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

To put it a different way, the model of a A-10 style aircraft,
equipped with cannon and guns, providing close air support and
anti-armor firepower to the troops?
Or have things changed enought (cheap PGM's, UCAV's, etc) to where
that model is more along the line of a Battleship in 1945-- no matter
how effective at its job, there are now things that can do the job
just as well or better, and are more flexible to boot?

"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
To put it a different way, the model of a A-10 style aircraft,
equipped with cannon and guns, providing close air support and
anti-armor firepower to the troops?
Or have things changed enought (cheap PGM's, UCAV's, etc) to where
that model is more along the line of a Battleship in 1945-- no matter
how effective at its job, there are now things that can do the job
just as well or better, and are more flexible to boot?

You might take your answer from the USAF. They are planning now to upgrade a
number of A-10's for continued service, since the F-35A/B's won't be
available in operational strength until sometime early in the next decade.
So they definitely see a place for the A-10 in the "CAS toolbox" for the
immediate future.

Yes, the CAS mission has seen significant changes over the past decade or
so, with affordable, versatile PGM's bringing aircraft that were never
really before thought of as major CAS players into the mix. Note the use of
the word "mix"; the major watchword for now and in the foreseeable future is
"versatility", and to ensure they can acheive that the USAF will field a
wide range of assets that can perform CAS missions. Their recent decision to
pursue the STOVL F-35B variant as part of their JSF buy is another example
of seeking greater versatility for the force as a whole. Likewise, many of
these same platforms will also be capable of performing BAI, or RESCAP, etc.
All contributing to greater versatility, both in regards to the individual
components and the entire force.

Brooks

I'm sure the army would like a replacement for the A-10, but it's not
going to get one. Given the difficulties combat helicopters have had
in the past year, both in the Iraq invasion and with the Pentagon,
they're not going to be a substitute. So it looks like the army will
have to get along with a combination of dumbed-down fighter planes,
its own helos, and (most promising of all) UAVs.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:37:51 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

To put it a different way, the model of a A-10 style aircraft,
equipped with cannon and guns, providing close air support and
anti-armor firepower to the troops?
Or have things changed enought (cheap PGM's, UCAV's, etc) to where
that model is more along the line of a Battleship in 1945-- no matter
how effective at its job, there are now things that can do the job
just as well or better, and are more flexible to boot?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In message , Charles Gray
writes
To put it a different way, the model of a A-10 style aircraft,
equipped with cannon and guns, providing close air support and
anti-armor firepower to the troops?

Yes, just as there's a place for the AC-130 and similar aircraft. The
A-10 isn't using the GAU-8A as a primary weapon (and never has in
action) but does find it useful on a number of occasions where mission
requires and threat permits.

Ideally the A-10 would be replaced by something with less gun (maybe a
25mm rotary or 27mm Mauser), less armour (resisting AAA is one thing,
but SAMs do most of the killing), more speed and power, and more
countermeasures. Oddly enough, that's a good pencil sketch of the JSF

Or have things changed enought (cheap PGM's, UCAV's, etc) to where
that model is more along the line of a Battleship in 1945-- no matter
how effective at its job, there are now things that can do the job
just as well or better, and are more flexible to boot?

I wouldn't be that hard on the A-10 (even if I do attack some of the
more enthusiastic claims made for it). It doesn't have the battleship's
"prestige" connotations making losses headline news (no more so than any
other air asset, anyway), nor the peculiarly high costs (IIRC it's
relatively cheap to fly and maintain, always a survival aid ).

If you want a warship analogy, it's more like a cruiser than a
battleship in 1945: cheap enough to keep, versatile enough to still be
useful for a while, and handy to have until a replacement comes on line.

The A-10 isn't survivable in a high-threat environment, but there aren't
many of those and the likely ones can be reduced or suppressed enough to
let it be used. Since it's bought and paid for, still has a number of
uses, and still has a fair bit of life left in the airframes, why throw
it away?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Charles Gray
writes
To put it a different way, the model of a A-10 style aircraft,
equipped with cannon and guns, providing close air support and
anti-armor firepower to the troops?

Yes, just as there's a place for the AC-130 and similar aircraft. The
A-10 isn't using the GAU-8A as a primary weapon (and never has in
action) but does find it useful on a number of occasions where mission
requires and threat permits.

snip

I don't think you want to make such a blanket statement about the GAU-8,
Paul. From the April 14th, 2003 AvLeak, article "Beyond Baghdad", by Robert
Wall:

"One of the primary aircraft used over Baghdad has been the Air Force's
A-10, which operates more than 50 of them from a base here [in Kuwait] and a
site in southern Iraq [almost certainly Tallil]. 'The A-10s provide the
surgical weaponry required for successful urban close air support,' said
Col. Cesar Rodriguez, operations officer for the 332 Air Expeditionary
Wing. The aircraft's 30-mm gun is the primary weapon, although
infrared-guided AGM-65G-2 Mavericks are also frequently being employed."

Not a direct quote, but presumably Wall was paraphrasing what Rodriguez or
others had told him. Certainly the gun was widely used in Baghdad.

Guy

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Charles Gray
writes

To put it a different way, the model of a A-10 style aircraft,
equipped with cannon and guns, providing close air support and
anti-armor firepower to the troops?


Yes, just as there's a place for the AC-130 and similar aircraft. The
A-10 isn't using the GAU-8A as a primary weapon (and never has in
action) but does find it useful on a number of occasions where mission
requires and threat permits.

