Close air support at its finest, from the squaddie's perspective

[Like-minded]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b5_1199370899&c=1#comments


Incredible video of how A-10s are snuggling up to Royal Marines to fight the obnoxious Taliban.

[Flyingblind]

A-10 = CLOSE Air Support.

[Like-minded]

More close air support, this time from Apaches. Fireworks for the new year.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e46_1199008814

[GPMG]

Like the way everything goes from laughs an mickey taking and 'yeah were cool', to PULL BACK, PULL BACK and 'christ I nearly s**t myself' then someone with a stripe or two ordering 'single file and lofty off doubly'.


WOW Like Minded, bet that got your juices flowing didn't it??? Must have reminded you of that horrific action that you witnessed whilst playing the 'Death from above' mission on Call of Duty 4 on xbox. Crikey bet your stare is at least 2000yds long.......

[Cyclone733]

Is there any major difference in the CAS offered by the UK and USA forces in terms of effect (yes the A-10 has a big gun). Would the UK's forces find any greater capability offered by a few A-10s in the inventory for example?

[tonker]

And what will replace it?

In my book this aircraft and the SU25 will always be needed as long as we have troops fighting with rifles,grenades and bayonets. Until we get say a UAV armed with miniguns that can hover with, and close to the troops.

I'd love to find a "guns on aircraft are out of date thread"

[Gainesy]

Have a look at the early Typhoon threads.:)

[Cyclone733]

Not saying the gun isn't an amazing bit of kit on the A-10, just can't remember if the GR-7/9 ever got the Aden cannons of their predecessors?
I'm making the assumption that the Harrier is the UK's main CAS aircraft used in theatre which in itself could well be wrong
As for the early Typhoon threads, I'm not sure even the UK's procurement system could get the gun taken out of an A-10.

[Engines]

aaaahhhh....guns on UK combat aircraft, and lack thereof....

GR7 was going to get a 25mm version of the Aden 30mm, but the project got canned in late 90s due to problems with getting gun and pod to work together. Would have been a good weapon, high velocity and very high rate of fire, but it got cancelled along with the Typhoon cannon at the same time - Air Staffs had decided that guns were 'not a viable weapon' (thsi analysis was built around air to air scenarios). Doesn't look so good a decision now, but at the time, it was made in good faith.

IMHO, we will see a comeback for guns as long as we are in the sort of war Afghanistan presents. The debate over guns on the JSF in the States was effectively closed the day the USAF used F-16 guns again in anger against ground targets in Iraq. JSF CTOL variant has a 25mm gatling built in, STOVL has a centreline podded version of the same gun.

[Double Zero]

Don't know about the gun on the Typhoon, but I can say from first hand observation the 25mm Aden for the Harrier 2 GR5 was binned simply because it didn't work !

I had an irritated reply from one of the 25mm's designers when I mentioned this a while ago, quoting all sorts of record breaking rates of fire etc; well personally I was convinced otherwise by the damage I photographed after test firings, when the thing fired it's own innards at least as far as the shells !

To a simpleton trained in some engineering like me, it seemed they were trying to bypass the simple laws of barrel cooling v. rate of fire & metallurgy.

The GR7/9's - and their colleagues on the ground - deserve to be supplied with the GAU-12 gatling the American AV-8B's use; but that's not politically handy, so the very second best bet is rocket pods...

This is an example of a total lack of balls by RAF senior officers; if a built on gunpod is so difficult ( why not Aden 30mm's, the shape of the gunpod for the GR5 etc is already designed - ? ) or failing that a pylon mounted gunpod off the shelf, which would only require a short trials programme & suitable aiming software.

If aiming software is difficult or expensive, how come that's been chosen rather than a real gun on the RAF's Hawk 128's ?!

[Like-minded]

"There's one, and the other."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb4_1199400402

[Engines]

Double Zero,

Some info on the Aden 25 - I was associated with the project, but not clever enough to be a designer. Just to set the record straight....

The Aden 25 was started as a 'cheap' programme to convert the Aden 30 to use the incoming 'standard' 25mm high velocity round. The Aden 30 round was ineffective in the ground attack role, and rate of fire was too slow to give acceptable probability of hit in air to ground. The programme was constrained to use the existing gun pod as far as possible, and also the existing gun mounting points - this was a serious mistake. They were also constrained to use Mauser 27mm barrel forgings.

The Aden 25 was, as you correctly said, a disaster first time around - guns were failing after about 100 rounds due to poor design and incorrect selection of materials. RO were the guilty party.

The MoD switched contractor and gave the guns to a small outfit (AeI) to sort, which they did to very good effect. Final test firings of the gun showed excellent reliability at 1800 rpm, with very low wear on the gun system components (around one tenth of that experienced by the Mauser 27mm, in itself a very good weapon). This was the best performance ever achievd by a mechanically fired weapon (another MoD requirement).

But, the gun pod design had been left to BAE, and the split between gun and pod design was a bad mistake - when the gun got to trials on the aircraft, ammunition feed problems were very common. The team also experienced problems with spent links striking the composite tailplane - not a problem with the tin versions on the GR3. The link collector designed to solve this issue was not at all elegant.

Barrel wear - the Aden 25 designers weren't trying to bypass any laws of physics - had the weapon gone on to service, a burst limiter would have been fitted, like any almost any other cannon firing at over 1500 rpm.

The total spent on developing, building and rebuilding the Aden 25s was about one quarter of the UK share of developing the Mauser 27mm - as ever, you get what you pay for.

