Is there a place for Traditional CAS in the 21st century?

"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:26:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

John R Weiss wrote:
If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase
blue-on-blue, and
they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about the shapes of
armored vehicles operated by the United States military?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/spr...friendly.fire/

-HJC
Please include UK Warrior vehicles in that training.

Before you get too smug, recall who clanged that Challenger around Basra
during the latest visit to the area...twasn't the Yanks, and twasn't the
Iraqis.

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

On 14 Mar 2004 20:44:45 -0800, (monkey) wrote:

For what it's worth, we just got a USMC Hornet exchange pilot on our
squadron who was in both Afghanistan. He did a LOT of CAS, and his
experience was that JDAM and LGBs just weren't working for the job.
The solution - "traditional CAS - in his own words they were operating
" as low as they could "- often down @ 100-200 feet. I watched a
zillion of his HUD tapes from Iraq. Believe it or not, his unit used
almost exclusively dumb bombs, unguided rockets, and CBUs.

If the weather is good and you aren't a classic "troops-in-contact"
situation there isn't much reason to be dealing with 100-200 feet. Way
too much can go wrong to justify that type of delivery. If the bad
guys are in the wires, then every tactical aviator I've known will do
what is necessary.

That being said, however, I didn't know that "unguided rockets" were
still in the inventory for regular carry. And, I'm unfamiliar with any
type of CBU that can be delivered at 100-200 feet. Last one of those I
believe was the infamous CBU-2 which pushed the bomblets out the back
of a canister that was retained on the airplane.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:11:30 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .


OK, I misunderstood your initial post. When you said "direct control
of the men on the ground" I assumed you were suggesting an organic UAV
capability in the maneuver element. What you explain now, is simply a
full-blown tactical system with everything but the pilot-in-the-loop.
At some future time, data processing may make that practical, but
right now the wetware is still the most size/weight effective
solution.

Actually, the ground forces are well on their way to having UAV's as an
organic element, even down to the platoon level. The USMC has already
initiated production of the small Dragoneye, which is essentially about a
two man load--the operator uses a laptop to control the aircraft and observe
the intel feed (and no, it is unlikely to be any kind of weapons carrier).
The Army has established a squadron/battalion sized ISR element to serve in
its new Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, and I believe the plan is to have them
operate their own small UAV's in the not-too-distant future.

No doubt about it. It will be a great immediate intel resource, but it
doesn't fill the bill as a CAS platform--who is going to be
back-packing a meaningful ordinance load for these model airplanes?


I don't think I was screeching. I agree that there is a bright future
for UAVs with increasing missions. But, I don't go so far as to accept
the sensationalized concept of video game whiz-kids snapped off the
back streets of the inner city to do the job. If you check out the
operators of the current crop of UAVs, you'll find a lot of active and
former fighter types. The hands and the mind still function pretty
well long after the body quits tolerating the high-G environment.

The objective right now for the ground forces is to get useful UAV's into
operation at the lowest possible echelons. From what I have seen regarding
Dragoneye, it is a pretty simple system to operate. I would imagine the
Army's new focus on rotary UAV's will also emphasize ease of operation (I
doubt the Army wants to commit rated pilots to flying its UAV's as the USAF
has been doing); trying to attach additional qualified pilots to each and
every meneuver brigade/battalion, etc., to operate their organic UAV's would
impinge upon the pool of pilots available to fly the manned aircraft in the
AVN BDE's.

Once again, you are correct with regard to the "eye in the sky"
operation--it doesn't take a lot of training (witness the number of
week-end RC model flyers around the country), but we've been talking
about CAS from organic UAVs. That is going to take a bit more skill
and judgement.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:11:30 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .


OK, I misunderstood your initial post. When you said "direct control
of the men on the ground" I assumed you were suggesting an organic UAV
capability in the maneuver element. What you explain now, is simply a
full-blown tactical system with everything but the pilot-in-the-loop.
At some future time, data processing may make that practical, but
right now the wetware is still the most size/weight effective
solution.

