US CAS rethinking going on

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

That is why I prefer to use Command...in the sense that the JTAC can have the authority to take over the actions of the drone without necessarily having the authority to control its flight or weapons system operations. Just tell it where to go for ISR or where to target and let it do so either through autonomy (with trigger pull command) or via someone farther away.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

What you said was -

Is it wrong for one to assume that given this is a forum where folks are reasonably well informed that if someone says that PGM investment constitutes a CAS capability it does not automatically mean that the person is saying take a smart bomb and randomly start dropping it at pre selected targets? Seriously, when someone says that don't look just at the A-10 or *Insert your prefferd CAS craft* but look at the mission and how PGM's have ushered in the era of non-traditional CAS (i.e. the Mission) one really shouldn't need to explain how CAS is done with them (most folks here understand that).

It should be understood that what I'm referring to is doing CAS with smart munitions (and the built up capability to do so) and not just some random strike on a target. Of course it entails leveraging other assets and investments (networking, targeting, communications, training etc), trained JTAC's and something you practice regularly but that was not being debated here. No one is promoting that they shed the competencies associated with CAS, just the infatuation of always thinking of a CAS-plane every time CAS is mentioned.

This is a basic level of understanding that is assumed on this forum. No one is arguing that position, at least not on this thread.

Seems me that we have a grade A problem of undertanding there.
If it is a fault of mine, my apologies but when you write that I had affirmed that is possible to send randomly a guided bomb on a predetermined target, you are implying that i'm violating the same logical principle of non-contradiction as the term random and predetermined are mutually exclusive one of the other.
So or you randomly bomb a casual location or you purposely target a predetermined one, tertium non datur.

Regardless of this, you are misunderstanding me again, i'm not saying that using the PGM in performing CAS is something wrong, i'm saying that CAS is a mission that not just envisage firing or dropping ordnance over an enemy but also other forms of support between the asset performing it and the friendly troops on the ground.

In the same way there are a series of prerequisites to qualify a mission as CAS regardless of the assets used.
As an example sending a Drone over the desert to look for the passing of an islamist terror leader and eventually targeting it is not a CAS mission as there is not friendly troops on the ground to support.
Sending a plane to bomb (or delivery an artillery strike to) a predetermined location, even if it is very close to friendly troops, without envisaging a prosecution of the action or any contact and coordination with them is not CAS the same, as it lacks the aspect of persistence of action, coordination with the ground force and two way communication.
Needless to say, the fact that in those actions are used guided or unguided ordnanceor the asset performing and even the quote/position from where the attack is performed have absolutely nothing to do with the mission being or not a CAS.
Now.a question from my part to you, just to clarify what i consider the main point of difference in our respective views.
Is the dropping a weapon/ killing someone an obligatory part of the CAS mission?
Because, not in my opinion but in the operational experience of my own country's air force this is not considered essential to consider a mission as doing CAS while the things i have listed above (repeat: persistence of action, coordination and two way communication) are.

About the introduction of the airplane X or y in the discussion, I would repeat here again the original question/statement I have made, using different words: Given that actually the different facets that actually made up the whole of the CAS mission are covered in my own country by a single item, the Aeritalia/aerMacchi/Embraer AMX I fear that what you are descriving (i.e. every service asking separate allocations for covering a part of it) would end up splitting what actually is a niche mission in itself in various sub niches, so increasing the inherent danger that those separate components would be destined instead to other missions considered more important instead by each of the different specialities/branches/services manning them.

I would instead prefer to have still a single item WHATEVER IT IS but able to cover the whole of CAS as its primary mission, so to avoid such temptations.

The part that I consider important is the one in bold, other is secondary or better said accidental.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

Marcellogo, what exactly is a randomly guided bomb?

Have you actually looked at the types of munitions used in CAS missions lately? Would you consider the SDB-II random? What about laser guided SDB or GBU-54b? This is a failure to understand that the types of munitions have changed the nature of close air support. You seem to be under the impression that guided munitions need mission planning, that just isn't the case when looking at the recent expenditures in Syria or Iraq.