I agree that the best way forward from where we are now would be a GAU-12 fit for the GR7/9 - but I suspect that our aircraft would need quite a bit of work to take it - the system needs external power drives and additional hardpoints. Incidentally, the JSF gun is a development of the GAU-12, using the same 25mm round.

Pylon mounted cannon do not have a good track record - add up the various errors and flexures and the chance of hitting the target goes way down - that's why almost all types are fuselage mounted.

Aiming software for a gun is not difficult, and with new sensors (electro optical and millimetric radars), the performance (accuracy, kill probability) can be really good. Apache is a good example of a really effective gun system. It's a shame that the RAF staffs were slow to realise that technology had moved on from the Aden 30 and Mauser 27mm systems.

Hope this helps - as ever, the truth can be complex. Once upon a time the UK had some very talented gun designers and makers - they deserve a fair hearing.

Regards

Engines

[Phochs3]

All the Typhoons have got guns...not up to A10 spec though unfortunately!

[Cyclone733]

Just to open a can of worms, are the Typhoon guns actually plugged in these days or are they still filling the role of "something gun sized with the same weight distribution to replace the guns taken out in the first place"

I'd love to see a few A-10s in use by the British forces, I'm sure Harrier is great, but it's always struck me as a strange aircraft to be using when there are runways available. If it was me waiting for CAS I'd love the extra fire power and weapons load of the A-10 to support me. From the pilots view an ugly twin engined over engineered aircraft with an armoured cockpit must be prefferable to a composite aircraft such as Harrier or Typhoon. I'm sure greater minds than mine must have thought the issue through

[Like-minded]

Interesting video, the following. GLMRS (multiple rocket artillery with laser guidance) is now revealed to be as accurate as air dropped laser bombs.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e5_1199572862


Nothing stings you awake in the morning than going to find out what happened to your insurgent buddy and getting a fussilade of 30mm in the head.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Nostrinian. Kind'a new here, aren't you son?

Seriously, that is a fair point but nobody planned for scrapping with tribesmen in the middle of bum f**k nowhere. Why should they when they were basking in the euphoria of the Cold War peace dividend?

Gi'z a clue; how much do you reckon it would cost at today's prices to build some Tempests or Mustangs?

Something that strikes me from viewing some of that footage ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e46_1199008814 frame 00.54, say, or

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb4_1199400402 );

how much effort would have gone into positive ID of the terrs?

[rmac]

GBZ

You may have a point there. Not quite sure what part of ROE can be used to justify using a minigun on an apparently unarmed "hoodie" walking past a row of buildings. Can someone enlighten me ?

[GreenKnight121]

So we must now ask to see their Al-Queda membership card before we can decide that the guy who has just dropped off 30 RPG rounds to what the locals call a IED factory is a threat?

Just for example, no specific knowledge of that particular "hoodie" involved.

[Like-minded]

has it ever occurred to you, that this is only a tiny part of a longer video?

that chav in the hoodie has a rifle tucked under his left arm in his jacket, it was observed earlier, which is why his left arm doesn't move.

he was also observed to have placed an IED earlier.

besides he's a chav, which is the most important thing.

[BEagle]

".....what part of ROE can be used to justify using a minigun on an apparently unarmed 'hoodie'"

Surely wearing a 'hoodie' is sufficient ID to waste the little $od?

Mind you, a baseball cap on backwards, inflatable crack-dealers' trainers and jeans at half mast would certainly be sufficient corroborating evidence!

[Cyclone733]

An offer of paying some of the costs of the A-10 upgrade in return for a 10 year lease of the aircraft? I'm sure there are a few spare airframes at AMARC that could be added to the program.

Give it 10 years and a couple of blokes in a porta cabin outside of Sandhurst ought to have the gear to do the job with whatever wonderful craft are in developement (still haven't worked out why you can't take the crews out of modern aircraft such as Typhoon and Apache and replace them with 250 kgs of comms and IT gear)

[rmac]

Like Minded,

As I understand the ROE only allows a kill if the player is in the middle of a hostile act. This is why insurgents choose their firing points carefully and then walk away in full view of the place they have just mortared after the dirty deed is done. Or is that only the British ROE ? does the US operate to a different standard ? maybe the UK should too ?

In fact, stretching it a bit further, how about giving the Met police a couple of Apaches on loan :eek: or do you think they would hose down a bus full of Brazilian students by accident ?:E

[Like-minded]

>> As I understand the ROE only allows a kill if the player is in the middle of a hostile act.


This is not so. Have you never served before? The ROE you mention is only before any hostile act. If after the hostile act and the identified target walks away instead of surrendering, you clamp your jaws around his jugular and shake until his brains fall out.

If not you have a situation akin to the skit from Minister of Silly Walks, really.

[Magic Mushroom]

From my safety in Blighty the fighting in Afghanistan seems relativley low tech from the enemies point, are we not, with talk of putting guns on £80 million super high tech fighters and directing them against low tech tribeman, going about things the right way?
Are there aircraft in the world we could buy and re-equip. Reasonably in- expensively?

Nostrinian,
A valid question which is being asked elsewhere. Firstly, don't be suckered into thinking terry Taliban and his mates don't have access to some pretty decent threat systems. That's why we have to spend a fair bit of cash equipping our helos and mulit engined assets with advanced defensive aids systems (DAS).

Looking specifically at procuring a low cost CAS asset along the lines of a PC-21 or Super Tucano, there is undoubtedly some role for these assets in an Afghan type scenario. Their main limitation is their ability to persist around the battlespace and be retasked quickly.

Having flown in a C2 role over both Afghanistan and Iraq, it was and remains common for assets to be dynamically retasked. For instance, a USAF F-15E may be retasked from providing convoy route overwatch for NATO forces in Northern Afghanistan to providing CAS to UK ground forces in Helmand. Fast jets (even GR9s!) can get there quickly and have the ability to go and tank to maintain persistance.

