Close Air Support

[pawnman]

19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Back to basics might be the new black with a resurgent Russia, China on the build up, etc...

Army

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/20/heres-a-reason-for-army-to-get-back-to-basics-it-isnt-good-at-remembering-them/

Air Force

https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/2612/Article/715384/ellsworth-launches-for-large-force-exercise-in-prtc.aspx

Getting back to Large Force Exercises with an enemy that has more than VBIEDs and AKs is long overdue. 

On the idea of CAS within a threat envelope, I always wondered if the Concept Bird of Prey aircraft could have been developed into a light LO CAS / RECCE platform at relatively low cost.  No big gun but if you could have an LO platform to deliver X SDBs or JDAMs against the SA-22s & 6s, that moves the needle significantly.

With all the development successes and programs coming in on time and on budget, I am sure this could happen...

CAS can be done in a High Threat Environment, ref Battle of Hoth...

 

Hoth wasn't high-threat, the rebels were the ones with all the surface-to-air (space?) weapons in that battle.  And most of the snow-speeder portion of that battle would fall into the interdiction category...no friendly coordination, no 9-lines, the walkers far enough from rebel lines that the speeder pilots didn't have to de-conflict.

[HU&W]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Hoth wasn't high-threat, the rebels were the ones with all the surface-to-air (space?) weapons in that battle.  And most of the snow-speeder portion of that battle would fall into the interdiction category...no friendly coordination, no 9-lines, the walkers far enough from rebel lines that the speeder pilots didn't have to de-conflict.

I don't think we're necessarily the rebels in the battle of Hoth.

[LookieRookie]

17 minutes ago, HU&W said:

I don't think we're necessarily the rebels in the battle of Hoth.

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

CAS vs. BAI in the news, this story is making the rounds.  Doesn't say anything other than they were "US jets" but raises the issue of priorities.  No judgment on my part for the re-tasking as apparently a juicy ISIS target came up and assets were dynamically reallocated but our allies lost some dudes, that will have an effect on they way they perceive our value of them.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/syria-iraq-isis/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/06/u-s-jets-abandoned-syrian-rebels-in-the-desert-then-they-lost-a-battle-to-isis/

From the second article:  “Hanging out our supposed allies to dry doesn’t achieve much and undermines our legitimacy and credibility,” Maxwell said. “It’s hard to establish and maintain rapport with these organizations if we say one thing and do another.”

Break - Break

Reading material on another interesting CAS case study:

CAS at Khe Sanh

https://books.google.com/books?id=Qw02ILaqfHQC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=CAS+in+Vietnam+high+threat&source=bl&ots=1v6f6xAcTk&sig=vh9wjmu1MWlXCWr2bgNrLGwu3Tg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDqZnuwOHNAhXHSyYKHSTaAGMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=CAS in Vietnam high threat&f=false

 

 

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, HU&W said:

I don't think we're necessarily the rebels in the battle of Hoth.

In that case, the empire had no CAS at all.  The TIEs were all involved in trying to stop the transports.

[Stitch]

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

In that case, the empire had no CAS at all.  The TIEs were all involved in trying to stop the transports.

Seeing how numerous, if not all, transports got away and given the Empire's lack of forgiveness policy.  I'll bet the guy responsible for running the CAP over Hoth had an interesting performance feedback session.

[Sprkt69]

33 minutes ago, Stitch said:

Seeing how numerous, if not all, transports got away and given the Empire's lack of forgiveness policy.  I'll bet the guy responsible for running the CAP over Hoth had an interesting performance feedback session.

He probably had his Sq/CC, OG, Wing/CC, Command Chief and Jag review his tapes and reassign him to a desk job accordingly. But they probably noticed that he had all of his career containers checked off, so they promoted him.

[Lawman]

He probably had his Sq/CC, OG, Wing/CC, Command Chief and Jag review his tapes and reassign him to a desk job accordingly. But they probably noticed that he had all of his career containers checked off, so they promoted him.

So if you don't get your Masters Degree you get force choked?

I can only imagine the punishment for F'ing up the Christmas party or hail & farewell.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

I can only imagine the punishment for F'ing up the Christmas party or hail & farewell.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sarlac Pit

[Clark Griswold]

Su-25 documentary and article on their deployment to Syria.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-has-its-own-10-warthog-syria-enter-the-su-25-13988

 

[jazzdude]

7 hours ago, Stitch said:

Seeing how numerous, if not all, transports got away and given the Empire's lack of forgiveness policy.  I'll bet the guy responsible for running the CAP over Hoth had an interesting performance feedback session.

