Close Air support Discussion

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

On Toads recommendation,

A discussion on the relative merits of different CAS platforms, doctrine, trends, etc

If you are going to make statements, then back them up with sources and/or evidence.

That's you, Uninen.

[ed316]

Being American I prefer the A-10 it has a good track record.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/Usaf.thunderbolt2.750pix.jpg

[Greek soldier]

Being American I prefer the A-10 it has a good track record.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/Usaf.thunderbolt2.750pix.jpg

Agree. That's why they decided to upgrade it and use it for another 20 years, even though they were thinking of retiring them.

I see it can carry more weapons than I thought.

I believe attack helicopters are necessary too for complementing CAS.

[ed316]

Agree. That's why they decided to upgrade it and use it for another 20 years, even though they were thinking of retiring them.

I see it can carry more weapons than I thought.

I believe attack helicopters are necessary too for complementing CAS.

I'm wondering what the next generation will look like.

[Greek soldier]

Since this design proved to be successful, I guess the next one will have the same philosophy (twin back positioned engines -CFM56 I propose-, powerful Gatling machine-gun).

[LaoSexMachine]

My money is on the A-10 also

[usm2b]

Marine pilots in Harriers also get the job done.

[Angel]

Harriers are going out the JSF willl take them over. I do like the F-18 though gorgeous aircraft.

[Kilgor]

Marine pilots in Harriers also get the job done.

Its a bit of a deathtrap though.

[Eudes]

http://www.gunships.org/coppermine/albums/Holding/normal_flight22.jpg

[nitrogen]

the a-10 can take a lot of damage...

http://www.ehowa.com/features/a10battledamage.shtml

[HoboWithAK]

A new CAS aircraft is needed for areas with total/limited air superiority. While the JSF and F-22 may be able to drop JDAMs on a pin with direction from ground forces, an armored aircraft that can loiter for extreme periods of time with a great variety of weapons can't be replaced. However, why not make it a UCAV? CAS in low altitude (critical for accuracy of ID and making hits with unguided weapons) is probably the most dangerous mission when there is any threat of fire from the ground or even the air. A UCAV wouldn't put any people at risk. Also, a UCAV built larger than what we have seen before (for example, making it rival the size of an A-10) could be more powerful, more highly armed and armored than the current A-10 and other current UCAVs. Consider putting several people at the controls of a UCAV aircraft (pilot/navigator, sensors and optics, weapons for example) could make it more effecient and in turn more lethal.

[toad]

In disussing CAS, I borrow much of the info from f-16.net posters. They provided some insight since they fly both the A-10 and f-16 multirole.

The A-10's are paid for... so we'll keep 'em around for a while. But they are outdated and overrated.

They sit between the Apaches and the f-16's and 18s, trying to protect itself from its own deficiencies. One of which is it still requires the 'mk1 eyeball' so much. (the only thing that scares Marines is when you tell them an A-10 is going to fill their job request :()

"Less of a problem recently by adding a LITENING pod to it to do some precision work. But if I am going to do that kind of work, I don't need a slow A-10. One of the big things in CAS is response time. 2 F-16's coming out of the stack to fill a CAS request will be there much faster than the pokey A-10. And oh by the way, they will be full NVG capable and have a pod that slews to the other sensors. " - F16.net

Heres another fast mover that can come out of the stack over Fallujah.
http://www.f-16.net/modules/PNphpBB2/files/bats_over_falluja.jpg
flexible load for CAS. You'll notice its a D model. The marines are known for CAS, and they don't have any A-10's or SU-25's. :)


"The A-10 can take a lot of damage and keep going..."
Yea, the A-10 got that damage because it can't go very high with a full load of weapons. And the weps it does have, like the gun and dumb iron and a few mavs requires going down and STAYING in a environment full of trashfire, AAA and small SAMS/MANPADS. All while an F-16 can drop a wep in near any weather from 30K and much higher and hit with a sub 4 meter CEP by request of the ground FAC or what ever. The A-10 mean while orbits slowly around at low level and gets shot to pieces by weps that can't touch the F-16 as described. If I am going to get up close and personal with a slow gun platform, I would prefer the AH-64 which, oh btw is now netcentric and can have target cues feed to its display by things like JSTARs before it even arrives and watch video from UAVs...and is a great night killer. Oh yeah, one more thing: When an F-16 comes down to strafe ( still needed these days ) it doesnt stick around, down fast --- gun --- up fast back on its purch out of ground threat range ( all my ranting here assumes large SAMS have been killed for the most part ). The A-10 doesnt have this option. More times than not, it is always in threat range from the usual suspects I mention. More: Because of its poor altitude performance, it aint going to be laser bombing from high like the other fixed wings. It is still in engagement range or near engagement range of stuff it has limited ability to avoid." -f16.net