No offense, but your lacking in understanding on how close air support has been prosecuted by western air forces in recent campaigns. It isn't the platform, it's the timely intelligence and munitions. The B-1 has been the superstar, with the F-15E as a second, drones third, and F-16's and A-10's filling in on expeditionary air wings when the first two are rotated out. (In the case of the USAF).

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

Marcellogo, what exactly is a randomly guided bomb?

Have you actually looked at the types of munitions used in CAS missions lately? Would you consider the SDB-II random? What about laser guided SDB or GBU-54b? This is a failure to understand that the types of munitions have changed the nature of close air support. You seem to be under the impression that guided munitions need mission planning, that just isn't the case when looking at the recent expenditures in Syria or Iraq.

No offense, but your lacking in understanding on how close air support has been prosecuted by western air forces in recent campaigns. It isn't the platform, it's the timely intelligence and munitions. The B-1 has been the superstar, with the F-15E as a second, drones third, and F-16's and A-10's filling in on expeditionary air wings when the first two are rotated out. (In the case of the USAF).

Maybe is because i'm not an english speaker, but it seems me that we are going to reach the peak of absurd here. Look, it was bring-it-on that has affirmed that i have sustained such a bestiality.
After that i have replied him that he has just accused me of sustaining something that, in my eyes, violates the same principle of not contradiction, what more can i say????
Let'me add how the presence or not of a guidance system has nothing to do really with it.
Because it's just a redundant i.e. unnecessary complication to the reasoning fault, as just the coupling of the world randomly and pre-designated is sufficient to made it to occur.

Said so, in all my post about the argument I have not mentioned the alternative between weapon types, all of them are instead centered on the characteristics that a mission ought to have to be considered CAS and not just an aerial strike happening close to the location of friendly troops.
because if the fundamental thesis of the ones that want ditch the A-10 or any other mission specific assets is that CAS is a mission not a plane, we have to talk about what this mission really is FIRST, not about what plane (or another asset) is better for it and even more what they would be its eventual weapons.
Given that it seems me there is a difference between me and others about the mission pattern, i'll like someone to reply to this, and not to something I have not asked nor i'm not, almost at this point of the discussion, interested in.

Frankly, I have always seen said that have been the B-1B and the A-10 to operate in direct coordinations with (kurdish/SDF) forces on the front lines while the other planes were used for deep strikes into ISIS held territory.
If you have other statistics/articles over them being instead used in this peculiar role, i'm obviously very interested.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 516

RAND Report Affirms U.S. Rep. McSally Position on A-10

The full RAND report can be read here:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1233.html

Interesting reading in the full report has been placed above by TangoIII.

For many it may be a shock to read that A-10 with 6x30mm GAU 8 cannon has been pointed the most effective weapon by ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than even the LGB or PGM.

In this our universe there are not 100% reliability in any place, so if you are among the ground troops near the enemy and your aircrafts has been attacking with: LGB, PGM, JDAM or cruise missiles , then it has been highly recommended to take shelter too, since in Battles field such 90% reliability for precision weapons are an excellent number to put in the wall.

Such problem with precision weapons (LGB, PGM, JDAM and cruise missiles) that has been decreased the reliability from 100% its common in all others fields, once this equipment are susceptible to problems in its hardware (electronics, electrical and mechanical) as well as software (processing failure, corrupted data).

In general, free-fall bombs and cannons in the aircrafts has been several times more inaccurate( CEP) than LGB, PGM and JDAM, however a cannon shell or free-fall bomb has not been fit with means to alter its trajectory after firing or launching, thus precision weapons ( LGB , PGM , JDAM) if it has been presenting failure could deviate from the target not by hundreds feet , but by a few miles( each mile has 5300 ft)

Precision weapons has been show huge advantages in several aspects , however relying only in those precision weapons can be a particular problem in CAS missions already today, otherwise the jamming( ECM) or even invasion of the datalink network by the enemy on this new weapons will be high threat in the future too.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

I wonder, what would be the size of the smallest plane that could carry a GAU-8? The USAF has hundreds of retired A-10, that's a lot of GAU-8s that could be mounted on a smaller plane.