Ideally the A-10 would be replaced by something with less gun (maybe a
25mm rotary or 27mm Mauser), less armour (resisting AAA is one thing,
but SAMs do most of the killing), more speed and power, and more
countermeasures. Oddly enough, that's a good pencil sketch of the JSF

The F-35 is suppose to now have the GAU-12, 25mm, gun
that was on the AV-8B Harrier. This is the same round
that is used by the Army with M242 Bushmaster on the
Bradley APC and by the Navy with the Mk 38 AMG.

It is thought that other systems are replaced, the 25mm
will become the primary light cannon round. Thus the Navy
CIWS (Phalanx) may migrate towards this round with newer
ships (ie DD-X).



Or have things changed enought (cheap PGM's, UCAV's, etc) to where
that model is more along the line of a Battleship in 1945-- no matter
how effective at its job, there are now things that can do the job
just as well or better, and are more flexible to boot?


I wouldn't be that hard on the A-10 (even if I do attack some of the
more enthusiastic claims made for it). It doesn't have the battleship's
"prestige" connotations making losses headline news (no more so than any
other air asset, anyway), nor the peculiarly high costs (IIRC it's
relatively cheap to fly and maintain, always a survival aid ).

If you want a warship analogy, it's more like a cruiser than a
battleship in 1945: cheap enough to keep, versatile enough to still be
useful for a while, and handy to have until a replacement comes on line.

The A-10 isn't survivable in a high-threat environment, but there aren't
many of those and the likely ones can be reduced or suppressed enough to
let it be used. Since it's bought and paid for, still has a number of
uses, and still has a fair bit of life left in the airframes, why throw
it away?

N9NWO wrote:
It is thought that other systems are replaced, the 25mm
will become the primary light cannon round. Thus the Navy
CIWS (Phalanx) may migrate towards this round with newer
ships (ie DD-X).

There have been plenty of proposals for 25mm versions of Phalanx, but not
much interest from the Navy. They figure than if a maginal increase in
capability is needed, the 20mm Enhanced Lethality Cartridge could be
reinstated. It's always been reported as having the same effectiveness as a
conventional 25mm sabot round.

In general, however, the Navy is migrating to no gun-based CIWS at all.
LPD-17 has just RAM and 30mm Mk 46 turrets for small-baot defense. Unless
things change from what was shown at concept design, DD(X) will have 40mm
guns for close-in defnse, but not for anti-missile duties. If they do
change, I think the most likely swap will be to 30mm MK 46 turrets in place
of the 40mm, but still with no missile-defense role. For anti-missile
defense, it will rely on ESSM.

--
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

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.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:50:56 -0800, "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.


That would take a quantum leap in sensor technology as well as an
incredible level of logistic support. What you suggest would require
some sort of UAV platoon attached to a maneuver element with
pre-packaged UAV rounds, a launch/recovery capability, a cadre of
trained operators, reload munitions, etc. etc. etc. Not a low-tech,
mud-reliable sort of weapon.

Then there is the question of battle-field view. While the guy on the
ground may be able to see the enemy immediately in front of him, he
seldom knows what else is out there and threatening. That takes a
detached, at altitude, observer. Hunkering in a foxhole or a tracked
vehicle buttoned-up, looking at a 12.1 inch LCD display that reports
what the eye in the nose of the UAV happens to be looking at is a
difficult perspective from which to manipulate CAS.

You proposal also doesn't address the complexities of airspace
coordination for employment of a CAS system within the mix of
aviation, indirect fire assets and direct fire from supporting or
flanking units. Letting "game-boy" operators fly armed UAVs to deliver
ordinance at the engagement level is not a trivial problem.

And, the "tendency of the A-10 to make blue on blue incursions" is an
unsupported cheap shot. The A-10 (and any other CAS system) has made
few friendly fire mistakes. They happen, but it isn't epidemic.


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

Thomas Schoene wrote:
N9NWO wrote:

It is thought that other systems are replaced, the 25mm
will become the primary light cannon round. Thus the Navy
CIWS (Phalanx) may migrate towards this round with newer
ships (ie DD-X).


There have been plenty of proposals for 25mm versions of Phalanx, but not
much interest from the Navy. They figure than if a maginal increase in
capability is needed, the 20mm Enhanced Lethality Cartridge could be
reinstated. It's always been reported as having the same effectiveness as a
conventional 25mm sabot round.

In general, however, the Navy is migrating to no gun-based CIWS at all.
LPD-17 has just RAM and 30mm Mk 46 turrets for small-baot defense. Unless
things change from what was shown at concept design, DD(X) will have 40mm
guns for close-in defnse, but not for anti-missile duties. If they do
change, I think the most likely swap will be to 30mm MK 46 turrets in place
of the 40mm, but still with no missile-defense role. For anti-missile
defense, it will rely on ESSM.

Currently it looks more like the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile will
replace the CIWS:

Block I baseline 2 introduced further reliability upgrades and a muzzle
restraint to decrease dispersion. Installed on multiple non-Aegis and
Aegis ships, neither the original Phalanx Block 0 nor the subsequent
Block 1 baseline 0, 1, or 2 upgrades are integrated with a ship
self-defense system. A January 1992 Chief of Naval Operations decision
requires replacement of Phalanx with the new ESSM system in new
construction DDG ships. Though it initially appeared that DDG-79 would
be the first new construction DDG to receive Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
in lieu of Phalanx, it now appears that, due to a slippage in the ESSM
development program, DDG-85 will be the first. The Navy plans to install
the Phalanx Block 1 baseline 2 configuration as temporary installations
on DDG-79 through 84 until ESSM is produced.

The RAM is mostly a Sidewinder missile platform.
The MK 46 Mod 1 30mm Machine Guns looks to be an
upgrade for the Mk 38 25mm (M242 Bushmaster). One
page for the LHP-17 showed the Mk 38 and not the Mk 46.