Best dogfight gun?

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:06:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On 13 Dec 2003 00:21:53 -0800, (Michael E. Kelly)
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message

It wasn't a readily available option when initially called for.
Remember that Afghanistan is a long way from anywhere. At the time of
Anaconda, the primary tactical assets were carrier based and flying
extremely long duration, multiple refueling sorties. The flexibility
for immediate on-call CAS was not available.

Ed,

I take issue with your last statement, unless you're limiting the
scope of your answer to tacair only. My wing flew 300 sorties during
Anaconda and dropped 845 JDAM's and 24 Mk84's providing excellent on
call air power. Granted we're a heavy bomber and could fly 1000 miles
and then loiter for a few hours, which the fighter guys couldn't do.
I'm sure BUFDRVR can chime in with the BUFF's contribution to CAS in
Afghanistan. It only goes to back up what you've been saying, methods
of delivering CAS are changing.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

Absolutely correct, and a remarkable effort. But, the discussion was
regarding the call for strafe. The image that conjures up of a Bone
rolling in and lining up for a blast of maybe eight internal
wing-mounted 20mm Vulcans delivered at 1800 feet slant range.....

Dale Brown will probably install swiveling M-61s in the swing-wing for
his next fictional foray. "Flight of the Young Pup."

Ed,

What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close
airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air
support.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote:


Ed,

What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close
airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air
support.

Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term
"direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air
Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of
ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct".

With regard to fire support of ground units, there is the distinction
between direct and indirect fire. That's the difference between aimed
large-bore guns such as tank cannon and parabolic lobbed shells such
as artillery and mortar.

Maybe someone more current than I am in the latest nomenclature can
contribute to the discussion.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote:


Ed,

What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close
airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air
support.

Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term
"direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air
Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of
ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct".

The only distinctions I am aware of are between CAS (i.e. hitting the
enemy's front line) and BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) which is
hitting the enemy's assets slightly behind their front line to get
supplies, units moving up etc.

Of course, since some elements of 'CAS' are now delivered from bombers
cruising at altitude, perhaps they've added to the nomenclature!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

"Tony Williams" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote:


Ed,

What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close
airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air
support.

Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term
"direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air
Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of
ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct".

The only distinctions I am aware of are between CAS (i.e. hitting the
enemy's front line) and BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) which is
hitting the enemy's assets slightly behind their front line to get
supplies, units moving up etc.

There are two types of CAS--immediate and preplanned. Preplanned icludes CAS
sorties integrated into the ground maneuver plan and submitted IAW the ATO.
Immediate CAS is not included in the ATO (at least not specifically; CAS
sorties can be included in the ATO without specifications, from what I
gather, sort of a "CAS reserve") and addresses those situations not foreseen
in the planning process. According to CGSC ST 100-3 (1996 edition),
immediate CAS provides the commander with flexibility, and can be used to
exploit success, reinforce or retain momentum, deal with enemy
counterattacks, and provide security.

Either Buffdriver or the resident Strike eagle Driver might be able to shed
light on any doctrinal changes in the CAS arena that have occurred since the
publication of that text.

Brooks


Of course, since some elements of 'CAS' are now delivered from bombers
cruising at altitude, perhaps they've added to the nomenclature!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Ed,

What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close
airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air
support.

I think what you might be referring to is Close Air Support and Troops In
Contact. Troops In Contact is a type of CAS where the troops are in direct
fire with the enemy. General rule of thumb is if the bad guys are one
kilometer or less from the good guys, it's a TIC situation. That range can
be a lot greater depending on the situation (i.e. - tank v. tank
engagement).

Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term
"direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air
Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of
ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct".

The only distinctions I am aware of are between CAS (i.e. hitting the
enemy's front line) and BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) which is
hitting the enemy's assets slightly behind their front line to get
supplies, units moving up etc.

There are two types of CAS--immediate and preplanned. Preplanned icludes
CAS
sorties integrated into the ground maneuver plan and submitted IAW the
ATO.
Immediate CAS is not included in the ATO (at least not specifically; CAS
sorties can be included in the ATO without specifications, from what I
gather, sort of a "CAS reserve") and addresses those situations not
foreseen
in the planning process. According to CGSC ST 100-3 (1996 edition),
immediate CAS provides the commander with flexibility, and can be used to
exploit success, reinforce or retain momentum, deal with enemy
counterattacks, and provide security.

This is old stuff. Pre-planned CAS still exists largely as you describe it,
but the other type of CAS which used to be 'immediate' CAS (as it exists on
an ATO) is X-CAS, or 'Push' CAS. The idea is to have a predetermined number
of assets airborne for a particular Vul period, either in a CAS stack or in
kill boxes. These assets can then be assigned to do a variety of tasks,
such as striking a TST (time sensitive target), immediate CAS request from a
FAC forwarded to the ASOC, emergency CAS for non-FAC qualified troops, etc.

The new book on JCAS is the 3-09.3, and while it doesn't deal with the ATO
aspects (in the Air Force the reference for that would be the 3-1), it is
very much the TT&P on how to do CAS today.

Either Buffdriver or the resident Strike eagle Driver might be able to
shed
light on any doctrinal changes in the CAS arena that have occurred since
the
publication of that text.

Brooks

Give me a second while I stow my used barf-bag. I realize that CAS is a
mission, not an aircraft, but there is an aircraft in the inventory that
does the mission better than any other. Dropping a JDAM on coordinates just
isn't going to work for TIC situations, for starters.

Of course, since some elements of 'CAS' are now delivered from bombers
cruising at altitude, perhaps they've added to the nomenclature!

*BARF*!!!