Yeah, pretty timely feedback...drop out of hyperspace too close to the rebel base and losing the element of surprise?  That's a, um, firing? Or a force choke, same thing I guess. 

Then go out and contract out the hunt for the Millennium Falcon to mercenaries. 

 

[Champ Kind]

Welp, this thread went down a nerd hole.

[Stitch]

16 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Sarlac Pit

The Sarlac Pit... isn't that a bar outside the gate at Osan? 

 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Champ Kind said:

Welp, this thread went down a nerd hole.

More of an off ramp...

15 minutes ago, Stitch said:

The Sarlac Pit... isn't that a bar outside the gate at Osan? 

Nah, that's the place Jabba runs across the DMZ...

[Clark Griswold]

Trying futilely to get back to CAS topics...

Bring back the A-4 Skyhawk (to the AF this time...) updated & specialized for CAS or BAI...

[Clark Griswold]

Follow up to story on re-tasking of CAS to New Syrian Army for BAI against an ISIS convoy.  Impressive results: 200 enemy vehicles, 300 enemy KIA. 

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/07/15/diverting-fallujah-syrian-town-right-call-target-isis-general-says/87135774/

 

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[Don Frank]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-air-combat-command-chief-skeptical-over-new-air-428185/

It seems like the norm lately is for senior leadership to avoid any sort of CAS that puts the fliers in danger, even AAA/shoulder launched SAMs, as if all CAS is suddenly highly contested and high tech equipment is the only option in the lower-end fight. I understand the desire to keep crews safe, but what happened to taking risks to kill enemies and break shit? This all happening as we supply the Afghan Air Force with A-29s.

[magnetfreezer]

4 hours ago, Don Frank said:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-air-combat-command-chief-skeptical-over-new-air-428185/

It seems like the norm lately is for senior leadership to avoid any sort of CAS that puts the fliers in danger, even AAA/shoulder launched SAMs, as if all CAS is suddenly highly contested and high tech equipment is the only option in the lower-end fight. I understand the desire to keep crews safe, but what happened to taking risks to kill enemies and break shit? This all happening as we supply the Afghan Air Force with A-29s.

POWs started getting burned alive in cages and we became the only country that follows the Geneva Conventions. Also a little harder to justify the risk when doing CAS ISO the Shiite militias.

[Lawman]

POWs started getting burned alive in cages and we became the only country that follows the Geneva Conventions. Also a little harder to justify the risk when doing CAS ISO the Shiite militias.

Along with this we live in a world of YouTube.

The second a US aircraft and crew goes down it will black hawk down whatever strategic mission was going on when US troops are seen getting 3 million views of being dragged down the street with their throats cut. Nobody wants to deal with that in either the civilian or military side of leadership.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Along with this we live in a world of YouTube.

The second a US aircraft and crew goes down it will black hawk down whatever strategic mission was going on when US troops are seen getting 3 million views of being dragged down the street with their throats cut. Nobody wants to deal with that in either the civilian or military side of leadership.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2

Hate to say it but it only gives more credence to more droids over X failed state we're executing Operation Whack a Mole but that's not the only way to skin this ugly cat.

Just my two cents, but instead of a manned only CAS platform for mod+ threat environments, go for trying to acquire an optionally manned low to mod threat CAS & persistence capable ISR/Strike platform ( no AR 6 hrs. on station capability ).  The Scorpion Jet is still in its developmental configuration and could be designed at this phase (with a sizeable check from Uncle Sam) for manned / unmanned operations.

 

This center bay is built for up to 3,000 lbs. of whatever your mission needs to haul, put the black containers in there with BLOS antenna(s) on the back and the systems architecture and you really have a new capability that gives tactical flexibility.  Optionally manned is not pie in the sky.  The NG Firebird has been flying for several years now in both modes

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/Firebird/Pages/default.aspx

Not a replacement for the A-10 but a CAS platform for permissive environment fights we are in and likely to be in with the unique capability to bring the manned element in for when the irreplaceable SA of being actually in the battlespace is needed / advantageous.

[nsplayr]

I honestly don't see the advantage of the "optionally" manned platform.  Jack of both trades, master of neither.

Design the RPAs to be RPAs, with zero life support/windows/etc. and therefore extremely long legs and add good sensors/datalinks/comms/weapons options.  Let manned platforms be manned and take advantage of 1 or 2 pink brains that can use all those neurons to yank and bank and support the friendlies in very dynamic environments.

Trying to merge the two, I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze, mostly because making a manned platform "unmanned" is wasting a lot of the advantages unmanned has by inherently maintaining a design that works for humans.

