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

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

So Henry, when was the last time you tried to identify armored vehicles in
urban terrain, probably shrouded in smoke, from the cockpit of a fast-moving
jet aircraft?

Same here (never), but I know folks who have, including a Marine OV-10 FAC
pilot who flew in the Gulf War. They tell me it's damned hard to do.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:11:01 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"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

Agreed we did but the A-10's mangaged it in both GFI and GFII.

Pat Carpenter

"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:p9u5c.18281$1p.326709@attbi_s54...

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.

That's an interesting issue. A counter-argument could be that an
operator sitting safely back on the ground will be less stressed and
able to take more considered judgements - and if in doubt to call for
a second opinion from a senior officer looking over his shoulder.

There would also be the opportunity for more realistic training in
that it would be easy to record UAV films showing what different
friendly and enemy vehicles look like in various circumstances.

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

On 15 Mar 2004 23:54:03 -0800,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:p9u5c.18281$1p.326709@attbi_s54...

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.

That's an interesting issue. A counter-argument could be that an
operator sitting safely back on the ground will be less stressed and
able to take more considered judgements - and if in doubt to call for
a second opinion from a senior officer looking over his shoulder.

The issue is field-of-view. How many sensors will the UAV carry? Where
will the look? How rapid can they scan? Now, consider the wetware on
scene--look right, look left, high/low, etc. Faster with much more
information available for accurate decision-making.

Ever tried to fly one of those PC flight sim war games where you
toggle to look in various directions?

There would also be the opportunity for more realistic training in
that it would be easy to record UAV films showing what different
friendly and enemy vehicles look like in various circumstances.

You must be aware that aircrews currently train on friend/foe
recognition.



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

Thomas Schoene wrote:
So Henry, when was the last time you tried to identify armored vehicles in
urban terrain, probably shrouded in smoke, from the cockpit of a fast-moving
jet aircraft?

Same here (never), but I know folks who have, including a Marine OV-10 FAC
pilot who flew in the Gulf War. They tell me it's damned hard to do.

Then you just don't attack the first thing you see.

Did the A-10 pilot have the proper clearance to attack?

If so, who gave it to him? And why wasn't this coordinated with the
troops on the ground?

-HJC

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:52:08 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Thomas Schoene wrote:
So Henry, when was the last time you tried to identify armored vehicles in
urban terrain, probably shrouded in smoke, from the cockpit of a fast-moving
jet aircraft?

Same here (never), but I know folks who have, including a Marine OV-10 FAC
pilot who flew in the Gulf War. They tell me it's damned hard to do.

Then you just don't attack the first thing you see.

Why do you assume that anyone would? When you operate a weapon,
whether a fast mover tactical aircraft or a hunting rifle in the
field, you verify your target.

Did the A-10 pilot have the proper clearance to attack?

That would depend upon the particular circumstances--the ROE. If
working in support of ground forces, he would have to be controlled.
He would be coordinated into the area to deconflict with artillery and
aviation assets. He might be under FAC control. He might be operating
on a 9-line or maybe with an illuminator. He might be in an
interdiction role on a fixed reported target. He might be in a
"kill-box" where he has free-fire discretion.

Are you assuming that fighters commonly operate as some sort of
autonomous cowboy?

If so, who gave it to him? And why wasn't this coordinated with the
troops on the ground?

See above.

-HJC

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

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:L%t5c.18641$_w.370665@attbi_s53...
"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...

Anyone could provide specifics.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news9u5c.18653$po.222112@attbi_s52...
"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.

Well you had best get down to the Pentagon and let them know they made a
mistake cancelling the comanche. While you are there, perhaps you can talk
up the F-14.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:L%t5c.18245$1p.325253@attbi_s54...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The UAV is of course atonomous.

Of course -- in your dreams!

Soon enough. The Army has $25 billion to spend.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news9u5c.18281$1p.326709@attbi_s54...
"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.

Scrapping the A-10 is a step in that direction, but ill advised at this
time.

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.

The UAV is of course autonomous.