Best Air Support ?

[George Wallace]

...... PS just kidding Tankers.

You had better be.........unless of course you are talking about those Air Force Types.    ;D

 

[geo]

hehe... the big gulp in the sky
now there's a target that needs protection.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Armchair generals like myself hear a lot of chatter (and complaining) about close air support.  We know that it's a big part of the Afghan reality, but we tend to hear as much griping as we do praise from those who are there.  In a recent blog post I did about Canada's CF-18s, the discussion quickly turned to which air support is the most effective ... both in cost and results; and how much we should provide as Canadians.

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/f-18-thunder-all-6-of-them.html

So, what does deliver the most timely, accurate, and effective close air?  And, if you had your pick, what would you bring to the mission from Canada's inventory ... or better yet, what would you purchase?  ( rotary wing ... C-130 Spectre ?)  I recall that a while back even the rumor of CF-18s going to Afghanistan got the press chattering ... close air support is not only a big deal militarily, it's a big deal politically.

Educate me!

 

[Globesmasher]

A-10

Low, slow and packs a deadly punch.
Has plenty of loiter time and can get right down in the weeds.
Well built, strong ..... has an incredible track record in Iraq .... can still fly with most of it blown off.  ;D

Incredible machine.
Ugly as sin ....... but you don't have to be good looking to kill effectively.

 

[RHFC_piper]

A-10

Low, slow and packs a deadly punch.
Has plenty of loiter time and can get right down in the weeds.
Well built, strong ..... has an incredible track record in Iraq .... can still fly with most of it blown off.   ;D

Incredible machine.
Ugly as sin ....... but you don't have to be good looking to kill effectively.

I Agree... The Warthog is probably the best ground support aircraft.

Needless to say, I have a profound respect for their awesome destructive power, having witnessed it very first hand.

The sound of the 30mm chain gun still gives me chills when ever I hear it.

 

[peaches]

Fixed wing CAS I would say the A10 & AC130 Gunship.  What CAS really comes down too is training.  A10 & AC130 units are CAS units, they do nothing else at all.  Helo gunships are CAS platforms, again they do nothing else it is theire mission.  The F18 is an awsome CAS weapon if the unit using them is a CAS dedicated unit.  USMC FA18's are tasked to provide CAS first and foremost, it is their primary mission and they are good at it. 

Our CF18 fleet could be an awsome CAS force, but CAS is not its only mission.  They have to train for air to air combat, air defence of Canada, air interdiction, CAS is only one of many missions they perform.  Jack of all trades, master of none concept.  Dedicated CAS units excell at it because they train each and every day for CAS, its their only mission.  Canada should IMO purchase at lest two full squadrons of attack helos for CAS & CAS only.

 

[Loachman]

RHFC_piper: Just a minor point - it's a Gatling type cannon, and not a chain gun.

Peaches: Attack helicopters do not provide Close Air Support. AH units are manoeuvre units just like any other Combat Arms Unit. They are integrated into the ground commander's plan, doctrinally. Speed, agility, and flexibility allows them to react at short notice but their full effect and benefit will not be realized if they are treated as CAS.

One of the significant factors in the A10's capability is that it is a single-role aircraft. The pilots are therefore very good at what they do. The last time that I did any FACing was in Valcatraz in 1991 and the CF18 guys were not doing particularly well. We had 425 Sqn  - an Air Defence squadron with some air-to-mud training - in the morning and they didn't hit a single thing and had very few actual drops. Targets were 4 X 8 plywood panels painted Dayglo green, which stood out quite nicely. Target description was "Green Panels". A classic quote from Lead of the last pair of Allouettes, which never confirmed having the targets visually, as they left the range was "We never saw these panels that you were talking about, but there are big green rectangles all over the place". It might have had something to do with having English as a second language, but it had us slapping our foreheads. We had 434 Squadron in the afternoon and, given that they flew CF5s in their previous incarnation, did better although they were nowhere near as good as they were in the CF5 days. The range in Valcatraz is tricky as it's surrounded by hills, which means that Two has to be pretty close to Lead in order to see the results of Lead's bomb in order to correct. Due to the lack of training, every single Number Two came over long after his Lead's bomb dust/smoke had dissipated. I was pretty sure that I recognized the voice of Lead in the last pair from my days on the Kiowa in 427 Squadron in the early to mid-eighties - one of the CF5 guys that we regularly worked with. He picked up the problem pretty quickly and had his Number Two go in first for the last few runs so that he could start his run soon enough to pick up Two's bomb - and we actually hit a couple of targets for the first time all day.