"-The A-10 is a great tank killer. In its day yes, but at a cost ( re: the desert storm A-10s that were broken down and buried in the desert because they were so shot up ). Great for its day, but that day was a day where quanities of reliable PGMs and PGM shooters was limited. Today.... again without engaging trashfire, AAA, small SAMs/MANPADs, if there is a formation of tanks on the move, CBU-105 WCMD / SFW BLU-108b will kill off tanks by the bushel dropped from 30-40k and miles away. ( combat proven ). Tanks in fixed positions. Again, out of engagement of threats the A-10 has no option but to drive through.... tanks can now be plinked in near any weather from again..... 30-40k. " F-16.net

But A-10's have been stationed in foward bases where f-16's and f-18's are not operating. That is still usefull if you have any enemy with no airforce like in Afghanistan, but how many conflicts will be like that.

The mark to beat now in CAS is the TWO SEAT F-18 hornets and Super Hornets. They are the busy bee's in a netcentric battlefield. When the weather is bad and visbility is low they are hitting thier targets with jdam and SDB. (yes JDAM is CAS now).

"A GFAC and grunts don't care what kills the enmey just as long as it goes a way. If that happens to be a B-52 dropping, GBU-12, JDAM, CBU-105 with SFW BLU-108bs, or F-14-18 dropping the same thing in adverse, vis because the mark-1 eyeball can't do it, thats just the way it is. You have to ask the question of why those A-10s got shot up. 1. because they couldn't fly out of an engagement zone fast. They have to sit there and take it. F-14-18 has done lots of straffing also in this op. Yet none have been shot down during strafing. Why is that? I'll tell you. The reason is when one of this flys down, it comes off the strafing run fast and climbs back up high, out of the range of trashfire, MANPADS, Small SAMs, AAA. It's total exposure to these threats on a stopwatch is a lot less.

Want to support Marines? I'd prefer F-18s and B-52s any day of the week. The A-10 is a one trick pony. Those two, with modern cheap PGMs and sensors are not." -f16.net


A-10's are paid for and are usefull today in a limited way. But when they go to the Big Boneyard there will be no replacement for them.

It will be fast movers with PGM's.

Now lets hear about how you have to be low and slow and want to always put a Mk eyeball on the target. While they shoot sams at you... :)

[olowy]

A few years ago I read an article that said that when the military went jet on everything it really did a disservice as (in the article's opinion) properller planes are more suited for CAS as they can stay over the immediate area longer and when they need to turn they aren't already tons of miles away. With todays SAMS, etc, I am not sure if that idea would still would owrk.

[signatory]

What you want all depends on where and who you fight.
There's no perfect one. No silver bullet of CAS...

A bit different if there's total air superiority, which I don't think one should assume. There are obviously times when you never want to insert a A-10 and other times when it will be just right.

[ABNINF]

My dad was Huey pilot in Vietnam, and he used to say that there was no better aircraft than the A-1 for CAS. He thought the same thing, that the AF did a disservice by getting rid of them. Once the A-10 came out and he worked with them, his attitude changed. The A-10 is a good aircraft and I've never heard anyone say that they didn't enjoy flying it. It can carry almost twice the ordinance that a F-16/18 can carry, and the 30mm Vulcan can shread just about any armored vehicle around. It's also slower, so, it can stay on station longer than the 16/18's. They had the same problem in Vietnam, the F-4's only had enough ordinance to make 2 or passes before they were either out of ordanance or low on fuel.

[pathfinder82]

Who wouldnt want to fly the A-10? Its record in combat, the firepower it brings, the ability to take heavy damage and lose major flight controls yet still make it home, everytime. Now more than ever this aircraft makes sense.