If we stopped burning train cars worth of money during the acquisitions process we could afford to buy fleets of Scorpions/AT-6s/Super Ts/OV-10s/whatever and a next-gen MQ-XX.

Edited August 6, 2016 by nsplayr

[Don Frank]

8 hours ago, Lawman said:

Along with this we live in a world of YouTube.

The second a US aircraft and crew goes down it will black hawk down whatever strategic mission was going on when US troops are seen getting 3 million views of being dragged down the street with their throats cut. Nobody wants to deal with that in either the civilian or military side of leadership.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point, I'm thinking too in terms of conventional conflict. Even this is all different from the counterinsurgency of early OEF/OIF.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I honestly don't see the advantage of the "optionally" manned platform.  Jack of both trades, master of neither.

Design the RPAs to be RPAs, with zero life support/windows/etc. and therefore extremely long legs and add good sensors/datalinks/comms/weapons options.  Let manned platforms be manned and take advantage of 1 or 2 pink brains that can use all those neurons to yank and bank and support the friendlies in very dynamic environments.

Trying to merge the two, I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze, mostly because making a manned platform "unmanned" is wasting a lot of the advantages unmanned has by inherently maintaining a design that works for humans.

If we stopped burning train cars worth of money during the acquisitions process we could afford to by fleets of Scorpions/AT-6s/Super Ts/OV-10s/whatever and a next-gen MQ-XX.

I can't say you don't have a point.  

The smaller the aircraft the greater the percentage by aircraft weight required for crew, the larger the aircraft the smaller as a percentage so optionally manned has a greater argument in LSR-B or similar aircraft in size/weight but there are capes that an optionally manned platform brings that don't displace the capes that RPAs bring but compliment them in a Tier II RPA / 25k GW aircraft range that make it worth while.

- Easier access to airspace via conventional operation (manned) for missions in the vicinity of commercial or other players not comfy with RPAs.

- No telecommunication downlink deconfliction or "landing" rights for links whether BLOS or LOS  for the C2 link in host nations that may not want to share a portion of the EM spectrum.

- In an airborne CSO you have the capability (not ideal) of not needing a link for PED, you have on board FMV exploitation.  If you have limited or denied EM access for streaming your sensor feed b/c of operational restriction, jamming or concern of signal intercept by enemy or unfriendly actors (thinking Afghan ops on the Iranian / Pakistani borders, Russian forces in Syria, etc..), technically you could keep it in the jet and report only as required or prosecute independently and "silently" if necessary. 

- Everything is there in the jet technically and this could be very flexible for a last minute mission for a QRF or in an AOR where ops are few but when the need arises, need ISR support.  Not saying this is an ideal or sustainable way to do business but it gives an organic and flexible capability without having to herd cats to get a link, a reachback architecture, a PED facility, coordinate RPA recovery procedures at a base with manned aircraft, yada yada yada...

- Autonomous capability for mission continuation if the link(s) are lost and no operational effects from the air vehicle performing its lost link plan and possibly interfering with other friendly ops or being an easier target if the environment is not permissive.  The crew can still fly a mission; gather intel, support a ground maneuver element, etc... rather than just squawk and stumble home.

Some of those are a stretch and some are just some of the things we take for granted in the incredible functional simplicity of taking two trained and qualified aviators, put them in a jet and have them go fly a mission when we need to execute.  

The capability of 16+ hours on station is incredible but not the end all be all of it.  We need to be good at a lot of missions not just outstanding in one, my humble opinion.

Optionally manned seems to give a better mix at not too high a cost while giving great options; not that I have data to back that up as there has yet to be an operational optionally manned system but just my thoughts on it from having crewed RPAs and manned ISR, YMMV.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Clark Griswold
minor

[matmacwc]

The Scorpion is an answer for today's war, not the next.  This is this reason it will not be funded.

[Stitch]

16 hours ago, matmacwc said:

The Scorpion is an answer for today's war, not the next.  This is this reason it will not be funded.

This is a true statement, and next time around we could be facing a near peer adversary where a little airplane wouldn't be a viable option, and I understand this isn’t the 80’s or Cold War era with a near bottomless pit of money.  But the need to un-fuck the acquisitions process is UFB.  Whether it’s F-22, -35, little planes supporting grunts is undeniable.  Perhaps if things worked a bit different perhaps we would have had a fleet of Scorpions, AT-6’s, Super T’s whatever on the ramp doing the necessary job of light CAS, ISR, or WTF ever years ago.  And after 6/8/10 years they’d be all used up and shuffled with a stick up their butts to random places like your local front gate, BX, and VFW Hall.  Money well spent to support the kids on the ground with rifles kicking in doors.