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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Funky place to store your fuel? | BllFs6 | Home Built | 5 | August 23rd 04 01:27 AM |
FS: Soft Comm ATC-4Y 4 place portable intercom, $75.00 | Jaysen Underhill | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | October 17th 03 02:04 AM |
FS: Soft Comm ATC-4Y 4 place portable intercom, $75.00 | Jaysen Underhill | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 17th 03 01:25 AM |
Grumman 2 place Wanted | Jerry | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | September 13th 03 11:59 PM |
4 place portable intercom For Sale | Snowbird | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 26th 03 12:41 AM |