That thing is a beast and truly a sound to hear from the ground. Quite manuverable too.

[signatory]

Who wouldnt want to fly the A-10? Its record in combat, the firepower it brings, the ability to take heavy damage and lose major flight controls yet still make it home, everytime. Now more than ever this aircraft makes sense.

That thing is a beast and truly a sound to hear from the ground. Quite manuverable too.

Are we only talking about smacking some terrorists here or actually fight some capable army ?

[Sgt.Axeman1224]

Are we only talking about smacking some terrorists here or actually fight some capable army ?

either or when you place it within the combined arms of the U.S. military nothing stands much of a chance. Why do you think we are fighting a war on terror and fighting terrorist? The only way to beat the U.S. in an all out slug fest is if you have them out numbered greatly and can at least contest their air superiority. If the U.S. is fighting a capable army there will be losses, there always is no matter what aircraft you through at them. My overall pick is the A-10 but i do love a good chopper gunship flying in and kicking some butt.

[Angel]

Who wouldnt want to fly the A-10?
I'm sorry m8 but as much as I love the aircraft and as much as I love the guys i know who fly em give me a an F-18 E/F model. At least if something unexpected comes up in the air I'd have a fighting chance.

[ABNINF]

The A10 can carry sidewinders, for self defense, and is very capable of using them. Also remember, an A10's not likely to be out there himself, and there's probably other aircraft (F15/16/18)'s in close proximity if it's a conventional battle.

[signatory]

either or when you place it within the combined arms of the U.S. military nothing stands much of a chance. Why do you think we are fighting a war on terror and fighting terrorist? The only way to beat the U.S. in an all out slug fest is if you have them out numbered greatly and can at least contest their air superiority. If the U.S. is fighting a capable army there will be losses, there always is no matter what aircraft you through at them. My overall pick is the A-10 but i do love a good chopper gunship flying in and kicking some butt.

good post

besides the best CAS support will be the wings that can be there when you actually need them. Though overall great the A-10 can't be everywhere all the time, for instance if one would need support against remote islands the inventory might be Harrier or F/A-18's.

Jets like F/A-18 or Gripen (other thread) have their advantage in being able to defeat enemy fighter jets as well as complete their CAS mission. Would a A-10 abort his CAS mission should enemy jets appear on radar ? these things come into play, clearly the F/A-18 and other jets can't do the really close in gun-support and other trix. So anyway, they complement eachother nicely.

[Anthony91]

Being american I would say the Warthog, Spectre, Apache, Harrier and Cobra. Mainly the Warthog and the Cobra.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

good post

besides the best CAS support will be the wings that can be there when you actually need them. Though overall great the A-10 can't be everywhere all the time, for instance if one would need support against remote islands the inventory might be Harrier or F/A-18's.

Jets like F/A-18 or Gripen (other thread) have their advantage in being able to defeat enemy fighter jets as well as complete their CAS mission. Would a A-10 abort his CAS mission should enemy jets appear on radar ? these things come into play, clearly the F/A-18 and other jets can't do the really close in gun-support and other trix. So anyway, they complement eachother nicely.


Cept if an F/A-18 or a Gripen or whatever else encounters opposition air its not going fight it out with a load of AG under its wings. A pilot will most probably dump it even if he is sporting BVR ordinance. And thats according to an air liason officer I spent a few days with recently. She is a Viper driver by trade.


Want to support Marines? I'd prefer F-18s and B-52s any day of the week. The A-10 is a one trick pony. Those two, with modern cheap PGMs and sensors are not." -f16.net.

The 'mainstream' US Air force have never liked the A-10. Between the fighter and bomber 'mafias' its a wonder the thing ever got built in the first place. I bet there is a hell of a story behind the procurement. Not to mention the struggle to get it upgraded.

As for the 'who would the Marines want to support them' argument, Marines I've talked to unanimously prefered the A-10 over the F-16 and especially the B-52. And keep in mind the US Marines live and breath CAS.

[toad]

Cept if an F/A-18 or a Gripen or whatever else encounters opposition air its not going fight it out with a load of AG under its wings. A pilot will most probably dump it even if he is sporting BVR ordinance. And thats according to an air liason officer I spent a few days with recently. She is a Viper driver by trade.