As for whom I'd least like to FAC again, that would be the French, based upon my experience with Mirages when I was in 444 Squadron in Lahr.

In short, most modern fighters are very good CAS aircraft. It's more the pilots, in accordance with the primary role that they're given and the amount of training that they get. I'd still give the A10 an edge over other machines, though, especially in the venues in which they're currently operating.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's an interesting tale of a Harrier, a Paveway and an AH-64 and a flock of lucky children.  The AH-64 was doing FAC at the time it seems - or perhaps was just on scene.

Afghans survive after pilots divert laser-guided bomb at last moment
Michael Evans, Defence Editor

Children spotted in target building
Apache crew's warning saved lives




Split-second decision
Two pilots flying a Harrier GR7 bomber and an Apache attack helicopter made an extraordinary split-second decision during a battle with the Taleban in southern Afghanistan that saved the lives of a group of Afghan women and children.



The civilians were within seconds of being killed because they were emerging from a building that was about to be hit by a laser-guided “smart” bomb that had already been launched. The RAF Harrier pilot, warned at the last moment by the Apache pilot, changed the direction of the laser, causing the bomb to fall harmlessly into a nearby field.

The 500lb laser-guided Paveway bomb was intended to kill Taleban insurgents who were firing at British troops from inside the building. The moment that the pilots realised there would be disastrous “collateral damage” was relived yesterday by Apache pilots at their base at Middle Wallop in Hampshire, after their return from duty in Afghanistan.

Major Mike McGinty, commander of the joint helicopter force at the forward British desert base at Camp Bastion, in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, is in charge of eight Apaches of 664 Squadron, 9 Regiment Army Air Corps, and up to six RAF Chinooks. He said that the last-minute intervention of the Apache pilot who had spotted the women and children saved their lives.

He told The Times: “The bomb was literally in the air. The Harrier GR7 had been called in to target the building from where these Taleban had been attacking British troops. But the Apache was hovering nearby and the pilot suddenly spotted women and children coming out of the building.”

The Apache pilot warned the joint tactical air controller masterminding the planned attack on the building, and the Harrier pilot was warned to take instant action to steer the bomb away from the target. The Paveway weapon is a standard, free-fall unguided bomb that has a guidance system attached to convert it from a “dumb” into a “smart” system. It has a seeker unit, a set of front fins for a change of course once launched, and rear “wings” to enable it to glide along the line of the laser fired by the pilot in the Harrier. The seeker detects the reflected light bouncing off the target.

“The bomb’s seeker follows the line of the laser, so the quick reaction of the Harrier pilot in steering the laser beam away meant it missed the intended target and exploded in a field,” Major McGinty said.

“As soon as you get a doubt in your mind, you don’t fire,” Major McGinty said.

He added: “None of my pilots came back with concerns on their conscience.”

Two Apaches and two Chinooks are on high-readiness alert 24 hours a day to go to the rescue of British troops under fire in southern Afghanistan.

One Apache pilot said that the attack helicopter, which can provide close support to within 30 metres of ground troops, had had a phenomenal impact. “The Taleban quickly learnt not to be out in the open when they knew an Apache was in the area,” he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2502228,00.html

 

[daftandbarmy]

Spooky,

He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake...

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2460146
http://www.militaryvideos.net/videos.php?videonum=2


As I understand it from speaking to some of our US SF bretheren, the AC-130 was developed as a result of success with the C47 variant (Puff the Magic Dragon) as used in Vietnam to provide direct 'artillery-type' support to SF units operating beyond the range of the gunners. This was their private, long range airborne artillery regiment. Lots of loiter time meant that they could lurk around and blast bad guys as required over a wide area and relatively long periods of time. However, they still have to go off station eventually, don't like to operate during the day, and the bad guys can hear them come and go, so they do have their limitations.

I'm all for bigger, better, longer range and more accurate artillery (along with the good old mortars being co-located). They're always around, and if you have your act together they can be moved as required to cover most operations - as long as we have Chinook or the equivalent of course. Maybe MLRS with its 40km + range? But hey, that's just me.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Thanks for the excellent responses to my "pick your poison" question.  I've got a friend in the US who has been in Afghanistan twice and in Iraq once, he swears by C-130 gunships.  He claimed that not only was fire support timely and accurate, but that incredibly good "eyes in the sky" were provided.

As well, I've been following a lot of chatter from the Royal Marines on my website, and they complained bitterly about the A-10s and Harriers they worked with this summer.  They raved about helo gunships though.  What gives?

By the way, would converting our old C-130s to gunships be a valuable use of resources ... like valuable recycling?

