Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Modern Close Air Support is not working....


Five US Special Operations troops were killed in a friendly fire incident.  Black Five has the best take on things....
While there isn't much official information about the incident, our thoughts and prayers are with their families. From FoxNews:
...A senior U.S. defense official told Fox News early Tuesday that the troops were killed when they requested air support from a B-1 bomber after coming in contact with enemy forces...
The information might nullify everything I'm about to say but a couple of things jump out at me.

Too often small units are found, fixed, placed under fire by the enemy.  Too often those small units have to rely on air power to provide fire support so that they can disengage and get back to base or carry on with their mission.  Modern close air support is not working.  Using bombers and deep strike aircraft to provide close air support is not ideal and we don't have to do it this way.

Additionally the idea that small units are survivable on the modern battlefield is pure fantasy.  Why this idea persists is because SOCOM pushes it, portions of the USMC/US Army are in love with it, but the reality is much more stark.

We're operating in an environment where there is no anti-air network.  Apply this small unit philosophy to a situation where even basic defenses are in place and it falls apart.

We need to keep the A-10 and we need to get aircraft like the B-1 back to their real mission.  Strike against installation, warships and massed formations.

17 comments :

  1. This is exactly why we cannot rely on CAS from 30k feet. It doesn't work. The AF brass doesn't get it. You NEED mud movers like the A-10, even Harriers and Hornets, in close that can use real-time knowledge with their own eyes and voice to coordinate where the hurt goes. You can't put iron on target from 20-30k ft all the time, especially for CAS. This is also another big reason why the think-tanks and bean counters are wrong with their line of thought on the F-35. There's the high alt argument, then there's the low alt argument, where it can't maneuver and get slow enough to be nearly as effective as the A-10. This isn't the first mishap like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And there is also one more cruel argument, when you lost A-10 you lost 12 millions... when you lost F-35, 157 millions.

      Delete
  2. A-10s are responsible for some the worst Blue-on-Blue (aka BoB or Friendly Fire) incidents. Here is a list of recent A-10 and other low-flying Blue-on-Blue incidents (yes, from wiki):

    --During the Battle of Khafji, 11 American Marines were killed in two major incidents when their light armored vehicles (LAV's) were hit by missiles fired by a USAF A-10.
    --Two US Army soldiers were killed and a further six wounded when an American Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter fired upon and destroyed a US Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle and an M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier (in the same incident) during night operations.
    --An American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacked British Warrior MICVs, resulting in nine British dead and numerous casualties.
    --In Sangin Province, an RAF Harrier mistakenly strafed British troops missing the enemy by 200 metres during a firefight with the Taliban on 20 August 2006. This angered British Major James Loden of 3 PARA, who in a leaked email called the RAF, "Completely incompetent and utterly, utterly useless in protecting ground troops in Afghanistan".[84]
    --Operation Medusa (2006): 1 – Two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts accidentally strafed NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham.
    --On 5 December 2006, an F/A-18C on a Close Air Support mission in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, mistakenly attacked a trench where British Royal Marines were dug-in during a 10-hour battle with Taliban fighters, killing one Royal Marine.[86] (Confirmed a strafe run)
    --Of two helicopters called in to support operations by the British Grenadier Guards and Afghan National Army forces in Helmand, the British Westland WAH-64 Apache engaged enemy forces, while the accompanying American AH-64D Apache opened fire on the Grenadiers and Afghan troops.[90]
    --On 9 July 2008, nine British soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment were injured after being fired upon by British Army Apache helicopter while on patrol in Afghanistan.[97]
    --Lance Corporal Christopher Roney from 3rd Battalion The Rifles was shot and killed by a U.S. Apache helicopter during a firefight with the Taliban in December 2009
    --In the Battle of Nasiriyah, an American force of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs) and infantry under intense enemy fire were misidentified as an Iraqi armored column by two U.S. Air Force A-10s who carried out bombing and strafing runs on them. One U.S. Marine was killed and 17 were wounded as a result.
    --190th Fighter Squadron/Blues and Royals friendly fire incident – 28 March 2003. A pair of American A-10s from the 190th attacked four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals, killing L/CoH. Matty Hull and injuring five others.
    --An American airstrike killed eight Kurdish Iraqi soldiers. Kurdish officials advised U.S. helicopters hit the men who were guarding a branch of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in Mosul.

    In the same list there were less than a handful of Blue-on-Blue incidents involving mid-to-high altitude bombing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spudman, just a minor point of correction. Your comment about the RAF Harrier and the Utterly Useless line was somewhat debunked because of the simple fact that RAF Harrier could not do any strafing because they didnt have a gun!

      Delete
  3. So far, this is the ONLY argument I have seen that convinces me the A-10 might have outlived its usefulness. Instead of dumping money saved from the A-10 into the F-35 and other uber-expensive garbage, the author argues for more KC-130 "Harvest HAWK" kits and a real replacement for the Kiowa.

    It's a good read.

    http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140609/NEWS04/306090036/Opinion-10-needs-go

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eyes on ID pass trumps 40,000 feet any day in my mind at least the A-10 can look first.