Actually, the ground forces are well on their way to having UAV's as an
organic element, even down to the platoon level. The USMC has already
initiated production of the small Dragoneye, which is essentially about a
two man load--the operator uses a laptop to control the aircraft and
observe
the intel feed (and no, it is unlikely to be any kind of weapons
carrier).
The Army has established a squadron/battalion sized ISR element to serve
in
its new Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, and I believe the plan is to have
them
operate their own small UAV's in the not-too-distant future.

No doubt about it. It will be a great immediate intel resource, but it
doesn't fill the bill as a CAS platform--who is going to be
back-packing a meaningful ordinance load for these model airplanes?

In the case of Dragoneye, I noted earlier that it will not be lugging any
ordnance. The initial use of UAV's in the Stryker BCT's will undoubtedly be
purely for ISR purposes, but I would not rule out the future development of
some sort of limited strike role (perhaps dropping submunitions in the
Skeet/SADARM category, or firing the precision guided version of the 2.75"
rocket that they have been developing). The SBCT's won't be limited to any
manpackable systems.



I don't think I was screeching. I agree that there is a bright future
for UAVs with increasing missions. But, I don't go so far as to accept
the sensationalized concept of video game whiz-kids snapped off the
back streets of the inner city to do the job. If you check out the
operators of the current crop of UAVs, you'll find a lot of active and
former fighter types. The hands and the mind still function pretty
well long after the body quits tolerating the high-G environment.

The objective right now for the ground forces is to get useful UAV's into
operation at the lowest possible echelons. From what I have seen
regarding
Dragoneye, it is a pretty simple system to operate. I would imagine the
Army's new focus on rotary UAV's will also emphasize ease of operation (I
doubt the Army wants to commit rated pilots to flying its UAV's as the
USAF
has been doing); trying to attach additional qualified pilots to each and
every meneuver brigade/battalion, etc., to operate their organic UAV's
would
impinge upon the pool of pilots available to fly the manned aircraft in
the
AVN BDE's.

Once again, you are correct with regard to the "eye in the sky"
operation--it doesn't take a lot of training (witness the number of
week-end RC model flyers around the country), but we've been talking
about CAS from organic UAVs. That is going to take a bit more skill
and judgement.

Personally, I don't see UCAV's filling the CAS role for many years to come;
their first employment will undoubtedly be in the deeper BAI role where
fratricide is not as big a concern. But if the Army fields a small UAV in
the SBCT's, it would probably be capable of deploying some form of
submunition or FFAR in the future, and I doubt that they would require any
trained pilots to deploy them. As to the requisite "skill and judgement",
that is a toss-up--we already trust PFC's and Speedy-Four's to operate the
main gun armament of M1A2 tanks, and they can reach out and touch someone in
rather spectacular fashion. Nor do pilot types have a lock on either of
those qualities--I can still remember my brother laughing about the
bulldozer operator he ran into in Danang who said he'd never been up in a
helicopter, so he managed to take the kid up for a flight around the local
area, and even let him get a bit of unauthorized stick time. The kid
insisted he return the favor by allowing Larry to operate his bulldozer
(Larry was not itching to do that, but he did not want to hurt the guy's
feelings); so a few days later he found himself trying mightily to
coordinate the throttle, *decelerator* pedal, control handles, and blade
controls of a D7. He acknowledged that he quite honestly sucked when it came
to doing that job, and when he climbed down afterwards he said the kid just
stood there with a blank look on his face, shaking his head slowly back and
forth, and said, "Sir, I can't believe they let you fly helicopters."

Brooks



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:44:39 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

In the case of Dragoneye, I noted earlier that it will not be lugging any
ordnance. The initial use of UAV's in the Stryker BCT's will undoubtedly be
purely for ISR purposes, but I would not rule out the future development of
some sort of limited strike role (perhaps dropping submunitions in the
Skeet/SADARM category, or firing the precision guided version of the 2.75"
rocket that they have been developing). The SBCT's won't be limited to any
manpackable systems.

