Strafing in Iraq and Afganistan

aam641

aam641

One needs a personality to have a personal text!
Joined
26 December 2011
Messages
109
Reaction score
13
An argument came up in discussion about F-35 suitability in replacing A-10. So I am curious about how effective strafing is when performed by 4th generation fighters (F-15, 16, 18, Typhoon, ...). Does anybody have good answers for the following questions?
- What targets are most often engaged? What kind of ammunition is used? What is the effective range and accuracy?
- Is strafing done from level flight at low altitude or from a dive? At night or during daylight only?
- How are targets identified? Are multiple passes needes to id target before firing?
- What is the success rate? Are most strafing runs only usefull in scaring the target into running? How often are planes lost to ground fire, MPADS, ground impact?
 
I'm a former active-duty Marine Corps officer and I can answer these for you. My answers only apply to the jets in the stack, not the helicopters.

As general principles: (1) Jets, except for the A-10, are average at best, at CAS, (too few, too fast, too high.) (2) Turboprops are much better at CAS (more, slower, lower.) (3) Nothing will ever be better at CAS than the A1-D Skyraider.

What targets are most often engaged? (1) The ones that were too stupid to (or could not) run away (2) who were in close proximity to something that we didn't want blown up with a JDAM. I'm dead serious. Generally speaking, the cue (wait) between asking for air support and getting jet supplied support was a REALLY LONG time. I'm talking STUPID LONG. CAS aircraft (the jets) in Iraq were controlled by two different outfits: the Air Support Operations Center (ASOC) in the army's area of operation and the Direct Air Support Center (DASC) in the Marine Corps area of operations. The airforce and navy operated 'stacks' of jets in the same kill boxes, so before anything happened, your request had to be “de-conflicted” by the Joint Terminal Air Controllers (JTAC) and any target with an IQ over 50 would always run away about 20-minutes into the "de-conflicting process" if they could. So about thirty minutes after your request: (1) a recon ship would fly over to make sure the target wasn't a mosque, (2) and a collateral damage estimate would be made, (3) and then they would locate you (twice), (4) and then all the other friendly units close to you would be located, (5) and then the friendly locations close to you would be located, (6) and then the target was located again to double prevent a friendly fire or collateral damage event (6) and then sometimes an airforce FAC would have to show up and sign off on everything again. So 45 minutes to 1-hour later, you finally heard your guy circling overhead double checking everything again and then you got a call asking, "Where do you want it?"

What kind of ammunition is used? Who cares. It made lots of sparks. It's normally 20mm.

What is the effective range and accuracy? They would pull out from a gun run at about 1000 to 1,500 feet--usually. Gun runs are VERY accurate. The gun sprays bullets in a big circle that gets smaller--there are lots of sparks--and foot thick solid concrete walls are literally vaporized.

Is strafing done from level flight at low altitude or from a dive? Always in a dive. You always want plunging fire to prevent hitting things downrange. I once saw a Cobra shoot a couple of rockets that went way too high (and down range for about a half-mile) and they blew up a house. (Those guys got in trouble.)

At night or during daylight only? Both. Night runs are WAY better because you can illuminate the target with IR beams. It's like shining a Q-beam at house only it's totally invisible. You need night vision to see it. It makes EVERYTHING so much faster and easier to do--everybody paints it and then they shoot it. It takes the error out--they shoot that spot.

How are targets identified? (1) When you got a bunch of guys that are shooting at you, (2) and they can't run away (because you got them trapped,) (3) but it would be a giant pain in the ass to go in there, (4) and you can't drop 500-pound JDAM because something across the street might get damaged--you shoot those guys with 20mm.

Are multiple passes needed to ID target before firing? Hell no. By the time the pilot pulls the trigger, the target has been checked and double checked about 10-times by about 5-layers of command structure.

What is the success rate? Stuff fell down every time. But only total morons ever got killed because it took too long for anything to happen. We never did anything where there was even the remotest chance of REALLY, I MEAN REALLY, needing air support, because we knew to a moral certainty that it would take too long for anyone to show up. It ain't like the movies.

