OCS vs WOFT?

[Harrier Dude]

Tough to be accurate at 600kts with an unguided Mk82/84.

Not really.

 

[CavBubba]

Not really.

I never saw it. Hell, I'd be scared to be anywhere near the range when the pointy-nosed sky gods came out.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I never saw it. Hell, I'd be scared to be anywhere near the range when the pointy-nosed sky gods came out.

Well, ok then. If you never saw it, it must not be possible.

 

[CavBubba]

OK, I'll play along. So, back in the 1980s (since that's what we're talking about), which USAF fighter were you flying which could deliver Mk82/84s accurately enough for CAS? Electric Jet? (the original nickname for the F-16). The ANG was still flying the SLUF -- which had a great bombing computer -- but they were already being phased out.

 

[Harrier Dude]

OK, I'll play along. So, back in the 1980s (since that's what we're talking about), which USAF fighter were you flying which could deliver Mk82/84s accurately enough for CAS? Electric Jet? (the original nickname for the F-16). The ANG was still flying the SLUF -- which had a great bombing computer -- but they were already being phased out.

I'm not in the Air Force, but any of their fighters that are/were capable of carrying GP bombs was capable of dropping them accurately enough to perform CAS with them. That obviously includes USN and USMC jets as well.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "accurate enough"?

 

[CavBubba]

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "accurate enough"?

Sorry. Probably should have clarified earlier. I meant in the context of direct support of ground troops in contact. Not interdiction or BAI. In my opinion, a CEP of 500-700 feet doesn't cut it. My point was that the 1980s USAF had other things on its mind besides CAS -- namely achieving air-parity in a European scenario. So, my very generic impression was of pointy-nosed guys rolling in from 28k, dialing in the mils, racking up the bombs, pickling them at 8-12k and blasting off to get back into the air-to-air game. Basically, get rid of the extra weight/drag as soon as possible. Obviously an unfair broad-brush of the entire USAF but it bothered me enough that I felt the Army model of CAS fit much better with my own take on the job. Luckily, when I went back to Big Blue, lessons learned in the desert were still fresh and the focus on CAS was still very high. Didn't hurt that I had a lot of NVS/NVG time -- USAF was just getting into the NVG game and it was pretty fun watching them pucker up!

 

[squeeze]

Sorry. Probably should have clarified earlier. I meant in the context of direct support of ground troops in contact. Not interdiction or BAI. In my opinion, a CEP of 500-700 feet doesn't cut it. My point was that the 1980s USAF had other things on its mind besides CAS -- namely achieving air-parity in a European scenario. So, my very generic impression was of pointy-nosed guys rolling in from 28k, dialing in the mils, racking up the bombs, pickling them at 8-12k and blasting off to get back into the air-to-air game. Basically, get rid of the extra weight/drag as soon as possible. Obviously an unfair broad-brush of the entire USAF but it bothered me enough that I felt the Army model of CAS fit much better with my own take on the job. Luckily, when I went back to Big Blue, lessons learned in the desert were still fresh and the focus on CAS was still very high.

To play devils advocate, the Army has no concept of how to execute doctrinal Close Air Support. I would rather have USAF fighter pilots in support of my unit than Army helos.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Sorry. Probably should have clarified earlier. I meant in the context of direct support of ground troops in contact. Not interdiction or BAI. In my opinion, a CEP of 500-700 feet doesn't cut it.

A "500-700 foot CEP" would be an outlandish embarrassment to anybody who even occasionally drops bombs. Even the S-3 guys did better than that. I'd bet that the USAF F-4 types were doing less than 250' CEP even way back in the 70s. Today's aircraft can drop dumb bombs within a 100' CEP without much effort.

My point was that the 1980s USAF had other things on its mind besides CAS -- namely achieving air-parity in a European scenario.

No argument there. The struggle with that still continues with those that think too much "F" and not enough "A".

So, my very generic impression was of pointy-nosed guys rolling in from 28k, dialing in the mils, racking up the bombs, pickling them at 8-12k and blasting off to get back into the air-to-air game. Basically, get rid of the extra weight/drag as soon as possible. Obviously an unfair broad-brush of the entire USAF but it bothered me enough that I felt the Army model of CAS fit much better with my own take on the job. Luckily, when I went back to Big Blue, lessons learned in the desert were still fresh and the focus on CAS was still very high. Didn't hurt that I had a lot of NVS/NVG time -- USAF was just getting into the NVG game and it was pretty fun watching them pucker up!

The Army does a good job of using aviation assets to achieve tactical level results by fire, mainly by using them as maneuver elements. Their ability to integrate those aviation fires with maneuver, while getting better, is still severely lacking by doctrinal CAS standards.