Due to the small load of a Dragoneye, I imagine it's more likely to
carry a very small designator, so the forces it's scouting for can lob
laser guided mortar rounds in (i.e. the XM395 PGMM). That way the UAV
doesn't need to use up any of it's valuable load on ordnance.

Personally, I don't see UCAV's filling the CAS role for many years to come;
their first employment will undoubtedly be in the deeper BAI role where
fratricide is not as big a concern. But if the Army fields a small UAV in
the SBCT's, it would probably be capable of deploying some form of
submunition or FFAR in the future, and I doubt that they would require any
trained pilots to deploy them.

I agree with all this, but would point out that *if* the organic UAVs
such as Dragoneye and Hunter provide a decent pseudo-UCAV capability,
then it's possible traditional CAS is going to be needed less
frequently.
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 14 Mar 2004 20:44:45 -0800, (monkey) wrote:

For what it's worth, we just got a USMC Hornet exchange pilot on our
squadron who was in both Afghanistan. He did a LOT of CAS, and his
experience was that JDAM and LGBs just weren't working for the job.
The solution - "traditional CAS - in his own words they were operating
" as low as they could "- often down @ 100-200 feet. I watched a
zillion of his HUD tapes from Iraq. Believe it or not, his unit used
almost exclusively dumb bombs, unguided rockets, and CBUs.

If the weather is good and you aren't a classic "troops-in-contact"
situation there isn't much reason to be dealing with 100-200 feet. Way
too much can go wrong to justify that type of delivery. If the bad
guys are in the wires, then every tactical aviator I've known will do
what is necessary.

That being said, however, I didn't know that "unguided rockets" were
still in the inventory for regular carry. And, I'm unfamiliar with any
type of CBU that can be delivered at 100-200 feet. Last one of those I
believe was the infamous CBU-2 which pushed the bomblets out the back
of a canister that was retained on the airplane.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Hey, Ed, I'm just repeating what the guy said. It should be fairly
obviuos to anyone that you can't drop a CBU or bomb from 100 feet - I
was referring to the low stuff as his altitude of choice to negate
threats - I assume that he used SOP MAP for the above mentioned
weapons. I'm not sure which rocket pods they were using but i did view
several hud tapes of them in use.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The UAV is of course atonomous.

Of course -- in your dreams!

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The Bone may have dropped JDAM, but I question whether it was in a
"traditional CAS" role. Can you provide specifics?

You want me to do a google search for you, Weiss?

I didn't think you could provide specifics...

"Henry J Cobb" wrote...
John R Weiss wrote:
If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase blue-on-blue, and
they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about the shapes of
armored vehicles operated by the United States military?

Blue-on-blue has happened in every war to date, and will happen in every war in
the future. The trick is to minimize it.

In the CAS arena, the comparative lack of situational awareness on the part of a
remote UAV operator will most likely increase the probability of friendly
fire -- not reduce it.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase blue-on-blue,
and they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

Right now a RPG in the flight deck takes out a rotary wing, so effectively
that the commanche is toast. Perhaps you would like to rethink your
supposition.

No need to rethink on that scenario.

An RPG is relatively slow and emits a significant smoke trail. It is also
unguided, so evasion is probable if it is seen soon enough.

There are at least 2 sets of eyeballs in virtually every helo in the battle
field, significantly increasing the probability of early detection of an
incoming RPG. With a UAV, the primary "eyes" are likely focused straight ahead
or on the primary target, with little or no secondary lookout. Also, the
quality of evasive tactics IF the RPG is sighted will be significantly less
without any "seat of the pants" feel for the aircraft.


You mean the guy on the ground running a gameboy? Designating targets and
controlling the agressiveness mode is the extent of the operator's
authority.

Are defensive tactics beyond that operator's "authority"? If so, the value of
the UAV just decreased substantially!

What is an "agressiveness mode" and how is it controlled?