The use of guided smart weapons has increased significantly in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So far, these weapons have been rather expensive and are mostly used in air support roles. Some examples include JDAM and hellfire missiles. Guided weapons have recently started being used in artillery roles. The excalibur is being used for conventional artillery, while the military is also developing guided multiple launch rocket systems. There is also a cheaper guided mortar weapon, though it has a smaller range than the artillery. Though the Excalibur and other guided artillery have much better accuracy than conventional artillery shells, they are much more expensive than conventional shells. The Excalibur costs about $50,000 per shell while conventional is around $1,000, I believe. The Excalibur can be used much like CAS for aircraft, while conventional artillery is too inaccurate for effective close groung support. Experts have projected that the cost of guided artillery will come down significantly however, and when that happens, I don't think there will be a need for much close air support. Aircraft are very expensive in upfront costs, operation, and maintenance. Aircraft can be vulnerable to air defenses while artillery can shoot and move. If the cost of guided artillery shells decrease, they can be used just as effectively for close ground suport as aircraft. If you have a range within 100 miles, I think artillery will be much cheaper for close ground support than aircraft. However, you will still need aircraft for longer distances, as range becomes a limiting factor for artillery. Rockets will probably become too big to be cost effective as well. What do you think? Will close air support aircraft go the way of nuclear bombers in favor of missiles or artillery?
Now that I think about it, unmanned aircraft may be the savior of CAS aircraft, but I think manned aircraft for this role will be obsolete. Of course, I think unmanned aircraft need to perform a lot better than current predator drones, though.
The bolded statement is quite false. Conventional artillery is quite effective and accurate enough to provide close support. Depending on the weapons system, it can be used from within 200-500 meters of friendly troops, and even closer in desperate situations. Close air support will continue to be a very vital component of firesupport. One of the biggest weaknesses of artillery is it's range. Weapons systems must be emplaced, dug in, and protected within 15-20 miles of the area it's supporting. Aircraft can travel hundreds and hundreds of miles from remote bases and ships to provide support. Secondly, aircraft have the added benefit of providing observation of the enemy. Jets, bombers, and attack helicopters have advanced optics and night sights that allow them to see things on the battlefield that ground spotters cannot....and then kill it. Finally, attack choppers can remain on station for 20+ minutes providing a mobile gun platform, observation post, and deterrent. I can't emphasize enough to you how scary it is for an enemy force to hear F-18s screaming by or gunships hovering overhead firing their auto cannons.
Drones right now carry much smaller payloads. It's also more difficult for some pilot sitting in Arizona to fully see what's going on compared to a pilot flying directly overhead.
Yes, conventional artillery is very effective at close support, but it can't provide CLOSE support like current close air support missiles and airplanes can, or precision guided artillery. Conventional artillery has its role, but in counter insurgency operations in urban environments, it is not very useful. I guess I just did not explain that enough. Guided artillery can hit within 10 meters most of the time compared to 200 meters, and that is a huge difference considering our current military objectives. Some artillery has to be dug in and emplaced, but others are completely mobile. I don't know what the size of the force artillery goes to, but each unit can have their own while they would most likely have to share air support. Missiles can travel hundreds of miles, too. And those types of missions are more likely to be interdiction than CAS. It's just as scary knowing each shell or missile coming at you will be a direct hit. Anyway, I'm not a military expert. I just want to get some ideas on what we can do to have an effective military at the lowest cost possible. Do you know how long it takes for close air support to arrive after it is called in? I think guided artillery would be quicker since you don't have to wait for an aircraft to arrive in the area. You can just fire the shell almost immediately once clearance is given.
I wouldn't quite say that. While the actual visual area is tiny by comparison, with training the sensor suites provide a virtual battlespace view that in many ways probably exceeds old Mk1 Mod 0 Eyeball. But then you are the Air Force guy so I defer to your expertise, just what I've seen of the system you have an almost cluttered looking array of MFDs providing data from the sensor suites.
I've been dragged out of my bed in the middle of the night to go drive for hours because some guy in Arizona looking through a computer screen thought a hub cap was an IED or a donkey was an insurgent. We never had this problem with conventional air.
