OCS vs WOFT?

[Lawman]

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.

Like I said Ive done both. Type controlled 9-lines and just CCA 5 lines. Time and place for both, doesnt mean one is tactically inferior. As far as the Customer is concerned its all about munitions effects and time on target. The thing I love is the automatic 2nd Class citizen status we receive in the eyes of the Fixed wing Fires world by everybody else. Is the conventional Army new to this game? Yeah absolutely. But in the grand scheme of things the guys making the news for CIVCAS and Fratricide incidents, are typically the "Premier CAS aircraft" flying the A-10. Hear it all the time about how the Fixed wing guys want the JTAC to push the Helos out so they can "get in there and get it done"... Then I watch an AC-130 drop a hundred 40mm rounds on a guy in an open field and miss. Or watch Vipers drop a JDAM either into the wrong field or level the wrong building. Not saying we always drop the Warhead on the Forehead... but when your record is something like 90% of the KIA/WIAs from Aerial Fires... Kinda lends some voice to the argument that we need to be part of the game. Now its just convincing the other players to let us in and convincing our Ground centric leadership that its important enough to spend money on.

 

[BusyBee604]

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.

For comparison, back in the day (No. Vietnam), the average well-trained, experienced A-4 combat pilot had a CEP ~100'-200'. This on the standard "Alpha Strike" 45 degree dive w/ roll-in 11k AGL; release 4.5k AGL/420 kt; bottom out >3k, excellent CEPs for MK-82/-83/-84s.

Bomb sight pipper only, no computer bombing system like the SLUF! Quite accurate for the larger area targets carrying MK-80 series LD bombs. 3,000' AGL was considered absolutely lowest altitude for any flight in NVN, from mid-'66 on. This eliminated any napalm deliveries, and restricted low-angle <30 degree strafing to coverage of down Pilot in a critical SAR situation. This was all just prior to the introduction of LGBs.

Not sure about the Phantoms (they did lots of point target bombing/flak suppression), and were also pretty accurate.... Catmando???
BzB

 

[Harrier Dude]

Like I said Ive done both. Type controlled 9-lines and just CCA 5 lines. Time and place for both, doesnt mean one is tactically inferior. As far as the Customer is concerned its all about munitions effects and time on target. The thing I love is the automatic 2nd Class citizen status we receive in the eyes of the Fixed wing Fires world by everybody else. Is the conventional Army new to this game? Yeah absolutely. But in the grand scheme of things the guys making the news for CIVCAS and Fratricide incidents, are typically the "Premier CAS aircraft" flying the A-10. Hear it all the time about how the Fixed wing guys want the JTAC to push the Helos out so they can "get in there and get it done"... Then I watch an AC-130 drop a hundred 40mm rounds on a guy in an open field and miss. Or watch Vipers drop a JDAM either into the wrong field or level the wrong building. Not saying we always drop the Warhead on the Forehead... but when your record is something like 90% of the KIA/WIAs from Aerial Fires... Kinda lends some voice to the argument that we need to be part of the game. Now its just convincing the other players to let us in and convincing our Ground centric leadership that its important enough to spend money on.

That sounds like an Air Force issue, vice a fixed wing issue.

I've seen the same thing myself. I'm certainly not looking down my nose at Army aviation. It's just that if you want to be included in the CAS role, you're going to have to learn to do it to the accepted standard and according to the accepted procedures. That's all.

If you want to continue to use aviation units like maneuver forces, that's cool too. There's a time and a place for everything. Just don't expect the JFACC to be on board with it.

 

[CavBubba]

I've been away for a few days. Some pretty interesting statements/opinions.

I'm curious how the following would be classed -- CAS/not CAS --given the "Army doesn't do CAS" mindset present:

1. A-10s/AH-64s conducting JAAT going back to the mid-1980s.
2. AH-64s conducting "deep attack/deep battle" strikes as part of AirLand Battle doctrine going back to the mid-1980s.
3. Opening shots of Desert Storm fired by AH-64s against Iraqi radar sites.

There were ATOs generated for all the above and coordinated into the MAP. So to say the Army only uses aviation as manuever forces is sort of like saying the Navy only does Fleet Defense.

 

[Flash]

I've been away for a few days. Some pretty interesting statements/opinions.

I'm curious how the following would be classed -- CAS/not CAS --given the "Army doesn't do CAS" mindset present:

1. A-10s/AH-64s conducting JAAT going back to the mid-1980s.
2. AH-64s conducting "deep attack/deep battle" strikes as part of AirLand Battle doctrine going back to the mid-1980s.
3. Opening shots of Desert Storm fired by AH-64s against Iraqi radar sites.

There were ATOs generated for all the above and coordinated into the MAP. So to say the Army only uses aviation as manuever forces is sort of like saying the Navy only does Fleet Defense.

Didn't the one time they did a 'deep attack' result in almost all the helos being damaged and one shot with the crew captured (I don't necessarily agree with the article btw)?

Doctrine and actually doing are two different things.

 

[Hotdogs]

I
1. A-10s/AH-64s conducting JAAT going back to the mid-1980s.
2. AH-64s conducting "deep attack/deep battle" strikes as part of AirLand Battle doctrine going back to the mid-1980s.
3. Opening shots of Desert Storm fired by AH-64s against Iraqi radar sites.