A PC-21 type would take a lot longer (this is even a problem with the A-10 which would sometimes be overlooked for retasking simply because we knew it wouldn't get to an incident in time), and would be unable to tank. Yes you could fit AAR probes to a wing location but then you'd have to buy some C-130 type tankers which adds to the cost of procurement. It could be argued that the cheaper cost of a PC-21 allows persistence to be obtained by procuring more aircraft. However, to do this you'd need to stick turbo-prop CAS all over the place which is a very uneconomical way to use Air Power (and personnel). Deploy them to FOBs and hold them on GCAS? Trouble is you then immediately increase massively the force protection elements deployed out in the field and create numerous 'tethered goat' targets for the enemy!

Turbo-props also lack the sheer psychological impact of a fast and low 'show of force' which will often avoid the actual employment of weapons, and lack the sensors and payload of most fast jets. The sensor issue is another rarely acknowledged limitation of the A-10 which is a very good clear weather asset but severely limited when the weather clamps in.

In summary, cheap turbo-prop CAS would have some use in a modern COIN campaign, especially in an AFAC or SCAR type role. However, their slow speed and limited payload/sensors in particular limit their value in comparison to a combination of fast air, armed UAVs and AH.

If we were going to spend the cash on anything, a few AC-130s would be of more use. However, they'd be hugely expensive to operate unless we could get some sort of Ro-Ro 'Spooky-lite' capability for our Js.

(still haven't worked out why you can't take the crews out of modern aircraft such as Typhoon and Apache and replace them with 250 kgs of comms and IT gear)

Cyclone,

Because you'd need a lot more than that to even come close to what a soft pink body or 2 can achieve. The technology is just not mature enough yet.

Have you never served before?

LM,

Please don't ever stop posting your comments on this board!! I know you're busy at the 'tip of the (combat flight sim) spear' seeing things that 'we can only dream of' but you brighten my day considerably with your descriptions of RoE application and kinematography etc!!!! Priceless!!!:D

Regards,
MM

[rmac]

Magic Mushroom,

Good staff paper on the merits of various types of air power, well explained.

With regards to ROE and " having served before" next comments to Like Minded refers

Like Minded,

Answer to the first question, yes, glad to get that out of the way.

Secondly I didn't want to get in to a complex discussion on ROE as we were apparently bantering, but as you want to;

In the case suggested by me, of the mortar tubes, if you can see them putting bombs in the tubes, or actually ID the tubes (threat) being carried by them, then go ahead. If however you see a bunch of guys moving in to dead ground, experience an indirect attack from that direction and subsequently see the same bunch of guys moving back the other way, you technically should not engage, as you have no way of knowing if they indeed actually were the firing team, if you believe that its OK to take a chance and remove them in that situation, then perhaps ROE should also include provision for the assassination of their known leaders and organisers in their own homes . And yes at times it does appear that ROE are drafted in the Ministry of Silly Walks, which is where IMHO the entire bloody war plan was drafted :ugh:

Related to our exchange on the hoodie friend and the IED, it may be the case that the IED and the weapon were positively identified, but given that he was not an immediate threat, perhaps the option of lifting him for interrogation, or at least trying to, may have been a viable option. Maybe not, who knows, its a snapshot image, and a very dangerous one at that. If we need to kill in that manner, and maybe we do, there is little positive PR to be gained by putting it in the public forum.

Now can we drop the serious sh1t and get back to the banter ? :E

[GPMG]

If a german company can make brand new FW190's for a few million a pop then surely we can sort out a few real Typhoons.
Thats a joke comment by the way LM.

The blokes on the ground would be glad of anything with wings and a gun to take the enemies mind of off the situation. Even the Gloster Gladiator at Old Warden. Note that I did not mention the Bleriot and some chap with an old Webley.....that would be plain daft wouldnt it?

[Foghorn Leghorn]

MM,

Please explain how the A10 becomes so disadvantaged when the weather clamps in in comparison to say the GR9?

[airborne_artist]

Even the Gloster Gladiator at Old Warden. Note that I did not mention the Bleriot and some chap with an old Webley.....that would be plain daft wouldnt it?

I believe the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps are next in line for mobilisation, but that says more about recruitment and manning than it does for their aerial carriages :E

[GPMG]

Now now there darling, There's nothing cushy about life in the Womens Auxiliary Balloon Corps.

[LowObservable]

I would add to MM's point:

A fast jet can do CAS, but a CAS "mudfighter" can't do counterair or air defense. And just because you're not doing the latter today does not mean that you will not do it in the lifecycle of a modern military aircraft.

[GreenKnight121]

The A-10C upgrade currently underway adds precision-munition and some bad-weather capability to the already night-attack/LGB equipped A-10 force.

[Riskman]

LikeMinded

If after the hostile act and the identified target walks away instead of surrendering, you clamp your jaws around his jugular and shake until his brains fall out.

What does that mean, exactly? Is that an extract from a Guard Commander's brief? If so, which planet?

The decision to return fire depends on a satisfactory answer to three questions;

Is my or my comrades' life in danger?
Is my pension in danger?:)
Are my promotion prospects in danger?

or

Who can afford the best lawyer:ugh:

[Magic Mushroom]

Please explain how the A10 becomes so disadvantaged when the weather clamps in in comparison to say the GR9?

Foghorn,

I don't believe that I actually compared the GR9 and A-10.