A 155 or 105mm shell has a casualty radius in excess of 50 meters. A 10 meter CEP is kind of overkill. It's also extremely rare to use heavy artillery in urban areas. I already explained how difficult it is to set up artillery to cover every square inch of an AO. Sometimes units are given areas to cover that are hundreds of square miles. Air support in hot areas is always on standby and can show up surprisingly fast, depending on the situation. It's also quite common to bring it with you if you're expecting enemy contact.
This is the major problem with drones. The inability to effectively differentiate objects, animals, persons, and buildings from one another necessitates extensive ground forces or complimentary conventional air forces to feed greater intelligence to the operator, thereby augmenting the indirect costs of production, usage, and maintenance. Despite these extra measures, massive collateral damage occurs. Drones, especially in Waziristan, have led to the destruction of hundreds, maybe even thousands of homes, and the demise of the people who live in them. As a result, there needs to be alternative capabilities created, such as guided smart weapons, or innovation in information and intelligence programming technology for drones needs to ensue.
Actually, the drone strikes have had historically low collateral damage rates. They kill much more than 1 insurgent for each civilain. The issue of course is that the Pakistan government and the family of the deceased dispute that a militant was actually a militant. The intelligence collected in the Bin Laden raid showed that he thought the drone strikes were one of the largest threats to his operations in the region.
There is one factor here that a lot of people seem to have missed. And it is something that is very important when it comes to CAS: The psychological impact of the aircraft themselves. Drones are actually not a great choice for CAS, because the enemy never sees or hears them. And while their payload may be accurate, it is pretty limited. Imagine the following scenarios: A: Insurgents massed for an attack, they are spotted and a drone is called in, placing 1 Hellfire missile in the group. B: Insurgents massed for an attack, they are spotted and an A-10 is called in, spraying the area with missiles and it's terrifying cannon, then lingers for another 10 minutes, getting anybody that was missed. C: Insurgents massed for an attack, they are spotted and an AC-130 is sent in, destroying everything within range of it's 25mm cannon, 40mm cannon, and it's 105mm cannon. Drones are great for striking targets, but nothing beats the Warthog or Spooky for putting the fear of God into the enemy when talking about CAS. I have talked to a guy who saw insurgent groups flee when a regular C-130 flew over head, thinking it was an AC-130 and not just a cargo plane. So no, I do not think that CAS will be replaced by drones. Drones simply don't have the psychological impact that our CAS aircraft (fixed or rotary wing) have. And that is a major issue when considering the morale of soldiers on the ground. Such aircraft as the Sea Cobra and Harrier for Marines both raises the morale of our troops on the ground, and demoralizes that of the enemy. And that morale is a major factor in battles.
View from a Predator drone station... and from the left seat of a C-130 over Afghanistan... Umanned aerial vehicles do utilize a multitude of optical sensors, which manned CAS systems have also...but piloting a drone is the equivalent of looking through a paper towel tube, which is an improvement over earlier systems which was like looking through a straw. Whether you believe me or not, well that's your decision.
Technology is certainly better than before, but it can still improve. Furthermore, the differences in collateral damage rates data between think-tanks and the military is stark. Sources on the conservative side have the civilian to combatant casualties ratio as 1:2, equal to that of the coalition forces during the Iraq War. Sources on the liberal side have it near 10:1. The military posits civilian casualties as of 2010 to be no more than 20 to 30 over two years. In reality, I would say the actual civilian to combatant casualties ratio is in between these three.
Today's munitions work wonders against armor. That being said, what are the chances of the Taliban having armor vehicles?
source: http://www.thenewnewinternet.com/2012/04/30/pilots-cite-drone-visibility-limits-in-faa-filings/
Oh, you might be surprised. I guess you have never heard of "Armored Technicals", have you? Armored Technical in Somalia, 2010. Armored Technicals in Libya, 2011. This beast was made in 2010 for a Mexican drug cartel. Armored Techinical in Palestine, 2012. Yes, it is amazingly easy to make an armored car. Construction equipment is often a choice, since they normally have the suspension and engines to make the job easier. And it is nothing really high-tech, this is basically what all tanks and armored cars were until after World War I.
CAS is going to be around for a long, long time. If anything, precision guided munitions make CAS even more viable, particularly with a growing array of sensors. Now, planes can come in, from relative safety and drop highly accurate bombs on specific enemies at very close range to US troops. Over the past decade of so of war, everything has gotten much, much more accurate. And when you can kill your enemy by firing far fewer rounds? Well, that is the wave of the future.
