Close air support at its finest, from the squaddie's perspective
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truro
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More close air support, this time from Apaches. Fireworks for the new year.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e46_1199008814
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
>>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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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'!!!!!
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.
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.
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
)).
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!
Regards,
MM
You need 30mm to have big enough explosive rounds to effectively wipe out ground personnel dodging between buildings in urban areas.
Yes, absolutely you need PGMs.
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.
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.
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
)). 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!
Regards,
MM
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 14th Jan 2008 at 22:37.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_14.html
A lot more water under the bridge now.
Last edited by Wader2; 16th Jan 2008 at 09:40. Reason: spullin
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True
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.
but we are doing so for the same reasons we are switching from HE.
Not from where I stand.
True.
Nonsense, this is a numbers issue not an effectiveness one.
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.
We have mechanised infantry and light infantry. They both have their uses. I am sure many US units are also not dependent on mechanisation.
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.
Moot point.
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
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.
cluster munitions and it’s a shame we’re dispensing with them now
F-16 and its accuracy is many times worse off than the oldest PGM
Furthermore you're restricted to weather conditions and certain flight profiles.
If the GR9 is doing well, American air wouldn't have to pick up the burden all the time.
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.
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.
Korea was a victory.
Iraq, if you're reading the news, is a victory.
I don't see how we can lose Afghanistan either.
BA (Hons) History
Like-minded,
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?
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
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.
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.
C