The plane would have to be build around the gun. I don't think 1100 rounds is needed anymore, around half as much would be enough.

Could something the size of a scorpion be designed to carry it?

Member for

18 years 1 month

Posts: 1,966

I wonder, what would be the size of the smallest plane that could carry a GAU-8? The USAF has hundreds of retired A-10, that's a lot of GAU-8s that could be mounted on a smaller plane.

The plane would have to be build around the gun. I don't think 1100 rounds is needed anymore, around half as much would be enough.

Could something the size of a scorpion be designed to carry it?

The problem with this is the incredible amount of recoil produced by the gun! Anything smaller than an A-10 would drop out of the sky if the cannon was fired for more than one second.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 2,626

The problem with this is the incredible amount of recoil produced by the gun! Anything smaller than an A-10 would drop out of the sky if the cannon was fired for more than one second.

It's that pesky Isaac Newton throwing a spanner in the works again. That guy was a real problem, wasn't he? :)

But... seriously what mass does an A-10 have and what mass would a Scorpion (with the gun) have? Would recoil really be a killer for the Scorpion?

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

I wonder, what would be the size of the smallest plane that could carry a GAU-8? The USAF has hundreds of retired A-10, that's a lot of GAU-8s that could be mounted on a smaller plane.

The plane would have to be build around the gun. I don't think 1100 rounds is needed anymore, around half as much would be enough.

Could something the size of a scorpion be designed to carry it?

The scorpion weighs about half as much as an A-10, so it should slow down twice as much. By how much does the A-10 slow down? What is the stall speed of the 2 planes?

Ok, I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

While this recoil force is significant, in practice a cannon fire burst only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour in level flight

So it is unlikely to be a problem even for a lighter plane.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

It's that pesky Isaac Newton throwing a spanner in the works again. That guy was a real problem, wasn't he? :)

But... seriously what mass does an A-10 have and what mass would a Scorpion (with the gun) have? Would recoil really be a killer for the Scorpion?

Why on the earth would anyone put the A-10 gun on a small CAS platform in the first place??

That gun was not created for fighting cave people in middle-East. End of story.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

Why on the earth would anyone put the A-10 gun on a small CAS platform in the first place??

That gun was not created for fighting cave people in middle-East. End of story.

The gun is very effective for that and inexpensive. In fact, the question is rather why would anyone want to use gun tactics against a high end enemy given that it would be extremely dangerous to do so.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

We should buy a few dozen GAU8 and convert a few A400M as gunships with 8 side firing GAU8 in two groups of 4. You could install small synchronized rockets opposite the guns to offset the recoil in order to increase burst lenght. You could add another twin pair on a mobile mount on the rear ramp just in case something is still moving in the area you just mowed down.

At a firing rate of 4200 rpm each a 1 second burst would rain 560 rounds of 30mm goodness on a target area.

Nic

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

We should buy a few dozen GAU8 and convert a few A400M as gunships with 8 side firing GAU8 in two groups of 4. You could install small synchronized rockets opposite the guns to offset the recoil in order to increase burst lenght. You could add another twin pair on a mobile mount on the rear ramp just in case something is still moving in the area you just mowed down.

At a firing rate of 4200 rpm each a 1 second burst would rain 560 rounds of 30mm goodness on a target area.

Nic

You're sure that rate of fire is really needed? Why not just fire a longer burst instead. If you use only one GAU-8 you need a much smaller and cheaper plane. Maybe something like an atlantic with one GAU-8 with 2000-3000 rounds instead of the bay for instance.

You could afford a lot more of those, and the cost per flight hour would be a lot less.

As for the recoil, the gun could be mounted near the center of gravity. Maybe as you suggest retro-rockets could help if the recoil has to be countered.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

You're sure that rate of fire is really needed? Why not just fire a longer burst instead. If you use only one GAU-8 you need a much smaller and cheaper plane. Maybe something like an atlantic with one GAU-8 with 2000-3000 rounds instead of the bay for instance.