However, the GR7/9 have enjoyed a couple of key advantages over the A-10 for quite a period in that the Harriers have had GPS weapons capability and a data link. In comparison the A-10s only had laser guided weapons which, in many scenarios prevented them dropping through cloud.

The A-10C upgrade aluded to by Green Knight is just starting to reach operational theatres and will add J series weapons to the aircraft as well as the SADL (although some have had a data link for a little while). When added to the already partially fielded and very capable Sniper XR targeting pod, this should address some of the A-10s limitations in terms of all weather capability.

Regards,
MM

[Boldface]

Riskman,

I wouldn't take simple-minded too seriously. It is clear by his posts that he is a Jedi Walt of the highest order who has had little if any military service. However, his continued participation on PPRUNE should be encouraged for the following reasons:

1. He causes us all enormous amusement.

2. It means he's not hanging around outside primary schools.

[Like-minded]

your assertions of American trigger-happiness and lack of IFF is completely wrong. Look at the following video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=87f_1198860424

where they took extraordinary effort to identify a weapon, call back to the frontline lawyers and allowed a number to get away.

If I were one of the pair of Apache pilots, I would have thumbed the fire button repeatedly in the first few seconds when the truck was trundling along full of insurgents in the back, simply because they have already transgressed the Health and Safety law related to transport.

[Riskman]

Boldface,

Riskman,

I wouldn't take simple-minded too seriously.

I apologise unreservedly for having me serious head on. :ugh: I will try to keep things in perspective from now on.;)

[Like-minded]

Oh my, the Apache is such a sexy beast (like Britney before her brain transplant), that it now has its own music video of its greatest hits.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb5_1200009506

Surely, this is a better brochure than any Discovery documentary.

[rafmatt]

I may be talking B0ll0k5 here! But im sure a couple of tucanos fitted with some sort of cannons and rockets with chaff and flares should do it. As long as its got a weapon sight and armour.

im sure if p47 and p51s and the good old typhoons and hurricane can do it im sure they can.

im sure the coloumbians have em

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Didn't we acquire a couple of

http://warplane.ru/plane/pukara/pic/ia58_01.jpg

a few years back in a wild and lonely place? :}

[rafmatt]

http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com.br/english/content/combat/tucano_multi_role.asp

heres a link to the tucano web site.

why cant we spend a little money upgrading the tucanos that are in storage already?

im sure it wouldnt be that much.

[Boldface]

Rafmatt,

MM makes some valid points regarding this subject earlier in this thread.

[Bootneck]

I'll see if there's anybody from 42 who would care to give you the good word. ;) 40 are a tad busy at present. It may take a day or three.

From my ancient perspective I loved Harriers for FAC from helicopters. They would invert on pull up from the IP then hit what you wanted. Anything faster was too fast, usually came straight in, had difficulty acquiring the target and hitting it. Mind you, that was in the days of Jaguars, they must have been murder in terms of forward vision.

[recce_FAC]

Bootneck that must be a few years ago.The only people that use I.P's these days are Sinx and Ben at JFACTSU.I guess you have to be ''good to be gash'' as they say at Leeming.

[recce_FAC]

Just a quick one any A/C crews doing NTLT in feb if so please PM me, I need a little info on simple CAS/ECAS matter with ref to ''snake,jiggle,sparkle''

[BigBusDriver]

So, speaking as an (interested) civilian and therefore in the dark on a lot of this, how would a 100-series Hawk fare in the CAS role in an environment like Afghanistan? Surely with the Aden pod and a few rockets or small PGMs it could be somewaht useful..?

[Like-minded]

You would require (A) a large gun of at least 30 mm (B) all guided munitions for modern CAS (C) slow stall speed and reasonable cruising spped. American rockets each have laser guidance now.

[Archimedes]

BBD - despite what LM says

1. The cannon does not need to be 30mm or above - whether it's a 20, 25, 27 or 30mm weapon it'll still be handy. This has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively since OEF and OIF began. There's little evidence to suggest that troops in contact have responded to a strafing run by moaning that the gun being used isn't big enough.

2. You do not require an all PGM suite for modern CAS. Again, there is much evidence from theatre where unguided ordnance has been successfully employed in CAS - both bombs and rockets (CRV7).

3. US rockets can be fitted with a form of laser guidance, but they do not all have it as you might infer from LM's post. I'm not sure whether the capability has reached the front line yet, or whether testing is still ongoing.

100-series Hawk would probably be adequate for some tasks, but remember that it would almost certainly need to carry two fuel tanks underwing, leaving it with three pylons for weapons. You could have either the gun or a designator pod, but not both, and the weapons that could be carried on the outboard wing pylons would be limited compared to the range that could be carried on, say, a GR7.

[XV277]

More close air support, this time from Apaches. Fireworks for the new year.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e46_1199008814


Is it just me or does the first portion of that video look like they are zapping Basil Fawlty?

[Like-minded]

Wait a minute, Archimedes dear, we're not talking about WW2 and/or the current British way of fighting. I'm talking about fighting to win.


>>1. The cannon does not need to be 30mm or above - whether it's a 20, 25, 27 or 30mm weapon it'll still be handy. This has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively since OEF and OIF began. There's little evidence to suggest that troops in contact have responded to a strafing run by moaning that the gun being used isn't big enough.

No, strafing the ground is an imprecise art. You need 30mm to have big enough explosive rounds to effectively wipe out ground personnel dodging between buildings in urban areas. 30mm gives you around 4m radius of death and destruction. Besides you want your rounds able to penetrate a few walls. Remember, we're not in a slow Spitfire strafing trains, we're talking about anti-personnel and the occassional vehicle.