The 'mainstream' US Air force have never liked the A-10. Between the fighter and bomber 'mafias' its a wonder the thing ever got built in the first place. I bet there is a hell of a story behind the procurement. Not to mention the struggle to get it upgraded.

As for the 'who would the Marines want to support them' argument, Marines I've talked to unanimously prefered the A-10 over the F-16 and especially the B-52. And keep in mind the US Marines live and breath CAS.


Everyone has a valid opinion...but lets look at what the Marines are asking for officially... Do they want A-10's for CAS? Marines have thier own Air Wings which are considered very good at CAS. Answer: no, the marines are not asking for a A-10 or SU-25 aircraft. They want the two seat F-18(s).

You are right about the Airforce not being totally supportive of the A-10. But shouldn't we delve into why? I mean the AF flew CAS for decades and decades...and they learned over time from the A-7 sluf, F105, A-1 that going down low and slow can get a lot of people shot down and they flew "sorties per target". Today we are in targets per sortie, and netcentric warfare. The A-10 is not netcentric. The FAC doesn't care what takes out the target as long as it gets taken out. Todays fast movers have learned the lessons of the battle field.

I agree when people quote the old days... the p-47 was better at CAS than the P-51. Its radial engine could get shot up as well as the whole AC and it would return home. If the P-51 took one round in the cooling system of its inline engine the piot was bailing. Now update that to Skyraiders VS A-7 and A-6's. The days of Skyraiders loitering above battlefield are much like A-10's...BUT there were no manpads and bevy's of shoulder fired missiles to deal with...

The A-6's and A-7's learned the old days of the Alpha strike are over in 1983 over Lebanon. You go in low or med altitudes with ECM and Ironhand and in a town with lots of antiaircraft you lose 2 aircraft in just one strike.

Lessons learned continued in GW1 and 2 that planes who were not able to deliver PGM's in the netcentric battle were more vulnerable. We bulldozed a bunch of shot up A-10's at the end of the runways, because they were not flyable. We retired the A-7's and A-6's as their uselfullness was limited.

The FACS and the services today are not even asking for an A-10, or its replacement. They are asking for a multirole aircraft suite that will provide the next evolution of CAS while protecting crews and limiting losses.

UAV's will be in the mix... f-35 will be limited as a one seater (but netcentric)

Don't get me wrong the A-10 was a great tank buster in its day, it performes marginally today in the CAS role since it is not netcentric, has a history of frats, and is vulnerable to todays antiaircraft.

"Ground threats that can engage the A-10:

-Large SAMs
-Small Arms Fire ( trashfire )
-AAA ( anti-aircraft artillery )
-Small vehicle mounted SAMs like Roland, Rapier, SA-8, etc etc
-MANPADs SA-7s, and even more of a threat newer Ilgas and Chinese jobs."

"Threats that can engage the F-14-18,* & **, B-52 etc when dropping near all weather PGMs like , JDAM, CBU-105 etc. and visual PGMs like the GBU-12:

Large SAMs "


They will strap some netcentic bandaids to the A-10 to keep it around for a while. It needs to to pass and recieve info in the netcentric world so it can aquire and kill better.

The A-10 is one tool in the bag, but very limited in its deficiencies. It has a few more years but will never be replaced because of shoulder fired sams.

I'll sum this up with another quote from the very knowledgable fella's at f16.net...

"Now, once the enemy airpower is killed, and large SAMs beaten down. Its party time (for an A-10). As for loiter time, I'll take a B-52 with a LITENING pod, a handful of GBU-12s, JDAM, CBU-105, and in the near future when the whole bomb bay is smart bused, more of what I just mentioned. Plus in the future, Bundles of SDB, all dropped from 35k + through a 100mph jet stream and hitting the target within 4 meters or so in near any weather #. You see, A GFAC on the ground doesn't really give a sh!t what fills there job request, just as long as it gets killed. In order for an A-10 to be truely effective, it has to be on a very short leash. Waiting 15-20 minutes for one of those poky things to show up and the party could be long over already. In the future, UCAVs like the A-45 and A-47 ( oh yeah btw A-45 and A-47 are far more along in their abilty to fly and drop bombs than the J$F is ). Will provide even more sustained support of a GFAC. Interesting times we live in. "

...it surely is.

