Who should own CAS & why it can't be trusted to an Air Force (from A-10 retirement thread)
- Thread starter SupersonicMax
- Start date
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Nice! Didn't know they did that.
Cdn equivalent; dropping a mystery-meat sandwich out the GP chute. :blotto:
Cdn equivalent; dropping a mystery-meat sandwich out the GP chute. :blotto:
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Just a bit of a side note here, but reviewing the Ukraine thread I see several references to Ukrainian SU-25's being shot down by rebel forces (OK, vacationing "Not Russian" Spetsnaz troops who are probably either doing the shooting with MANPADS or providing training/coaching). Since the SU 25 is the analogue of the A-10, being rugged, slow and heavily armed and armoured and it's having difficulties in a fairly low intensity fight (they are not going against heavily integrated Russian AD umbrellas...yet), then perhaps the call for traditional CAS is not reflective of what the "real world" offers anymore.
If that is the case, then "air support" in the future may well consist of glide bombs and long range precision guided missiles delivered by whatever platform happens to be "in the box" at a given time.
If that is the case, then "air support" in the future may well consist of glide bombs and long range precision guided missiles delivered by whatever platform happens to be "in the box" at a given time.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,850
- Points
- 1,160
Thucydides said:
But the pilots are Ukrainian... :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
GnyHwy said:
You sound like you just got possessed by the Ghost of Andrew Leslie.....
- Reaction score
- 20,749
- Points
- 1,260
Years ago (late 80's IIRC) I was a driver for a retired Col (LCol Jack DeHart MC - rip Sir) and one of the slides (pre PPT) was Canadian GS MLRS Batteries --- made sense then, and some sort of longer ranged rocket still makes sense now.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,850
- Points
- 1,160
KevinB said:
... especially since, like the APC, we practically invented the idea :
https://www.friends-amis.org/index.php/en/document-repository/english/fact-sheets/151-land-mattress/file
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
While the A-10 may soldier on for a few more years, the simple fact of age will eventually catch up with it, and the USAF has no plans to revive this capability in any form.
Perhaps the sort of close support we need as Canadians could be developed by creating a tag team of UAV's which can identify and mark targets, backed by organic "smart" weapons (like the current 155mm Excalibur round, but hopefully layered with other weapons like smart mortars or long range FOG-M such as the Brazilian FOG-MPM, which has a range of 60km). If the smart weapons are large enough (120mm mortars, 155 artillery rounds and heavy missiles) they can deal with virtually every target set from improvised bunkers and fortifications to modern AFV's, as well as enemy helicopters and even ships in the right circumstances. Except for the spotting UAV's, this sort of system isn't weather or time-on-station limited either.
Perhaps the sort of close support we need as Canadians could be developed by creating a tag team of UAV's which can identify and mark targets, backed by organic "smart" weapons (like the current 155mm Excalibur round, but hopefully layered with other weapons like smart mortars or long range FOG-M such as the Brazilian FOG-MPM, which has a range of 60km). If the smart weapons are large enough (120mm mortars, 155 artillery rounds and heavy missiles) they can deal with virtually every target set from improvised bunkers and fortifications to modern AFV's, as well as enemy helicopters and even ships in the right circumstances. Except for the spotting UAV's, this sort of system isn't weather or time-on-station limited either.
- Reaction score
- 1,666
- Points
- 1,140
I find it rather ironic that we are doing real CAS now and not living in 4-star hotels... Guess the haters gotta hate...
Thucydides said:
Why re-develop what has already been developed, and employed?
We directed M777 fire with Sperwer in theatre - not often, but we did. We also provided targetting and related assistance to helicopters and bombers.
It is very simple.
- Reaction score
- 1,666
- Points
- 1,140
General Disorder said:
Didn't know BAI used JTACs and 9-Lines...
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Given the way we casually discard capabilities in favour of <sarc> important things like pips and crowns</sarc>, I hope we haven't dropped the ball with using our UAV's to target artillery.
Of course, we also need a much larger artillery park to make this really work...
Of course, we also need a much larger artillery park to make this really work...
- Reaction score
- 7,941
- Points
- 1,160
Thucydides said:
But artillery needs a firm base from which to launch. By its nature that base needs to be closer to the target than an airbase. That increases the chances of effective retaliation by the opposing forces and, consequently, the risk of friendly casualties. Although that can be mitigated if the artillery piece is mounted on a floating platform.
Which brings us back to that very useful piece you posted on Latvian defense and Russia's new take on war.
Friendly casualties are bad. That seems obvious. But where in the past a dead soldier was simply a dead soldier and the loss marginally diminished the ability to act on the battlefield the effect of a single dead soldier is magnified and amplified these days. The resultant loss more quickly erodes the will to continue the effort among civilians and politicians.
Ultimately the mere prospect of loss paralyzes governments.
Daladier and Chamberlain.
Airpower has the advantage of distance and of exposing a very small number of "soldiers" to risk.
Boots on the ground, ranked in decreasing desirability, from most to least are:
Local government forces
Local malcontents and activists
Local Criminals
Volunteers from third party states
Private security consultants
Third party government forces
Own non-uniformed operatives
Own Special Forces
Own Light Forces
Own Heavy Forces
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,850
- Points
- 1,160
Kirkhill said:
Not that I've ever been in a position to actually choose but from what I understand about their respective capabilities, I'd think I'd rather be under a comprehensive arty umbrella of M777 and MLRS vs. having to rely almost solely on FGA.
Having both would be nice, but having the former would be essential.
Similar threads
- Locked