>>2. You do not require an all PGM suite for modern CAS. Again, there is much evidence from theatre where unguided ordnance has been successfully employed in CAS - both bombs and rockets (CRV7).

Yes, absolutely you need PGMs. The Americans found that you would expend the entire load of unguided rockets easily on a few individuals or an enemy car. With guided ones you can take out a car per rocket, actually more cost effective given the fewer munitions expended and the fewer aircraft needed. Unguided rockets have been successfully used yes but then Dunkirk is considered a successful operation too.


>>3. US rockets can be fitted with a form of laser guidance, but they do not all have it as you might infer from LM's post. I'm not sure whether the capability has reached the front line yet, or whether testing is still ongoing.

It is already in use.

>>100-series Hawk would probably be adequate for some tasks, but remember that it would almost certainly need to carry two fuel tanks underwing, leaving it with three pylons for weapons. You could have either the gun or a designator pod, but not both, and the weapons that could be carried on the outboard wing pylons would be limited compared to the range that could be carried on, say, a GR7.

UK currently does not have a good CAS platform. The Typhoon is too precious, the Hawk is too light and the Tornado does not have all-weather loiter and survelliance capabilities.

[Al R]

On the link posted by 'like minded' (2 above), at the 30 second point and immediately before impact, it appears that the chap on the left flinches, breaks step almost and seems to notice that something is terribly wro..

[Archimedes]

So, LM, based on your knowledge - your perfect CAS aeroplane is....?

BTW - which platforms use the laser guided rockets?

[MarkD]

I thought there was also an arms control issue with Hawk?

[Magic Mushroom]

Excellent!! More priceless drivel from simple-minded. I really do wish his care home would ensure he stays on his combat flight sim game rather than spouting more rubbish! Still, he is as ever amusing.

You need 30mm to have big enough explosive rounds to effectively wipe out ground personnel dodging between buildings in urban areas.

I guess that'll be why the F-15, F-16, FA-18 and AV-8B all have cannons with calibres less than 30mm. They seem to do okay in the role although the F-15 and F-16 cannons are not optimised for A-G use. As for strafing people 'dodging between buildings'!!!!!:rolleyes:

Yes, absolutely you need PGMs.

Not necessarily. One of the most effective weapons in Afghanistan is the CRV-7 rocket and 540lb dumb bombs. Other nations, including the US have also used non-PGMs and their use can sometimes enable more rapid engagements. This is especially the case with cluster munitions and it’s a shame we’re dispensing with them now (if you’ll excuse the pun). Modern weapons computers also allow dumb accuracies on a par with some PGMs when used in specific profiles.

Archimedes is correct in stating that not all US missiles have laser guidance.

UK currently does not have a good CAS platform. The Typhoon is too precious, the Hawk is too light and the Tornado does not have all-weather loiter and survelliance capabilities.

Well, the GR9 seems to be doing pretty well in Afghanistan, as does the GR4 in Iraq (in all weathers). Indeed, both have a better ISTAR and targeting pod capability than most US assets, a weakness which the US jets are only just getting sorted. Both use the UK EPW weapon series which is more flexible than the separate GPS and laser guided weapon variants of US weapons. I do however acknowledge that the smaller yield of some US weapons is an advantage in many urban or 'danger close' scenarios. The cannon on the GR4 is also optimised for A-G use and it has consistently delivered extremely accurate strafe on ops when required.

Oh, and Typhoon will be deployed on ops in the CAS role by the end of the year and in the work up exercises it's conducted with Army FACs, it has won over many doubters.

...your assertions of American trigger-happiness and lack of IFF is completely wrong.

Unfortunately S-M, evidence does not support this. As an AWACer my experience from Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq is that there is a major mind set difference between US aircrew and others. Obviously, the vast majority are professional, but a far greater proportion of US aircrew do seem to have less regard for RoE and CDE than the majority of other nations.

Even allowing for the greater numbers of US personnel involved on ops, the US track record in this respect is not impressive. As a starter for 10:

Gulf ops (USS Vincennes v Airbus).

GW1 (A-10 v Warrior).

Northern NFZ (AWACS/F-15C v UH-60 x 2).

Kosovo (F-16/A-10 v civilian convoys (despite a Brit GR7 having specifically told the F-16 AFAC that they were refugees and refusing to drop)). I won't mention the B-2 incident as I have never believed that to be accidental and if it was, it was a targets cock up rather than an aircrew one.

Afghanistan (numerous border busts with weapons as well as the infamous F-16 v Canadian Inf incident (possibly the worst example of criminal negligence and poor aircrew discipline since WWII. Those guys should have been imprisoned for manslaughter:mad:)).

GW2 (A-10 v Warrior. Patriot v GR4).

There is most certainly a greater willingness to use US brawn rather than US brain in many scenarios. Indeed, it could be argued that this is a trait which many enemies have exploited (and continue to exploit) over the years in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I reiterate that the vast majority of US aircrew are professional and this can be admired...but then again many in the US admire the chaotic evacuation of Saigon too!:ok:

Regards,
MM

[LowObservable]

OODA

Observe
Overreact
Destroy
Apologize

[TheInquisitor]

There appears to be alot of random bollox being thrown around in here.

How's about this for a CAS asset?

http://vbaines.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/mq9.jpg

[Magic Mushroom]

UAVs such as Reaper are potentially very useful in a CAS role. They have persistance and a good ISTAR capability which may preclude positive ID/RoE issues associated with handing off a target between assets.

On the flip side, they are generally more susceptible to weather factors, are bandwidth hubgry and ironically are fairly manpower intensive to operate right now. Their biggest weakness is that they are relatively slow; you cannot retask a Reaper from Northern Afghanistan to a troops in contact call in Helmand in the timescale required. You also cannot employ one for a show of force!!