Are most strafing runs only usefull in scaring the target into running? If you had them trapped, they were DEAD. If you didn't, they were gone 30-minutes to an hour before anything happened. And the smart ones always knew what was happening because WE HAD TO PULL BACK a couple hundred yards "for saftey" and we couldn't move out of our safety position during the process. It ain't like the movies.

How often are planes lost to ground fire, MPADS, ground impact? Jets NEVER show up with MPADS around. Are you kidding me. That's hilarious.

The F-35 WILL NEVER do CAS because they are going to cost $140 million each and nobody will want to put that kind of stress and time on the airframes. The Marine Corps needs the F-35 like it needs a division of war elephants. The best idea for the Marine Corps would be to snag all the A-10's that will have to be retired because of the F-35 purchase and then we should develop something that will do CAS even better.

In my opinion, the F-35 is a total FUBAR disaster. The wild weasel mission will be done with UCAVs in the future. Recon will be a UCAV mission in the future. CAS should be a turboprop or a next-gen A-10 mission in the future. Deep strike should be a next-gen bomber mission in the future. Building the F-35 is like building the P-47 in 1955, by the time it ever becomes operational, it will be long since obsolete.

For what it's worth...

Bronc
 
Broncazonk, wouldn't a Kamikaze micro UAV be the optimal solution for the scenario you described above? If the point is to minimize collateral damage while minimizing the latency of the strike, then wouldn't it appear that strafing is obsolete and Kamikaze's are the answer (see video below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTco9nVTiaI
 
Never saw one of those. In all honesty--I'm shooting straight with you now--what we really need to do is develop a very accurate RPG. Them freakin' rockets are incredible. About 90% of CAS in urban areas could be taken care of with a RPG--if they were accurate. If you could electrically fuse them to a laser range finder so they would detonate exactly at the target's range, like that new 25mm, that would be fabulous. But they got to be accurate. They ain't all that accurate right now. RPG rockets are very powerful, scary things.

You need something that everyone gets to have and use. High-speed, low drag gadgets like micro UAV's are great, except there is always only about two (2) of them and the CO is always saving them "for something special." I'm not kidding.

Bronc
 
AdamF said:
What kind of ammunition is used?
Click to expand...

I know from friends and former colleagues in Afghanistan that at least some air forces like to use Target Practice (TP) rounds for close air support (CAS). The TP round is just a lump of metal, sometimes fitted with a tracer, so of course it doesn't give you any explosive, fragmentation or incendiary effects. For CAS use, however, the TP has the advantage of not leaving duds behind, and most of the targets encountered during CAS missions can be defeated with the TP round anyway.

Just my 2 Eurocents worth.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 
Bronc,
It could be argued that a modernised P-47 would make a very useful CAS type..


cheers,
Robin.
 
Broncazonk said:
As general principles: (1) Jets, except for the A-10, are average at best, at CAS, (too few, too fast, too high.) (2) Turboprops are much better at CAS (more, slower, lower.) (3) Nothing will ever be better at CAS than the A1-D Skyraider.

The F-35 WILL NEVER do CAS because they are going to cost $140 million each and nobody will want to put that kind of stress and time on the airframes. The Marine Corps needs the F-35 like it needs a division of war elephants. The best idea for the Marine Corps would be to snag all the A-10's that will have to be retired because of the F-35 purchase and then we should develop something that will do CAS even better.

In my opinion, the F-35 is a total FUBAR disaster. The wild weasel mission will be done with UCAVs in the future. Recon will be a UCAV mission in the future. CAS should be a turboprop or a next-gen A-10 mission in the future. Deep strike should be a next-gen bomber mission in the future. Building the F-35 is like building the P-47 in 1955, by the time it ever becomes operational, it will be long since obsolete.
Click to expand...

Wow, didn't think anyone else had as high an opinion of the Skyraider as i do...

Or as low an opinion of the F-35.

Just picture what that thing is going to do to the Canadian Forces?
 
Night runs are WAY better
Click to expand...

Can't the same be done in daylight using a laser designator?

you can't drop 500-pound JDAM because something across the street might get damaged
Click to expand...

So, build smaller guided munitions.