[Bulabash]

Nice theories, ever heard of SPIN's????

The point of interest here is that everyone allways talks about platforms, a ground FAC doesnt care what platform although he will have his preferences. The point is he will want the weapon to match the target. You cannot solve every problem with a JDAM, SDB, PavwayIII or whatever.

Most important are continued development, training, training, training and then some more training. UCAV may have their merits but I would rather have a pilot in the seat up there pickling than some guy thousands of miles away pushing buttons with a coffee in his hands, clearance on final is already hard nough as it is without having transmission "lag" etc.

You are talking about a specialist job, especially when working low-level, short and intense.

Remember there are two sides to CAS, the Air side and the Ground side and in this case the ground side is the boss tactically.

[Bulabash]

CAS =

Air action by fixed - and rotary wing aircraft 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 these forces.

Hence you need a FAC on the ground and a platform to deliver a weapon on a target with the desired result and whether that be a F16, A10, TOrnado, harrier eurofighter apache, hind or whatever it doesnt matter in the end it is the guy on the ground that clears the platform for delivery.

[signatory]

yeah I said that a few posts up

[Greek soldier]

Actually A-10 also needs some "helicopter-hunters" planes (or heicopters) since it is vulnerable against them.

UCAV? Maybe, but is it going to have a Gatling GAU-12 or not?

[Flyboy]

I'll have to say A-10 since I am highly partial to them. I don't want to throw out specifics, but when I was in Afghanistan, they weren't even used to their full capacity. I saw camera footage of some missions, and it was impressive to see we did such a good job. Even an OSI member told us they used hit and run tactics b/c they were scared of our response time and our Hawgs!

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Everyone has a valid opinion...but lets look at what the Marines are asking for officially... Do they want A-10's for CAS? Marines have thier own Air Wings which are considered very good at CAS. Answer: no, the marines are not asking for a A-10 or SU-25 aircraft. They want the two seat F-18(s).

But do they?

From what I've read and heard the Marines are irrevocably tied to the Navy in terms of procurement. The Marines get what the Navy wants to a large extent. There are notable exceptions, the AV-8's in particular, but those exceptions seem to be generally tied into amphib specific doctrine, Ospreys for vertical envelopment, etc.
The Marines don't have a big budget and can't afford to invest in a range of mission specific equipment, rather they are forced to a large extent to make do with the equipment generated by their larger sister services programs, albeit with Marine specific modifications.



You are right about the Airforce not being totally supportive of the A-10. But shouldn't we delve into why? I mean the AF flew CAS for decades and decades...and they learned over time from the A-7 sluf, F105, A-1 that going down low and slow can get a lot of people shot down and they flew "sorties per target". Today we are in targets per sortie, and netcentric warfare. The A-10 is not netcentric. The FAC doesn't care what takes out the target as long as it gets taken out. Todays fast movers have learned the lessons of the battle field.

It's no secret that Air forces prefer to operate fast and high. After all that is where they feel most comfortable. But the fact is Close Air Support up until recently has meant 'low and slow' which is inherently risky and not particularly glamorous.
The majority of the aircraft in the US inventory weren't designed from inception to be netcentric. Those that are have for the most part been upgraded. There is no reason that the US could not upgrade the A-10 or even design a new aircraft along the lines of the A-10 that was netcentric from the start.
As for the Air force not being totally supportive of the A-10, I recall reading the mammoth task Col Boyd and co had getting the F-16 into service and the resistance the idea of a cheap, single seat, single engine fighter was given by the 'fighter mafia' who felt that twin seat, twin engined, 'cosmic' jets were the way forward. Ironic to read what the 'knowledgable' folk over at f16.net say nowdays.



I agree when people quote the old days... the p-47 was better at CAS than the P-51. Its radial engine could get shot up as well as the whole AC and it would return home. If the P-51 took one round in the cooling system of its inline engine the piot was bailing. Now update that to Skyraiders VS A-7 and A-6's. The days of Skyraiders loitering above battlefield are much like A-10's...BUT there were no manpads and bevy's of shoulder fired missiles to deal with...