In short, armed UCAV such as the MQ-9 compliment but as yet do not replace manned CAS and other fires.

Regards,
MM

[Backwards PLT]

I always click on a thread when I see like-minded has replied, it brightens up my whole day. Wife wonders what I am laughing at, though!

I have to be honest and say that I still haven't worked out if he is a desktop pilot who honestly believes what he says or a wind-up, angling type. What do you reckon?

[Wader2]

GBZ - Yes, new here. In sober retrospect, building Mustangs for close support wouldnt be a good idea ( I read they had a radiator with their engine, one little hole in it would therefore bring them down).

I had an idea the Mustangs had a conversion to turboprop and found this website:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_14.html

A lot more water under the bridge now.

[Wader2]

Never seen more bollocks here

True

for air-to-air and you don't need that big rounds to destroy an aircraft

fighter jets due to their speed and high rate of fire can only achieve a small blast radius and is more suitable to buildings and general area suppression than anti-infantry.

HE rounds are an effective prophylactic instrument against personnel in the open - it sends them to ground. Unfortunately an estimated 10% failure rate creates a high EOD hazard to subsequent friendly movement. For this reason, amongst others, there is a move towards kinetic energy munitions, ie tungsten-nylon rather than HE.

cluster munitions and it’s a shame we’re dispensing with them now but we are doing so for the same reasons we are switching from HE.

F-16 and its accuracy is many times worse off than the oldest PGM Not from where I stand.

Furthermore you're restricted to weather conditions and certain flight profiles.

True.

If the GR9 is doing well, American air wouldn't have to pick up the burden all the time.

Nonsense, this is a numbers issue not an effectiveness one.

Face it, Europe is so risk averse (look at your economy and cradle to grave welfare) and so casualties averse (NATO yuks) that America firepower, aggression and leadership is just something you'll have to accept.

Actually it is US Forces that are historically risk averse. This dates from the War of Northern Aggression or Civil War when there was enormous slaughter on both sides. From then on the US sought a technical solution to military issues.

This was reinforced in the 1917-1918 war when having watched the European armies slaughter each other they chose a less risky path (very sensibly). Maybe the 1914-1919 war in Europe has something to do with being risk averse.

In the 1941-1945 war the US again used technological muscle and out produced the enemy in tanks, aircraft, ships and fuel. I acknowledge the war was bloody and boots on the ground were also provided in great numbers.

The Indo-China conflict was again costly in men but it also led to many technological attempts to solve the problem - Agent Orange for instance.

And btw, when is the British military going to learn new methods of fighting war? I see your infantry still walking around everywhere.

We have mechanised infantry and light infantry. They both have their uses. I am sure many US units are also not dependent on mechanisation.

Korea was a victory.

No it wasn't. It was not a defeat and it is not over, it is actually an armistice truce in 1953. It is called the war that never ended. If it hasn't ended you cannot have won.

Iraq, if you're reading the news, is a victory.

Moot point.

I don't see how we can lose Afghanistan either.

The only country to date that has won a war in Afghansitan is Afghanistan. What criteria will be used to judge 'end' and 'victory'?

BA (Hons) History

[Cyclone733]

Like-minded,

Korea was a victory. Iraq, if you're reading the news, is a victory. I don't see how we can lose Afghanistan either.
The United States, North Korea and China sign an armistice, which ends the war but fails to bring about a permanent peace. To date, the Republic of Korea (South) and Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (North) have not signed a peace treaty. taken from the Unitied States of America Korean War Commemoration website. Not really what I'd call a victory, will a US force still be required in another 50 years?

Face it, Europe is so risk averse (look at your economy and cradle to grave welfare) and so casualties averse (NATO yuks) that America firepower, aggression and leadership is just something you'll have to accept.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank American leadership for the sub prime mortgage issue and this years financial slow down. Also if someone had sat down and formed a coherent plan for the aftermath of the 'shock and awe' maybe we'd not need to still be talking about CAS and could get back to good old defence cut backs

C

[Archimedes]

The smell of bovine scatological output from LM grows ever stronger...

I assume that LM's strafing runs come complete with background music so long as he's remembered to turn his PC speakers on?

[Boldface]

Simple minded clearly has no first hand knowledge and he strikes me as a particularly sad attention seeker who is just trying to wind people up.

However, am I the only one who feels his latest comments have crossed a line, especially regarding the Canadian Infantry incident?:mad:

I doubt if even the pilots responsible for this act would write such a disrespectful comment about fellow servicemen killed in such a tragic manner.:mad:

I think the best thing to do with this muppet is to just ignore his posts.

[GPMG]

I have to admit that I looked forward to his ridiculous posts and found them funny, up untill halfway through his last post.

Hopefully his PC's hard disc fill fail under the load from Flight Sim X tonight, and his Mom won't pay for another untill he promises to take his medication.

[Jackonicko]

He should serve as a cautionary warning as to why you should never, ever, shag your sister......

[Axel-Flo]

Not a weaponeer these days but why, if loiter time and load are so important, cant we fit a big plane, a bomber say (2 BFO engines (ideally 4) nice stiff wing with hard points or maybe even an internal bomb bay...call it a Shropshire maybe or any other County for that matter bit like an updated modernised Lanc...) load it up with various guideable munitions and a good link from predator or maybe even a good TI camera or something. It could stay there for hours. Build in a galley, fridge, convenience etc oh a couple of refuel hoses and a boom in case you need a small pointy type thing to go low and do some v v CAS., Bombs away Ginger as they used to say................Hurrah for the boys of Bomber Command we're back!:ok:

[HEDP]

I wonder how many big bomber type things you could get for your buck if they were instead of the carriers? More sharp end effect and less floating airfield costs!