Those are functions of DAS and more specifically AI and JAAT sounds like SCAR. CAS and DAS are two categories of OAS. JCAS specifically defines CAS with two criteria: the first being close proximity to friendlies and the second being detailed integration with the fire and movement of those forces. That's basic OAS 101.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I've been away for a few days. Some pretty interesting statements/opinions.

I'm curious how the following would be classed -- CAS/not CAS --given the "Army doesn't do CAS" mindset present:

1. A-10s/AH-64s conducting JAAT going back to the mid-1980s.
2. AH-64s conducting "deep attack/deep battle" strikes as part of AirLand Battle doctrine going back to the mid-1980s.
3. Opening shots of Desert Storm fired by AH-64s against Iraqi radar sites.

There were ATOs generated for all the above and coordinated into the MAP. So to say the Army only uses aviation as manuever forces is sort of like saying the Navy only does Fleet Defense.

1. Close, but not CAS. The FW components are doing CAS procedures, but the rotary wing are not. Additionally, JAAT is aviation centric, vice ground centric. FM 3-04.126 Appendix C, Section 1 states:

"C-1. A JAAT operation is a coordinated attack by rotary and FW aircraft, normally supported by artillery or NSFS. Ground or airborne EW systems may also support the JAAT. JAAT operations support the joint force commander (JFC) in offensive and defensive operations day or night."

It's a worthy and contributory process, it just isn't CAS.

2. Not CAS. That would be a subset of DAS known as Aerial Interdiction (AI).

3. Not CAS. See above.

There have been a lot of doctrinal and procedural changes in CAS over the last 10-12 years. Mostly brought about by the GWOT and the air forces realization that CAS was going to contribute far more to this war than sweeping MiGs out of the sky will. There are probably even more changes in the doctrine/procedures that I'm not even aware of, having been relegated to flying OSA over the last few years.

I'm not sure what your currency is, but if you really want to go blind reading the wonders of "the new CAS", try reading the latest version of JP 3-09.3. It's a world different than what was done "back in the '80s".

Just to be clear, just because the above examples aren't CAS, and that the AH-64 (and the army) are relatively new to CAS, that doesn't mean that they aren't doing amazing things with their weapons. Interdiction, armed reconnaissance, JAAT, SCAR.....these too result in bad people being turned into smoking piles of teeth, hair, and eyeballs.

They just aren't CAS.

 

[CavBubba]

Didn't the one time they did a 'deep attack' result in almost all the helos being damaged and one shot with the crew captured (I don't necessarily agree with the article btw)?

Doctrine and actually doing are two different things.

The deep attacks from Desert Storm (I think there were less than 10) all went well. I think the incident you're referencing was from the second Gulf War, ~2003. I was already back in ANG by then so am not really sure what went down. This article has a little more balance although I can't vouch for accuracy.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2003/October 2003/1003najaf.aspx


Doctrine vs actually doing? I agree with you. Of course whenever theory meets reality, it rarely goes as planned.

 

[CavBubba]

Well shame on me then Using the term incorrectly for decades, apparently. I use the term in it's literal form -- aircraft engaging targets in direct support of ground forces. Anything else (interdiction, BAI, etc) is not CAS, despite what the AF likes to call it.

I'm trying to remember when JFACC first appeared. I think it was mid-1980s?

As for currency, I stopped playing just shy of 9 years ago. No shooting during my AF time (Cold War); Desert Storm with the Army; the rest with ANG.

 

[Catmando]

For comparison, back in the day (No. Vietnam), the average well-trained, experienced A-4 combat pilot had a CEP ~100'-200'. This on the standard "Alpha Strike" 45 degree dive w/ roll-in 11k AGL; release 4.5k AGL/420 kt; bottom out >3k, excellent CEPs for MK-82/-83/-84s.

Bomb sight pipper only, no computer bombing system like the SLUF! Quite accurate for the larger area targets carrying MK-80 series LD bombs. 3,000' AGL was considered absolutely lowest altitude for any flight in NVN, from mid-'66 on. This eliminated any napalm deliveries, and restricted low-angle <30 degree strafing to coverage of down Pilot in a critical SAR situation. This was all just prior to the introduction of LGBs.

Not sure about the Phantoms (they did lots of point target bombing/flak suppression), and were also pretty accurate.... Catmando???
BzB

Late to the thread. Sorry.
Yes we were pretty accurate also with nearly the same parameters as you. But we trained a lot and got good. Indeed, we gave our A-7s with their computerized bomb-sight a run for their money with our grease pencils and iron sight. It was not unusual to sometimes have better CEPs than them. Like you, we trained long and hard, and were proud of our good work.

 

[60dude]

Yeah I agree, I'm a AD WO and ill tell you if you didn't get WOFT and your going to continue with the army well you'll get flight school as a RLO but............your going to be a pilot in training for the rest of your career. It's impossible to get the same flight time as a WO. Not much different if your in a flight company. Staff is even worse.
My advice is try for WOFT again or go to another branch.
My 2 CENTS