Who should own CAS & why it can't be trusted to an Air Force (from A-10 retirement thread)

[dimsum]

GTG,

Copy that.  IMO, in the wider CAF community, it seems most people think that our fleet is a 1-trick pony.

P-3 CAS, check!   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnO4alX7McE

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Nice!  Didn't know they did that.

Cdn equivalent;  dropping a mystery-meat sandwich out the GP chute.  :blotto:

 

[KevinB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnOmyj6m7K0

P3C launches Maverick

No idea they could do that either.

 

[a_majoor]

Just a bit of a side note here, but reviewing the Ukraine thread I see several references to Ukrainian SU-25's being shot down by rebel forces (OK, vacationing "Not Russian" Spetsnaz troops who are probably either doing the shooting with MANPADS or providing training/coaching). Since the SU 25 is the analogue of the A-10, being rugged, slow and heavily armed and armoured and it's having difficulties in a fairly low intensity fight (they are not going against heavily integrated Russian AD umbrellas...yet), then perhaps the call for traditional CAS is not reflective of what the "real world" offers anymore.

If that is the case, then "air support" in the future may well consist of glide bombs and long range precision guided missiles delivered by whatever platform happens to be "in the box" at a given time.

 

[McG]

... Including ground based platforms?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just a bit of a side note here, but reviewing the Ukraine thread I see several references to Ukrainian SU-25's being shot down by rebel forces (OK, vacationing "Not Russian" Spetsnaz troops who are probably either doing the shooting with MANPADS or providing training/coaching). Since the SU 25 is the analogue of the A-10, being rugged, slow and heavily armed and armoured and it's having difficulties in a fairly low intensity fight (they are not going against heavily integrated Russian AD umbrellas...yet), then perhaps the call for traditional CAS is not reflective of what the "real world" offers anymore.

If that is the case, then "air support" in the future may well consist of glide bombs and long range precision guided missiles delivered by whatever platform happens to be "in the box" at a given time.

But the pilots are Ukrainian... :

 

[GnyHwy]

... Including ground based platforms?

Hell yeah!!!  Of course!  Give me my rockets!!!

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Hell yeah!!!  Of course!  Give me my rockets!!!

You sound like you just got possessed by the Ghost of Andrew Leslie.....

 

[KevinB]

Years ago (late 80's IIRC) I was a driver for a retired Col (LCol Jack DeHart MC - rip Sir) and one of the slides (pre PPT) was Canadian GS MLRS Batteries --- made sense then, and some sort of longer ranged rocket still makes sense now.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Years ago (late 80's IIRC) I was a driver for a retired Col (LCol Jack DeHart MC - rip Sir) and one of the slides (pre PPT) was Canadian GS MLRS Batteries --- made sense then, and some sort of longer ranged rocket still makes sense now.

... especially since, like the APC, we practically invented the idea  :

https://www.friends-amis.org/index.php/en/document-repository/english/fact-sheets/151-land-mattress/file

 

[a_majoor]

Nothing like a bit of video to liven up your day: A-10's doing a gun run, with a slow motion demo of what happens downrange of the airplane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1HU5WShpU

Enjoy

 

[a_majoor]

While the A-10 may soldier on for a few more years, the simple fact of age will eventually catch up with it, and the USAF has no plans to revive this capability in any form.

Perhaps the sort of close support we need as Canadians could be developed by creating a tag team of UAV's which can identify and mark targets, backed by organic "smart" weapons (like the current 155mm Excalibur round, but hopefully layered with other weapons like smart mortars or long range FOG-M such as the Brazilian FOG-MPM, which has a range of 60km). If the smart weapons are large enough (120mm mortars, 155 artillery rounds and heavy missiles) they can deal with virtually every target set from improvised bunkers and fortifications to modern AFV's, as well as enemy helicopters and even ships in the right circumstances. Except for the spotting UAV's, this sort of system isn't weather or time-on-station limited either.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I find it rather ironic that we are doing real CAS now and not living in 4-star hotels...  Guess the haters gotta hate...

 

[vonGarvin]

I find it rather ironic that we are doing real CAS now and not living in 4-star hotels...  Guess the haters gotta hate...

