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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

I see UAVs under the direct control of the men on the ground as the
replacement for the A-10. Some sort of game boy type interface to designate
targets would be all the human interface required. In that manner the
tendancy of the A-10 to make blue on blue incursions might be eliminated.

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

There is not a sensor available on any UAV that can provide the same real-time
situational awareness as a man in the cockpit. All current sensors are too
narrow in field of view and too slow in scan to give enough feedback to a remote
operator for real-time decision making.

Also, the weapon loadout in a UAV will not likely be as flexible as that on an
A-10, F/A-18, or follow-on manned airplane.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

CAS is now done with a JDAM from a B-one at thousands of feet.

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The ground operator would have the capability of designating targets and the
ability to change the level of agression of the autonomous vehicle.

Are you talking about the operator of the UAV or someone else?

The narrow field of view of the UAV sensors will make self-designation difficult
unless previously designated or localized by someone else. If accurate Lat/Long
coordinates are available for uplink/downlink, that would work, but the
probability of errors is still the same as in any other such designation. Given
the lack of situational awareness on the part of the UAV ground operator, the
probability of his being able to recognize and correct for a target designation
error is much higher than with a manned airplane.

Also, what comprises a "change [in] the level of aggression of the autonomous
vehicle"?


A 2000 pound bomb dropped accurate does the same job from 15,000 feet as it
does from 200 feet; perhaps even better, as the man on the ground has better
control of the target's coordinates.

Only a guided weapon can be as accurate from 15,000 feet as from 200 feet;
ballistic dispersion is a fact of life for free-fall weapons. In the case of a
guided weapon and a stationary target, CEP from the fixed coordinates will be
the discriminator. However, with a moving target the weapon time of flight is a
significant factor in Pk, unless terminal guidance (e.g., laser, IIR) is
available. For the current JDAM, either a moving-target designation system
(e.g., AMTI -- Airborne Moving Target Indicator -- in the A-6) or a real-time
calculated lead in the designation point will be required to hit a moving target
from high altitude. If such an AMTI system can be automated and incorporated
into the UAV's targeting suite, it might be viable.

In neither case can it be said in general that a man on the ground "has better
control of the target's coordinates." In the case of a stationary target such
as a building, initial designation (e.g., laser spot) by the infantry may be
advantageous, but in traditional CAS a target almost always must be visually
identified before weapon release. Laser spot indicators or slewing of the
airplane's sensor reticle to uplinked Lat/Long coordinates may facilitate target
ID and refinement, but the man on the ground has control over the initial target
coordinates rather than the final coordinates.

In the case of a moving target, the man on the ground has little to no control
over target coordinates.


And, there is nothing inherent about "the
machine"--it is as vulnerable to fratricide mistakes as any other
system.

That depends on how well the operator can see the battle and follow
instructions.

EXACTLY!

A ground-based UAV operator, stationed remotely from the battlefield can never
"see the battle" in real time as clearly as someone on the battlefield.

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

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:44:13 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


Do you think Cleland was fragged?

No, Cleland was a victim of his own clumsiness. He dropped the grenade
out of his own hand. That story is pretty well known.


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

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.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The ground operator would have the capability of designating targets and
the
ability to change the level of agression of the autonomous vehicle.

Are you talking about the operator of the UAV or someone else?

The UAV is of course atonomous.

The narrow field of view of the UAV sensors will make self-designation
difficult
unless previously designated or localized by someone else.

You might want to read the thread before jumping in next time, Weiss.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

CAS is now done with a JDAM from a B-one at thousands of feet.

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?

Perhaps you have not understood, but I would not **** on you if you were on
fire, John.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

I see UAVs under the direct control of the men on the ground as the
replacement for the A-10. Some sort of game boy type interface to
designate
targets would be all the human interface required. In that manner the
tendancy of the A-10 to make blue on blue incursions might be
eliminated.

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.

There is not a sensor available on any UAV that can provide the same
real-time
situational awareness as a man in the cockpit. All current sensors are
too
narrow in field of view and too slow in scan to give enough feedback to a
remote
operator for real-time decision making.

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.

Also, the weapon loadout in a UAV will not likely be as flexible as that
on an
A-10, F/A-18, or follow-on manned airplane.

That is true. There will need to be more than one model.

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.

Pat Carpenter

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
news
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?

Henry, just when we think you can't be any more of an idiot than you you
have demonstrated yourself to be, you manage to up the ante and set a whole
new standard for idiocy. **** happens. Ever try flying at low altitude and
picking out and identifying objects the size of an armored vehicle? Not as
easy as you may think. Add in the fact that bullets are flying in both
directions, and the CAS sortie in question was a most rikki-ticky
troops-in-contact situation. **** happens. It happened in the Civil War
(take a gander at which side inflicted the majority of casualties on the
Federal forces during the early battle at Big Bethel), it happened during
WWI, it happened during WWII (on a scale that dwarfs your above referenced
little incident), it happened in Korea and Vietnam, it happened during ODS,
OEF, and yes, it happened during OIF. If you are really concerened about the
ability of the A-10 pilots to identify vehicles on the ground during TIC CAS
missions, I guess you are really having kittens over the issue of US ground
forces engaging *their own* armored vehicles during ODS, or the similar case
during OIF when the Brits hit one of their own tanks?


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

Gee, I never would have thought of CNN as wanting to sensationalize issues
which they have little understanding of in the first place...

What's the story, Henry? You all finished with squaring away the Navy (that
other service that as a corporate body you are convinced has less
professional knowledge and wisdom than you do), and are returning to
enlighten the USAF with your cunning and skill?

Brooks


-HJC