      Delete
  4. Simple as giving your pos coordinates back wards with your target co ordinates causes this.
    Read a map wrong, get the grid confused and the bomb falls where it was sent.
    I'm thinking Laser guided from the ground is the only way.
    Hell, Aircraft sent to Pearl from the carriers to bolster the air wing during Dec. 7/8 1941 were engaged by anti aircraft and shot down, Naval aviators bailing out and hanging in their parachutes were machine gunned by American's as they descended.
    lets not even mention the debacle at Gela Sicily July 1943!
    Troop transport planes carrying American paratroopers careened all over the sky, bursting into flames, disintegrating, spraying men in all directions. “It was horrible,” recalls Charles E. Pitzer, who was a captain and pilot of one of the planes."
    505th PIR 82nd Airborne.
    Yes, 318 American paratroopers were shot out of the sky by jittery anti aircraft gunners on ship and shore who even though told about the overflight of US aircraft had just been bombed by German bombers and cut loose.
    Known as "The worst Friendly fire incident at the time."
    Friendly fire, BoB or goat screw it works both ways.
    ---------------------
    Spudman WP: That is the first thing I thought of when I heard!
    The brother was in the gulf war and every time he heard a helicopter he was on the comm asking what the fuck? and we ain't the enemy!
    Talk about a nightmare? At the time Stinger MANPADS had been issued to forward Grunt units and handed to 0351 assaultmen, a gunny's bad dream come true!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Buddy of mine used to be a B-1 offensive systems operator. This was after the wonderful Block D upgrade (which gave the aircraft JDAM capability). Their squadron was doing an exercise once and the guy calling in the practice strike was a SEAL. The B-1 crew asked him to ready back the strike again because it didn't make sense. Sure enough, the SEAL mistakenly wanted to put a JDAM... on his own position. This actually happened during the Afghan invasion some years later. I think it was B-52 vs Army, I forget. A real JDAM right down on the requester. Killed some people obviously. The guy changed batteries on his GPS unit and was for what ever reason reading his own position. B-1s have successfully provided CAS support in the past (just can't do danger-close like an A-10). Let us see if who actually screwed up in the report. A non-JDAM example? 2003, A B-52 dropping a live stick of M117 (750 pounders) on Marines in Africa. I think the B-52 bomb-nav (lower deck of the aircraft) was court martialed (something about not being able to do off-set bombing correctly). Offset-bombing is where you lock up a ground target that has excellent radar return qualities. That becomes your geo-graphic reference (not the target). You then take the roller wheel and put the cursor on the actual target. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=a772dbbd-24bc-4905-82a7-13fb17b857d2 and http://static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/0911/223030/1000w_q75.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. RIP A-10

    http://news.yahoo.com/u-house-panel-defeats-bid-save-10-warthog-165333506--finance.html

    U.S. House panel defeats bid to save A-10 'Warthog' aircraft

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee defeated an amendment to a defense spending bill on Tuesday that would have preserved funding for the U.S. fleet of A-10 "Warthog" aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abolish the keywest agreement and give A10's to the Army. It's long overdue the Army be allowed their own combat fixed-wing aircraft to at least provide CAS.

      Delete
    2. No. Sen Durbin has said there will be action to save the A-10 in the Seante when it takes up the defense budget next month:
      http://thehill.com/policy/defense/209003-durbin-opens-door-to-saving-a-10-fleet

      With the B-1 involved on the blue-on-blue incident, the USAF position on CAS is going to seem at least weak, if not dangerously shortsighted. This battle is far from over...

      Delete
    3. And I must add that the crews and controllers involved must be suffering from unimaginable guilt. Very tough situation.

      Delete
  7. USAF becoming more and more non-multi-role. F-15 depot is backed up btw. Used to be 80-88 flow days to refurb a jet. Now there are rumblings of being a year behind on work. Wait til that hits the squadrons. (F-15s go back for depot refurb every 5-7 years).

    ReplyDelete
  8. USAF becoming more and more multi-role.
    FIFY

    ReplyDelete
  9. Solomon, do you think you have the time and resources to find all friendly fire incidences from Airforce, Navy, and Marines airplanes; which aircraft were used for said incidences; and how many times each airplane were used for CAS? Just for post 9/11 by the way.

    If not, then it's alright, I was only curious.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why are we flying CAS with B-1s and B-52s? range.

    1-We have no rough field capability. haven't had it since WWII. All AF a/c require perfectly groomed airfields to function. Even the A-10.

    2.Lack of airfields. We're flying in from further away. Most raids are coming from Europe, DG, and Guam. B-2s fly from CONUS.

    3. logistics. even if we can get the planes to airfields closer to the battlefield, we're having issues getting fuel, ammo, and maintenance to the same fields.

    4. the inherent problems in trying to maintain a small footprint. It all gets harder the smaller the op gets. The fact that you are using a small SF team means that you don't have the willpower to commit to anything big. No artillery, no armor, and no local air support. You pretty much have to fly bombers in from around the world.

    The only long range, long loiter, rough field capable aircraft left in the inventory that can provide quality CAS, is the AC-130 Spectre. It unfortunately lacks survivability, numbers, and the cruising speed necessary to get to the fight in time to get in the fight.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My draft for a response here turned into a full blog post: http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-10-warthog-and-ac-130-spectre.html

    Suffice to say I believe LTC Darling is mistaken.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.