It only took 30 years since we bought the things, but this isn't CAS: this is Battlefield Air Interdiction.

And meh, if you're in 2 star hotels, I suppose you get hardship?


/sarcasm

 

[Loachman]

Perhaps the sort of close support we need as Canadians could be developed by creating a tag team of UAV's which can identify and mark targets, backed by organic "smart" weapons (like the current 155mm Excalibur round, but hopefully layered with other weapons like smart mortars or long range FOG-M such as the Brazilian FOG-MPM, which has a range of 60km).

Why re-develop what has already been developed, and employed?

We directed M777 fire with Sperwer in theatre - not often, but we did. We also provided targetting and related assistance to helicopters and bombers.

It is very simple.

 

[dimsum]

Why re-develop what has already been developed, and employed?

We directed M777 fire with Sperwer in theatre - not often, but we did. We also provided targetting and related assistance to helicopters and bombers.

It is very simple.

Same with Heron, in a way.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It only took 30 years since we bought the things, but this isn't CAS: this is Battlefield Air Interdiction.

And meh, if you're in 2 star hotels, I suppose you get hardship?


/sarcasm

Didn't know BAI used JTACs and 9-Lines...

 

[a_majoor]

Given the way we casually discard capabilities in favour of <sarc> important things like pips and crowns</sarc>, I hope we haven't dropped the ball with using our UAV's to target artillery.

Of course, we also need a much larger artillery park to make this really work...

 

[Kirkhill]

Given the way we casually discard capabilities in favour of <sarc> important things like pips and crowns</sarc>, I hope we haven't dropped the ball with using our UAV's to target artillery.

Of course, we also need a much larger artillery park to make this really work...

But artillery needs a firm base from which to launch.  By its nature that base needs to be closer to the target than an airbase.  That increases the chances of effective retaliation by the opposing forces and, consequently, the risk of friendly casualties.  Although that can be mitigated if the artillery piece is mounted on a floating platform.

Which brings us back to that very useful piece you posted on Latvian defense and Russia's new take on war.

Friendly casualties are bad.  That seems obvious.  But where in the past a dead soldier was simply a dead soldier and the loss marginally diminished the ability to act on the battlefield the effect of a single dead soldier is magnified and amplified these days.  The resultant loss more quickly erodes the will to continue the effort among civilians and politicians.

Ultimately the mere prospect of loss paralyzes governments.

Daladier and Chamberlain.

Airpower has the advantage of distance and of exposing a very small number of "soldiers" to risk.

Boots on the ground, ranked in decreasing desirability, from most to least are:

Local government forces

Local malcontents and activists

Local Criminals

Volunteers from third party states

Private security consultants

Third party government forces

Own non-uniformed operatives

Own Special Forces

Own Light Forces

Own Heavy Forces

 

[daftandbarmy]

But artillery needs a firm base from which to launch.  By its nature that base needs to be closer to the target than an airbase.  That increases the chances of effective retaliation by the opposing forces and, consequently, the risk of friendly casualties.  Although that can be mitigated if the artillery piece is mounted on a floating platform.

Which brings us back to that very useful piece you posted on Latvian defense and Russia's new take on war.

Friendly casualties are bad.  That seems obvious.  But where in the past a dead soldier was simply a dead soldier and the loss marginally diminished the ability to act on the battlefield the effect of a single dead soldier is magnified and amplified these days.  The resultant loss more quickly erodes the will to continue the effort among civilians and politicians.

Ultimately the mere prospect of loss paralyzes governments.

Daladier and Chamberlain.

Airpower has the advantage of distance and of exposing a very small number of "soldiers" to risk.

Boots on the ground, ranked in decreasing desirability, from most to least are:

Local government forces

Local malcontents and activists

Local Criminals

Volunteers from third party states

Private security consultants

Third party government forces

Own non-uniformed operatives

Own Special Forces

Own Light Forces

Own Heavy Forces

Not that I've ever been in a position to actually choose but from what I understand about their respective capabilities, I'd think I'd rather be under a comprehensive arty umbrella of M777 and MLRS vs. having to rely almost solely on FGA.

Having both would be nice, but having the former would be essential.