 

[George Wallace]

By the way, would converting our old C-130s to gunships be a valuable use of resources ... like valuable recycling?

    :

Don't go there.

Just like when you started this topic up today and never bothered to even search if us "Army Guys" had the imagination to discuss this before, you seem to not have bothered to read all of this topic as well.

It has been done to death.  Go back a few pages and read it.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Thanks!  Will do!

 

[Kirkhill]

Post #1

With new Hercules soon to be on order, could some of our older models be converted into AC-130. Would a gunship be effective in a place like Afghanistan? :threat:

Post  #151

By the way, would converting our old C-130s to gunships be a valuable use of resources ... like valuable recycling?

150 verses - Much like that old song "There's a hole in my bucket...."  ;D  No offense Fuzzy.

 

[observor 69]

The "working" airforce.....Griffon, Herc, Sea King drivers....almost uniformly say, "if we're short of money, let's make operations the priority." (bizarre concept, I know)

To which the CAS routinely replies, "not an option, what else can you suggest?"

Perhaps the CAS is getting input from someone at a higher paygrade, since I've seen this from more than one CAS, so it's not just some fighter guy keeping more jets around.

  As I recall the normal scenario is, calls for save a buck and disband the Snowbirds answered by, politically it is great PR to fly over Canadian communities plus recruiting benefit.
   I'm sure you remember the last great crisis, the Tutors are to old,  resulted in this :

"Even if the Snowbirds survive the budget cuts, they'll still be flying obsolete aircraft for the next several years. In December 2002, Col. Dave Burt, the officer in charge of buying new aircraft for the Canadian Forces, said he's in no hurry to replace the Tutors and said they'll be able to fly safely until 2020."   
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/snowbirds.html


And getting back to Hercs how about this video:  http://tinyurl.com/y4ljk3

 

[FuzzyLogic]

:-[ The reason I asked, was because I was told by a friend in the US forces who has relied on C-130s to stay alive in Afghanistan that his first choice after 2 tours would be the C-130.  As for me, all I can do is listen to the folks who have more knowledge disagree on the issue, my own knowledge is too lacking to add much.  But, as a civilian I know that politicians consider bang for the buck as much as what will do best ... it's unfortunate, but a reality.  That's where my c-130 question came from, from a bang for your buck perspective.  

If I had my way of course, a much larger tax portion would be going to the Canadian Forces,  ... when I read comparisons of equipment etc. across all of NATO, the CF doesn't measure up very good equipment wise in some areas.  I know it has nothing to do with quality of people, but equipment and resources are a big part I'm sure.

 

[Kirkhill]

No harm in asking Fuzzylogic.

It's not a bad thought but as has been pointed out in this thread the C-130s we have are pretty long in the tooth and from what I can gather, based on following other threads on other aircraft, flying "low and slow" (close to the ground, in thick and dusty air) is likely to be hard on the aircraft in any event.

 

[aesop081]

The CC-130s we are retiring are time-expired......let it go !!

Even when they are turned into pop cans...they will make very tired pop cans.....

 

[geo]

The burnt out, worn out & tired CC130s will be good for training aids & razor blades by the time all the new kit (130Js & C17s) gets fully delivered.\

Time to move on

 

[FuzzyLogic]

So ... if I may paraphrase ... the CC-130's, which are by the way the oldest ones flying... would make great scrap for natives in Borneo to cut up and pound into trinkets for sale to tourists like you and me ... or better yet, to make beer cans to put beverage in for tourists like you and me.   

 

[Globesmasher]

The CC-130s we are retiring are time-expired......let it go !!

Yup - let them go.
Trust me - don't waste any more of your time daydreaming about our old CC-130s being re-tooled into the CC-AC-130 Spectre.

The fleet has imploded already.
We've retired 5 E models already, leaving 27 in total, and we can barely keep our head above water trying to maintain the SAR lines of tasking and to also keep the Afghan Op LOTs going as well.

Also, latest briefs from CAS and also Comdr 1 Cdn Air Div - NO, I say again, NO more money will be put into new kit or capability in this fleet.  They will just try to keep the 9 remaining H models alove for as long as possible.  All the E's should be gone by fall 2009 .... just worn out, time expired, bent, twisted and rusted out.

Day dream about doing CAS with something else .... even if it seems unreal.
You'll never see a CF CC-AC-130 (E, an H or even a J) ..... I'll bet a dollar or two on that.

But the Spectre is very cool.
I toured through one up at Karshi Kanabad back in 2003.
It's unbelievable the amount of weapons and ammo they have shoe-horned into the back of that thing.  :threat:
I would love to fly one of those ......