I disagree. The A-10 was specifically designed to kill MBT's and provide CAS on the European battlefield. it was expected to fly and fight amongst the Warsaw Pact air defence weaponry of the time which included copious amounts of manpads. As a result it was armoured and many of its systems were duplicated for redundancy. It was built from the ground up to take damage and keep flying.



The A-6's and A-7's learned the old days of the Alpha strike are over in 1983 over Lebanon. You go in low or med altitudes with ECM and Ironhand and in a town with lots of antiaircraft you lose 2 aircraft in just one strike.


Yep, they sure did. But then again they took losses over North Vietnam as well.



Lessons learned continued in GW1 and 2 that planes who were not able to deliver PGM's in the netcentric battle were more vulnerable. We bulldozed a bunch of shot up A-10's at the end of the runways, because they were not flyable. We retired the A-7's and A-6's as their uselfullness was limited.


Interesting statement. It suggests that a 'bunch' of A-10s made it back to base with significant battle damage.




The FACS and the services today are not even asking for an A-10, or its replacement. They are asking for a multirole aircraft suite that will provide the next evolution of CAS while protecting crews and limiting losses.

Another interesting statement. Protecting crews and limiting losses is all well and good but if its at the cost of decreased effectiveness in the CAS role then what's the point? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Is the man on the ground supposed to shoulder more risk in order to negate the risk of the air crews?




Don't get me wrong the A-10 was a great tank buster in its day, it performes marginally today in the CAS role since it is not netcentric, has a history of frats, and is vulnerable to todays antiaircraft.

Yeah, but how much of that limitation is due to neglect from the Air Force hierachy? If an F-16A from the same era with the comparatively minimal upgrades was deployed in OIF/OEF how well would it perform? As well as a F-16C Block 60, etc?

Its hardly surprising that the A-10 has the history of fraticide that it does, after all its sole job is air support, generally in close support of troop on the ground. But is that history due to the aircraft? or more to do with training? AH-64 Apaches have a history of fraticide that belies the fact that they fly a lot lower and slower than an A-10 and have better optics.

I don't accept the 'vulnerability' angle. ALL aircraft are vulnerable to ground fire. Its a fact of life, has been for decades and is not likely to change.

I'm not an A-10 apologist, but I don't think it deserves the blagging it gets. I sense that the majority of its detractors just dislike it as a matter of principle and it has been that way since its inception.

In closing, I spent some time with an USMC platoon towards the end of last year. On one occasion there arose a need for CAS. The only available AC was a B-52. Its payload was JDAM. The platoon didn't have a JTAC and the B-52 pilot had a great amount of difficulty IDing the specifics of the situation on the ground. After IDing the same USMC squad as unfriendly no less that five times and asking for clearance to engage the PL gave up and waited for a pair of A-10s to come on station.

It proved a lot easier to get the A-10 pilots on 'net' than it did the B-52. I'm sure there are plenty of other stories out there from both sides.

[Greek soldier]

From what I've read and heard the Marines are irrevocably tied to the Navy in terms of procurement.

Well our Marines are tied to the Army and not in the Navy!! Thank God with the Apaches they have a kind of CAS...

[Ratamacue]

Well our Marines are tied to the Army and not in the Navy!! Thank God with the Apaches they have a kind of CAS...
The USMC has their own CAS too. Only it comes in the form of AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18 Hornets, and AH-1W Super Cobras. The point that Ngati was making was that the USMC's budget comes out of that of the US Navy, which means that they're fairly limited in terms of what they can buy (as compared to the USAF and USN).

[Greek soldier]

Indeed, but the USMC has independent Air Power Unit, both AV-8Bs and Cobras.
Our Marines don't have and depend to both Hellenic Air Force (F-16, Mirage) and Army's Air Unit (AH-64A+ and from 2007 AH-64D, along with some SF NH90).

[Asheren]

A-10 or next on the A line if he ever liftoff from the ground. Acutualy air force never liked flying pigs but thier performance in CAS is awesome. There are two flying tanks in the world today one is hind other is A-10.

[Limeyfellow]

I must admit I do love those Super Cobras. They are sexy little copters.

http://www.freewebz.com/helicopter23/Images/Bell_AH-1lb.jpg

Sure it hasn't got the extra armour of the apache but its sleek, maneuvable and gets the job done in a simplier reliable platform.

