trained/experienced manpower, in terms of cost, AND in terms of political impact of KIA/MIA servicemen) than manned aircraft. Plus, if drones fly CAS missions, the Air Force can tell themselves it isn´t really them doing CAS, just a bunch of robots.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 11, 2014 11:01:40 GMT -6
They know they must do and will do CAS when asked; so there is really no excuse not to prepare themselves for doing CAS - even if it is by, instead of replacing the A-10 with a better CAS aircraft, getting an armed drone into service that has CAS-compatible performance and load-out. Actually, a drone might be the way to go - CAS means a higher risk to the platform doing it than most other roles, and drones are a lot more expendable (in terms of trained/experienced manpower, in terms of cost, AND in terms of political impact of KIA/MIA servicemen) than manned aircraft. Plus, if drones fly CAS missions, the Air Force can tell themselves it isn´t really them doing CAS, just a bunch of robots. Drones are a viable alternative for certain missions and targets, but a large cannon cannot be fitted to a drone. So, you are limited to small missiles and the drones can only carry a low number. Loiter time with available weapons is important in CAS, and only an aircraft like the A-10 can execute that mission properly. The cannon can destroy multiple targets including large groupings of soldiers and insurgents. A missile or a frag bomb are the only alternatives for those targets.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Dec 22, 2014 13:35:49 GMT -6
Strategic bombers for CAS... operation Cobra comes to mind (Normandy). Technology has changed 'just a hair' since then though.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 22, 2014 15:56:35 GMT -6
Strategic bombers for CAS... operation Cobra comes to mind (Normandy). Technology has changed 'just a hair' since then though. Yes and we know that was a disaster. However, laser guided weapons do make the job a little safer.... more or less.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 13, 2015 18:51:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 13, 2015 19:04:07 GMT -6
I love this statement: "The A-10 is significantly vulnerable in a contested environment than other airplanes.” Yea, so what, the trick is to eliminate the contesting forces, idiot. That's the basic idea of gaining "air supremacy".
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 13, 2015 19:15:05 GMT -6
Yeah, I love how one article used the recent example of the downed Jordanian F-16 to say why the A-10 is vulnerable. Well, unlike the F-16 the A-10 can have about half the plane blown to hell and gone and still fly. I don't care how stealthy you are; unless you're hitting from out of reach of ground defenses you can get hit with ground fire.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 14, 2015 9:04:55 GMT -6
Yeah, I love how one article used the recent example of the downed Jordanian F-16 to say why the A-10 is vulnerable. Well, unlike the F-16 the A-10 can have about half the plane blown to hell and gone and still fly. I don't care how stealthy you are; unless you're hitting from out of reach of ground defenses you can get hit with ground fire. Why not start this discussion with the definition from Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Support.
www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf
IMO, when you get that low, you need armor, speed and an accurate bombing system so that you only have to make the run once. Surprise is also vital. Stealth isn't really going to help in CAS, not if you are going to loiter over a specified area and get instructions from forward air controllers. Also a large amount of spares and good maintenance to maintain an adequate number of flyable birds.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2015 9:23:39 GMT -6
As I was reading through the document whose link I posted, I read a power point slide relating Conditions for Effective Close Air Support. Two of those conditions were 1. Air superiority 2. Environmental conditions. As I have said, you can perform CAS with either permanent or temporary air superiority in a localized area or over the whole battlefield. This is where SEAD comes into play. This is why an aircraft built like the A-10 is so important for CAS.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2015 14:09:35 GMT -6
I thought I would provide some background to air to ground operations from the past to the present. This is not complete, just a mention of some concepts. Historically, CAS has been defined as air support where there was an immediate availability of aircraft to attack and destroy targets engaged by friendly troops, usually to improve the battlefield situation. These requests were from the ground troops through forward air controllers. It was the same in Korea and Vietnam. Vietnam of course saw the introduction of rotary wing aircraft for close air support.
There was of course another type of air support, one that was specifically designed to isolate the battlefield to hamper the fighting qualities of the opponent. This was termed interdiction or battlefield Air Interdiction, the modern term. In all of these operations, air superiority or air supremacy was absolutely critical. Another mission type, that was more general than interdiction campaigns was armed reconnaissance. This type of mission was flown more in WWII than any other. You don't see this term used much, but it is still an important aspect of an aerial campaign. The idea was to arm fighters and send them out looking for ground targets of opportunity and any possible information about the current ground situation.
The first air force to really adopt these kinds of aerial operations was the Luftwaffe. It used the JU-87 and ME-110's for these types of missions throughout the opening phases of WWII. The bombers were used in battlefield interdiction, the term we use today for such long range tactical missions. Here is an article from Air Power Australia which should provide the rest of the story.
www.ausairpower.net/air-land-battle.html
|
|