For all practical purposes, the Army aviation forces didn't really start doing CAS until very, very recently.

Some might argue that they aren't there yet.

There's more to CAS than just shooting in vicinity of troops.

 

[Swanee]

A 500-700ft CEP isn't good enough to pass the strike syllabus in advanced. That's dialing in the mils and racking dumb bombs from a T-45.

 

[CavBubba]

To play devils advocate, the Army has no concept of how to execute doctrinal Close Air Support. I would rather have USAF fighter pilots in support of my unit than Army helos.

I'd agree with the caveat that it depends on who's version of doctrinal CAS you're referring to. The Army and Air Force have very different interpretations and, having lived with both, there's validity to both sides of the argument. I think therein lies the problem. The Army, by accord, cannot enter the fixed-wing combat business but would probably like to. The USAF is beholden by the same agreement to support the Army in a role it doesn't really want to perform but has to.

 

[Hotdogs]

A "500-700 foot CEP" would be an outlandish embarrassment to anybody who even occasionally drops bombs. Even the S-3 guys did better than that.

You've had S-3 guys drop for you before? How scary was that?

 

[Harrier Dude]

You've had S-3 guys drop for you before? How scary was that?

I was in the stack with them. They rolled in 180 out of their assigned FAH, called "In HOT", and then dropped.

I didn't see their hits, but the next thing heard on TAD was "Get OUT".

The S-3 asked for a reattack.

Again, "Get OUT".

From what my S-3 buds told me, they don't get to do CAS much and their aiming system wasn't much more sophisticated than a mark on the windscreen. I've never seen it, though.

In any event, I don't think their accuracy was anywhere near what we were debating.

 

[Lawman]

To play devils advocate, the Army has no concept of how to execute doctrinal Close Air Support. I would rather have USAF fighter pilots in support of my unit than Army helos.

Unless your one of the few (albeit growing population) of the Army Aviators to have been Lucky enough to support some of the Available Task Forces out there and work directly with the Stack instead of as a separate element beholden only to your own GFC and taking information instead of direction from the JTAC/FAC on the ground.

Done it both ways. There are massive advantages in speed and reaction time as well as weaponeering for effect with the CCA doctrine over the CAS doctrine. On the other hand it takes a GFC with an actual understanding of just what the 64 up there can and will do. Most of the time the 9 line format restricts us more than we are comfortable with due to the fact that doctrinally we are responsible for the weapons that leave our Aircraft and we will in a direct fire role have a better SA of the target than the JTAC though this is being mitigated a bit with the development of datalinks. And nobody in any of the stacks Ive worked in especially fixed wing could match us for CEP and CDE ranges. Now we go to war with much more liberal ROE with a much more dangerous enemy, then yeah bring on the Fixed wing CAS. Till then hang out and let us all know on fires when you are off to yo-yo again.

Now if its Kiowas... yeah those are Recon birds pretending to be Gunships I wouldnt want them first either.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Unless your one of the few (albeit growing population) of the Army Aviators to have been Lucky enough to support some of the Available Task Forces out there and work directly with the Stack instead of as a separate element beholden only to your own GFC and taking information instead of direction from the JTAC/FAC on the ground.

Done it both ways. There are massive advantages in speed and reaction time as well as weaponeering for effect with the CCA doctrine over the CAS doctrine. On the other hand it takes a GFC with an actual understanding of just what the 64 up there can and will do. Most of the time the 9 line format restricts us more than we are comfortable with due to the fact that doctrinally we are responsible for the weapons that leave our Aircraft and we will in a direct fire role have a better SA of the target than the JTAC though this is being mitigated a bit with the development of datalinks. And nobody in any of the stacks Ive worked in especially fixed wing could match us for CEP and CDE ranges. Now we go to war with much more liberal ROE with a much more dangerous enemy, then yeah bring on the Fixed wing CAS. Till then hang out and let us all know on fires when you are off to yo-yo again.

Now if its Kiowas... yeah those are Recon birds pretending to be Gunships I wouldnt want them first either.

That is classic Army aviation doctrine. Nothing at all wrong with that, provided you recognize it for what it is. You are using aviation as a supporting maneuver element rather than a part of combined arms. The AH-64 is a phenomenal fires platform. It works for you, so rock on.

But it ain't CAS.

 

[Jim123]

Speaking of unguided accuracy and the S-3 community, there was this one time (old xmid and HJ posts passing along the story).

On the other hand, it wasn't a dumb bomb, but then it was a combat drop, and a kill is a kill...