A-4 / A-7 Question

"Mike Kanze" wrote...
All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
doctrine?

I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference back in 1989
or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now JSOW). The USMC rep was
adamant that they could not accept the concept of an autonomous standoff weapon
used for CAS targets in close proximity to friendly Marines. With the
possibility of mistargeting and no means of aborting the weapon, the risk was
too high. With conventional weapons, the FAC had the airplane in sight during
the roll-in and delivery, and had the opportunity to abort the run until just
prior to weapon release.

Elmshoot wrote:

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet.

More likely they were referring to the B-2 dropping 80 Mk. 82 JDAMs; go he

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030917/cgw043_1.html

Unless the Buff has been upgraded _very_ recently, IIRR only the pylons have the
1760 interfaces that allow target coordinates to be downloaded to the JDAMs,
limiting them to a maximum of 18 (9 per pylon). Internally, the Hs not only lack
the interfaces, but the bomb bay holds a maximum of 27 Mk. 82 500-lb. or M117
750-lb. bombs (bomb weights are nominal, and actual weights are higher in both
cases). The bomb bay could be modified to hold up to 84 Mk. 82s or 42 M117s, as
was done with the 'Big Belly' mod to the 'D' models during the Vietnam war, but
it's extremely unlikely that they will do so, and even if they did it might not
be possible to install the interfaces in any case.

Guy

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:Zmghb.528215$Oz4.404911@rwcrnsc54
I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference
back in 1989 or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now
JSOW). The USMC rep was adamant that they could not accept the
concept of an autonomous standoff weapon used for CAS targets in
close proximity to friendly Marines.

The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically
for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On 10/9/03 9:41 AM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
doctrine?

Owl,

The customers LOVE it. Even now, they pass coords via secure. 6 minutes
later, there are warheads on foreheads. I think there's mutual agreement
that its both safer and more effective.

In effect, your old B/N job got replaced by GPS.

--Woody

P.S. I know. It's sad for me too.

On 10/9/03 11:10 AM, in article
, "Elmshoot"
wrote:

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet. If you only drop 1to5 per pass would give a lot of
onstation capability. The bottom line is Bombs on TGT. the Buff can now do it
better than just about anything and with low risk to the delivery crew.
All that said CAS mission in the A-6 was like flying around with your hair on
fire. What a fun mission to practice in peace time. Having never done it in
anger I think it would be pretty scary.But than again all combat is.
Sparky

Not to pick a nit, but they checked in with more like 28 JDAM per night. (I
can't remember for the life of me if that was the actual number.)

With high altitude and a rather permissive environment, they do good
work--even though they're sort of radio air-time hogs.

BUFFDRVR feel free to roll in... 'scuse me... Make a bomb run here.

--Woody

On 10/9/03 11:34 AM, in article , "Joe Osman"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:



While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

Joe

No argument there. The dumb bomb capability should always be maintained,
BUT the mainstay these days is the safer, less exciting, more effective JDAM
CAS.

--Woody

On 10/9/03 11:52 AM, in article Zmghb.528215$Oz4.404911@rwcrnsc54, "John R
Weiss" wrote:

"Mike Kanze" wrote...
All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
doctrine?

I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference back in 1989
or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now JSOW). The USMC rep was
adamant that they could not accept the concept of an autonomous standoff
weapon
used for CAS targets in close proximity to friendly Marines. With the
possibility of mistargeting and no means of aborting the weapon, the risk was
too high. With conventional weapons, the FAC had the airplane in sight during
the roll-in and delivery, and had the opportunity to abort the run until just
prior to weapon release.


That's changed. The TACP or FAC buys the hit once the pilot reads his
coordinates back off the DDI. When both parties are in agreement, the bomb
comes off the jet.

We dropped MANY through the weather.

--Woody

On 10/9/03 1:17 PM, in article
, "Guy Alcala"
wrote:

Elmshoot wrote:

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet.

More likely they were referring to the B-2 dropping 80 Mk. 82 JDAMs; go he

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030917/cgw043_1.html

Unless the Buff has been upgraded _very_ recently, IIRR only the pylons have
the
1760 interfaces that allow target coordinates to be downloaded to the JDAMs,
limiting them to a maximum of 18 (9 per pylon). Internally, the Hs not only
lack
the interfaces, but the bomb bay holds a maximum of 27 Mk. 82 500-lb. or M117
750-lb. bombs (bomb weights are nominal, and actual weights are higher in both
cases). The bomb bay could be modified to hold up to 84 Mk. 82s or 42 M117s,
as
was done with the 'Big Belly' mod to the 'D' models during the Vietnam war,
but
it's extremely unlikely that they will do so, and even if they did it might
not
be possible to install the interfaces in any case.

Guy





Thanks, Guy. 18 JDAMs is the number. I couldn't remember it before.

--Woody

"Thomas Schoene" wrote...

The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically
for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989.

Makes sense... Less collateral damage than the big ones. Also, can be carried
on the Harrier.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

That's changed. The TACP or FAC buys the hit once the pilot reads his
coordinates back off the DDI. When both parties are in agreement, the bomb
comes off the jet.

Gotta LUV that technology! :-)

With 2-way digital 9-line briefs/readbacks, it's a lot easier.