[Pontius Navigator]

Not a weaponeer these days but why, if loiter time and load are so important, cant we fit a big plane, a bomber say (2 BFO engines (ideally 4) nice stiff wing with hard points or maybe even an internal bomb bay...call it a Shropshire maybe or any other County for that matter bit like an updated modernised Lanc...) load it up with various guideable munitions and a good link from predator or maybe even a good TI camera or something. It could stay there for hours. Build in a galley, fridge, convenience etc oh a couple of refuel hoses and a boom in case you need a small pointy type thing to go low and do some v v CAS., Bombs away Ginger as they used to say................Hurrah for the boys of Bomber Command we're back!:ok:

Axel, we did. In the 60s the Argosy bomber was equipped with 8 underwing hard points and a visual bombsight. I guess it would have had a galley. Now if we had thought to add a couple of machinbe guns as well we could have pre-dated Puff the Magic Dragon.

Strange aint it? Nothing new it just goes round and round.

[Magic Mushroom]

L-M,

Your last post was disgraceful and evidence, if any were needed, that you are not a military man.

[FrogPrince]

Task Force Fury (1/508 PIR) of the 82nd Airborne Division spend most of their time in RC South on shank's pony: works for them...

[Wader2]

FP, thanks for that. I knew from Harry Coyle's books that one was light infantry, couldn't remember which.

M_M et al, it looks like we shall never enjoy the pearls of dew on the scatological evidence (Arch) as he has disappeared into cyber-space's deepest black hole.

[FrogPrince]

Oh, TFF do like to insert and extract by RW, though their support echs usually drive.....:)

[recce_FAC]

From a FAC's point of view,I am happy with the CAS we get from the RAF. All the A/C the RAF use for CAS have there good points and not so good points.I agree a gun is need on all A/C that are required to conduct CAS,I have worked with TYPHOON last year on SPTA and I was pretty impressed with the way we are FAC's were able to ''positively'' control the jet.The really impressive thing was the lead A/C called ''stores'' whilst he was upside down.We put it down to one of two reasons either he was an EX F-3 pilot so he didnt know what he was doing or (and my preferred option) he was a big timing show off.The guys on the ground that we were supporting with CAS were none the wiser anyway.

With ref to the yanks and CAS,well they are not as flexible as the RAF,it takes them ages to even get permission to come below 5 grand where a Tonka from II sqn would happily pop down to 50 ft when the need was there.Ok it was Iraq but thats when you need it. USN are very anal and will only accept a nato 9 line no matter how ''rushed'' you are,F-16 guys are tip top but do sound as if there having a heart attack and F-15E's are pretty damn good as well especially if the backseater has a sexy southern states accent(girl before you ask).Give me RAF any day,I like Tonkas because two sets of ears means you can talk quicker,two sets of eyes means you can prosecute the target quicker.

Just my two pennies worth.

[Jackonicko]

Did you experience Jag with HMS and IDM, and what difference did that make?

[Backwards PLT]

Jacko let it go!

[Jackonicko]

Jag's gone, and irrevocably so. But that's no reason why babies should be thrown out with bathwater.

I've spoken to operators, and the combination of HMS/IDM seems to have been an extremely effective means of getting 'eyes on target' more rapidly than is possible with other (non HMS, non IDM) platforms. If so, with today's emphasis on CAS, shouldn't we be pushing for HMS on the GR4 and GR9? And even for an interim HMS on Typhoon?

It would obviously be interesting to hear a FAC's perspective.

The key to my question lay in the words IDM and HMS, and not in the word Jaguar (which is an irrelevance).

It does, however, lead me to wonder which other platforms have a similar capability, whether, for example, the USAF's Goldstrike F-16s got a helmet as well as IDM?

[recce_FAC]

I have used IDM with a Jag in training but not on OPS.To be honest I wouldnt have time to input all the info into IDM when I need CAS unless of course it was on a planned OP. For me its a radio to Hachett/Warhawk to bid for air then its return fire until the jet checks in. Not a fan of IDM and most of my FAC mates that have used are not too keen either.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Oh just grow up Jacko. Its gone and your not getting it back.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Jackonicko made his very good point clear at Srl 77. He also recived a very interesting answer that we wouldn't otherwise have seen.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks R, interesting answer.

Foghorn. Watch out for the chickenhawk, you sound as big, loud and dumb as your namesake.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Jacko,

I'm sure looking out for that pesky chickenhawk. Your right though, I am big, loud and maybe a little bit dumb, but at least I have first hand experience of CAS.

[Magic Mushroom]

I think the real value of the Jag IDM was it's ability to hand off targets between aircraft, slave sensors straight onto them, and the SA provided to the pilot. So while it was manpower intensive for the FAC, it could speed engagement for the pilots. Additionally, the 9 line brief could potentially be relayed into the cockpit whilst the jet was still on GCAS or in transit.

[recce_FAC]

MM good point and I do agree,however it does take time which is great if you have the time to do it.Of course jet to jet handover whilst still at the CP or in transit the IDM would be great but today I think the SA is changing so rapidly the info may be stale by the time the jet checks in with the FAC. Hope you are well,I am the guy that was about to join your
gang.''Ops room Basra''

[Jackonicko]

I'd have expected the IDM/HMS combination to help the FAC know that the pilot and he were looking at/talking about the same target, saving time in getting the pilots eyes on target.

Interesting stuff, though.