[Ratamacue]

That's actually an older Cobra, I believe, not a Super Cobra. Look at the angular cockpit and single engine. This is a Super Cobra:

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/album91/aaq.sized.jpg

[toad]

The USMC has their own CAS too. Only it comes in the form of AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18 Hornets, and AH-1W Super Cobras. The point that Ngati was making was that the USMC's budget comes out of that of the US Navy, which means that they're fairly limited in terms of what they can buy (as compared to the USAF and USN).


The marines do procure through the Navy, but they get what they ask for. And they have not asked for a A-10 or SU-25 like AC. They got what they want. F-18's with two seats and harriers...and as you guys pointed out thier CAS helicopoters. Something few here had pointed out in the thread.

Heres one example of Marine views on what they want.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/RJM.htm

Marines have never asked for an A-10. And they do a lot of CAS. They asked for the AV-8 and got it, even though the Navy does not need it. So much for 'dependent procurement' BTW the Navy doesn't need cobras either but the marines get them...because they asked for them.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/481lkpii.asp?pg=1
Note it says the 'new' art of war. Not 80's art of war.


I know the A-10 is popular for being a mud slinging down in the dirt grunt, but its lack of netcentric gear, dependence on the mk1 eyeball makes it a thing of the past. Like the battleships... but there are still a few folks who want one of those too :) naval surface gun fire...another topic in the support of ground troops.

Fast movers with helicopter gunships and UAV's are where we are in CAS. Its what is being asked for and procured. Thats a fact.

Lessons learned in the flying low and slow years... the losses make it less desirable.
Aircraft Total Casualties Total Strikes Aircraft Casualty Rate Per Strike
O/A-10 20 8,640 0.0023
F-16 7 11,698 .0006
F-15E 2 2,124 .0009
Source:United States General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm Evaluation ofthe Air Campaign Available from http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97134/index.html.


But fear not... the A-10's are paid for and will be around for a few more years. I still contend they will not be replaced by another low and slow manned AC. Won't happen.


Here is a good article on CAS by an A-10 pilot... just to show we look at both views.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-086.pdf#search='close%20air%20support%20modern


Fast movers, PGM's, UAV's and helo's......the wave of the future.

[.338LapuaMagnum]

It might be a little bit off-topic, but I was wondering what the blast radius for those CAS weapons is like (rockets and bombs that is, I can imagine a 500 lbs bomb will create a large area of smoldering dust).

I saw a video on Google (joint exercise with F-16 and belgian (!) forward air controllers lasing the target in A-Stan). Impressive CAS possibilities, I thought only A-10 and Harrier are capable of such engagements.

I am not really into air based combat, I know my way around in the personal weapons industry, that's all...

Thanks in advance.

[Ironsight06]

South African Impala's have a pretty impressive combat record:

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5402/imp20iieb6.jpg

It's not an A-10 but still impressive. I recall one of them returning safely to base after a COIN operation with an SA-9 warhead in it's tail.

[Seiyuuki]

The marines do procure through the Navy, but they get what they ask for. And they have not asked for a A-10 or SU-25 like AC. They got what they want. F-18's with two seats and harriers...and as you guys pointed out thier CAS helicopoters. Something few here had pointed out in the thread.Not a disagreement, but there is also another inherent reason why the Marines have not asked for the A-10, the Hog is not designed for carrier operations like the Harrier and the Superbug.

From the Dutch on this forum, apparently the B-1 also make a great CAS platform in Afghan.

[fantomas]

A10 is bollocks, big ugly target. imo theres no better CAS platform than the Su25 frogfoot. small, fast and carries ridiculous weapon load. the pit is made out of a titanium tub, completely sealing the pilot from small/medium arms. Simple mechanics, reliable, can take off /land on almost any surface, simply a wonderful CAS machine.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img001/chechnya35.jpg

http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/su25_2.jpg

[IsraDani]

Completely with you Fantomas.. an awesome firepower and it's also very hard to down..
Don't forget also its evolution, the SU-39

My personal list: 1) SU-25/39 2)A-10, AC-130 3)AH-64, Mi-24 4) Cobra
outsider: B1-B...during the recent helmand battle in a-stan he provided CAS with Jdam bombs..