You could afford a lot more of those, and the cost per flight hour would be a lot less.

As for the recoil, the gun could be mounted near the center of gravity. Maybe as you suggest retro-rockets could help if the recoil has to be countered.

Yes that rate of fire is needed.

Say you stumble upon a concentration of jihadi pickup trucks or of oil trucks. You could set up the geometry of your 8 GAU8 array (say target an area in a square or circular shape or more rectangular and stretched in the case of a convoy for instance according to the concentration configuration) & in a second you'd obliterate a couple soccer field's worth at once. No time to scatter or run away from the attack as it's done in a couple second bursts at max. 2 seconds = 1120 30mm shells

Plus just imagine the mere psychological effect... plus the sound from hell.

Also you can add DIRCM & armor it for good measure just in case.

Nic

Member for

15 years

Posts: 161

I think the A-10 does two things for CAS...
1) I think it has a fear factor for enemies just like the Stuka of WWII. Hearing the sound of that gun and knowing it is in the vicinity, would make any man tremble.
2) It give one hell of a morale boost to the troops on the ground. Pretty much for the same reasons. Knowing not much would survive or continue to fight after a strafing run. Seeing it doing slow twists and turns down low to come in for another past has to be awe inspiring!

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

People, there are a lot of other 30X173, 30x170 and 30x165mm aircraft guns in the word, a pod with one of them doesn't cost so much to need to adapt the GAU-8 to the Scorpion.
One can also reuse the 25mm pods of the Harriers, both with US gatling than British revolver ones.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

I think the A-10 does two things for CAS...
1) I think it has a fear factor for enemies just like the Stuka of WWII. Hearing the sound of that gun and knowing it is in the vicinity, would make any man tremble.
2) It give one hell of a morale boost to the troops on the ground. Pretty much for the same reasons. Knowing not much would survive or continue to fight after a strafing run. Seeing it doing slow twists and turns down low to come in for another past has to be awe inspiring!

...and on the other side ground troops do a great thing for the A-10 (and AMX, Su-25, Apache, Mi-28, Tiger ets, etc.):
with their movement & fire they put the enemy force into the dire choice to show up & fight, so making them a suitable target for a CAS plane attack or insteadkeep to stay hidden and being overran.

This even more when we talk about the current engagement in Afghanistan and Syria-Iraq against insurgent forces that blend themselves with the civilian population and use/rob their infrastuctures and life support in opposition to let's say the centralized and logistically heavy armed forces under Saddam Hussein that offered a lot of targets for a strategic bombing campaign.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

Yes that rate of fire is needed.

Say you stumble upon a concentration of jihadi pickup trucks or of oil trucks. You could set up the geometry of your 8 GAU8 array (say target an area in a square or circular shape or more rectangular and stretched in the case of a convoy for instance according to the concentration configuration) & in a second you'd obliterate a couple soccer field's worth at once. No time to scatter or run away from the attack as it's done in a couple second bursts at max. 2 seconds = 1120 30mm shells

Plus just imagine the mere psychological effect... plus the sound from hell.

Also you can add DIRCM & armor it for good measure just in case.

Nic

Sorry but I am still not convinced it would make so much difference if it takes 2 or 8 seconds to wipe out the targets. You would pay an enormous cost to acquire that plane.

In most circumstances the target would not be such a concentrated enemy force, so that much firepower would be a waste.

I don't think you could use the GAU-8s of the 2 sides at the same time. I doubt the GAUs would be mounted on a system with a large orientation angle like a turret. It would be more like the gun on the AC-130.

Also the plane would need a few GBUs against fortifications and buildings, 4 would be enough I think. The main weapon would be the GAU-8 to save on PGMs.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

The GAU8s would all fire on the same side. You'd also want a side looking AESA with GMTI & GMTT and good SAR aperture and a six shot AASM pylon under the wing.

Nic