If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:Zmghb.528215$Oz4.404911@rwcrnsc54 I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference back in 1989 or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now JSOW). The USMC rep was adamant that they could not accept the concept of an autonomous standoff weapon used for CAS targets in close proximity to friendly Marines. The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/9/03 11:52 AM, in article Zmghb.528215$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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
Speech: A Question of Loyalty: Gen. Billy Mitchell | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 25th 04 09:30 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |
T Tail question | Paul Austin | Military Aviation | 7 | September 23rd 03 06:05 PM |