[recce_FAC]

It would be quicker if the FAC was not busy dodging rounds taking cover returning fire etc.I am not being dramatic by the way.Its just a radio chat with the pilot is possible whilst doing the above.If the jet has a pod then a quick Lat long and he has eyes on.To behonest a FAC has enough kit to lug around the battlespace (LTD,TACSAT/secureUHF,IZLID, NIGHT SIGHT RIFLE,AMMO,BATTS,RATIONS) without carrying a piece of kit that is very very handy on the odd ocasion.Its the world the FAC is living in at the moment.

[Jackonicko]

Ignoring the fact that we're talking about the J-word (gone forever, and with many limitations) a senior J-word mate spoke very highly of the combination of HMS and IDM, and said that:

“With a known target position, the pilot simply plugs the coordinates into the navigation system, and then follows the HMS cueing to get ‘eyes-on’ to a target, confirming with the FAC that he is looking at the right target. Medium-level CAS used to take upwards of 20 minutes trying to get ‘eyes-on’, depending upon the terrain and the FAC’s ability to describe the target. It still does for every other air-to-ground platform. I estimate that we are typically hot on target in under 5 minutes. No one else can do that. During recent exercises in the UAE the Jaguars proved able to find a target and strike it with four aircraft within three minutes – something that might take more than five times as long with a formation of Harriers or Tornados."

It was also said that:

"Alternatively a Jaguar pilot could search for targets of opportunity, targets of unknown location or Time Sensitive Targets and, once found, instantly generate accurate coordinates using the HMS sightline, loading the co-ordinates into the nav attack system with a single stick-top button press, with no need to overfly the target or to point the aircraft’s nose at the target (‘nose-point’) to position it in the head up display. This meant that the aircraft could remain non-escalatory (not pointing directly at the intended target), avoiding warning the enemy, and avoiding having to dive and risk exposure to enemy MANPADS. The alternative, of using TIALD or Litening to locate and fix a target is much more long-winded, searching for the target via the pod’s much smaller field of view.

Target coordinates generated via the HMSS sightline could then be transmitted to the rest of the formation, or to a Forward Air Controller on the ground, via the datalink, allowing much more rapid engagement of time sensitive targets.

Receiving aircraft get a HUD message, make 2 stick top selections to view it on the AMLCD and can then, with one single button press, drop the coordinates into the IN and simultaneously send an ‘accept’ message back to the leader. Two further stick-top selections bring up steering to the target and weapon aiming.

The IDM also allowed the Jaguar to talk to any other IDM-equipped platform – notably the RAF’s Nimrod R.Mk 1, the USAF’s RC-135V ‘Rivet Joint’ and USN EA-6B Prowlers, as well as F-16CJs and F-16MLUs and AH-64 Apaches."

These sound like pretty compelling advantages, to me.

Perhaps there's an element of the needs of the pilot and the needs of the FAC are not always being the same - but it would seem that the ability to get the nine line direct to the cockpit display (rather than via radio, with the pilot copying it all down and confirming it) would always be best for the pilot, if not for the FAC.

This isn't a reason to "bring back the Jag" nor am I arguing for that. But it does seem that this would be a useful capability for other, in-service, CAS platforms.

And rather than dragging the thread off-topic with "give it up Jacko, the Jag's gone" abuse, why not explain to me why these equipment capabilities aren't useful, and won't be missed.

[recce_FAC]

Jacko,your spot on mate(in a way) I am sure IDM is better for air crew up at 15 grand with no known ''manpad threat'' however as the title of this thread says''from the squaddie on the grounds''point of view.From this squaddie on the ground's point of view,IDM is not really viable for me.Now of course If I was a FAC based on the english side of the Wales/England border sporting a nice pair of side burns with a nickname such as ''dinger'' IDM is perfect. For us council house FAC's that do not get on planned ops,we have to control A/C off the cuff with a ''5-line'' at best whilst we wait for the AAC to bail us out of the sh@t.:)

[Jackonicko]

Best for the aircraft to have the kit, then, but for aircrew not to be reliant on it, and for FACs to have and use it as an extra club in the Golf Bag, when they're able to carry the full bag?

[Cyclone733]

Is there no similar ground system to the HMS/IDM combo on the aircraft? A range finding scope and GPS unit combination (or something) to allow communication of targetting data to the aircraft quickly or is it all eyeballing the target and manually transmitting the co-ordinates?

[recce_FAC]

Not on these means cyclone :=

[Cyclone733]

Well that sucks

[recce_FAC]

Ha Ha that kit is''in the pipeline'' lets just see.

[Jackonicko]

Cyclone,

The capabilities of much of the kit used by FACs can be googled, but is perhaps best passed over here.

But you want to be able to pass information, quickly, reliably and safely in BOTH directions, not just from FAC to aircraft.

With this in mind, it would be interesting to know what difference PRISM IDM (which allows the transmission of imagery to and from the aircraft) would make for a FAC.

I guess we need someone with experience of Gold Strike F-16s to tell us that.

[Cyclone733]

Jackonicko

Good point, I shouldn't think in the form of a PPRUNE post.

C

[LateArmLive]

HMS will very soon be operational on a CAS jet that can actually carry a useful load of A/G weapons ;)

[recce_FAC]

Great, more kit to carry :bored:

[Ivan Rogov]

LAL is that the B-52 or B-1B? Awsome CAS :D , think the Bone has Sniper now.

[LateArmLive]

Hey, I was talking about CAS - not landscape gardening! :p

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I've had my attention drawn to today's Sun; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article710650.ece

[Razor61]

Yes the MoD 'blog' news is carrying this story about the Sun having an article about the video from this thread.
"Cannot comment on it" is the MoD's words...