From Broncazonk's account, I submit that a good CAS solution for the future would be a platform that's persistent, cheap enough to be deployed in large enough numbers that, say, every few km2 has a platform assigned to it. The platform would be under fire control by the ground troops in that area. They designate the target, point a laser at it and give the platform a fire command. It's then up to the platform to get into firing range ASAP and drop a guided bomb.

The platform can be manned or not, doesn't really matter. It can loiter at whatever altitude; if it's higher, it can cover a larger area, using glide bombs with a reasonable cross range.

IMO that would be a much better solution than sending a slow, vulnerable gun platform into whites-of-their-eyes range of the enemy.
 
Thanks a lot, your input was very helpful.

Broncazonk said:
Gun runs are VERY accurate. The gun sprays bullets in a big circle that gets smaller--there are lots of sparks--and foot thick solid concrete walls are literally vaporized.
Click to expand...
So the tactic is to saturate the target with as much ammo as possible? F-35 having a smaller magazine than F-15/16/18 probably won't help here. If firing say 100 round burst, there is big difference between 500 and 180 round magazine.

Broncazonk said:
They would pull out from a gun run at about 1000 to 1,500 feet--usually.
You always want plunging fire to prevent hitting things downrange. I once saw a Cobra shoot a couple of rockets that went way too high (and down range for about a half-mile) and they blew up a house. (Those guys got in trouble.)
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense, especially in urban areas. Have you ever heard of a fighter slamming into a ground or mountain?

Broncazonk said:
At night or during daylight only? Both. Night runs are WAY better because you can illuminate the target with IR beams. It's like shining a Q-beam at house only it's totally invisible. You need night vision to see it. It makes EVERYTHING so much faster and easier to do--everybody paints it and then they shoot it. It takes the error out--they shoot that spot.
Click to expand...
How are friendly troops identifed at night?

Broncazonk said:
How are targets identified? (1) When you got a bunch of guys that are shooting at you, (2) and they can't run away (because you got them trapped,) (3) but it would be a giant pain in the ass to go in there, (4) and you can't drop 500-pound JDAM because something across the street might get damaged--you shoot those guys with 20mm.
Click to expand...
I guess I meant from the point of view of a pilot. Does a pilot get a picture of the target, gps coordinates, or is the pilot simply told to target 3rd house from the corner? I am guessing here that pilots at 5000+ feet have difficulty seeing gun fire.

Broncazonk said:
Jets NEVER show up with MPADS around. Are you kidding me. That's hilarious.
Click to expand...
Do you know if this applies to A-10? My understanding is that A-10 can afford to take a chance with MPADS (armour, 2 engines, ...).
 
sublight said:
Broncazonk, wouldn't a Kamikaze micro UAV be the optimal solution for the scenario you described above? If the point is to minimize collateral damage while minimizing the latency of the strike, then wouldn't it appear that strafing is obsolete and Kamikaze's are the answer (see video below).
Click to expand...
It seems to me that this capability is already here. B-52 can stay at 40,000 feet for quite a while. It should not be too much trouble to update it to carry SDB, which is really a small kamikaze UAV with a tiny warhead.
 
When I was doing it, the JDAM couldn't see a laser. It's only been in the last three or four years that a JDAM could see a laser. Helicopters are 10,000 times better at this stuff than jets. Cobras and Apaches can get lower, slower and can hover. A lot of the time shooting something at exactly the right angle is critical and helicopters can do that. The Hellfire is wonderful. It's awesome to behold.

When it comes to CAS, it's way better having 14 A1-Ds (or some kind of turboprop) that costs $10 million each because they go low and slow and are always close at hand rather than having 1 platform that costs $140 million and is a stealth jet. For some mysterious reason, $140 million jets are never around. They are never overhead.

Helicopters are ideal in many ways for CAS, but they are always running out of gas--I mean always. About 90% of the time, the moment--I'm talking the second they come on station--you get a call saying they can only hang around for 10-minutes because they're about to run out of gas. They can do a hell of a lot in 10-minutes though. Hellfires are wicked.

Bronc
 
So the tactic is to saturate the target with as much ammo as possible? F-35 having a smaller magazine than F-15/16/18 probably won't help here. If firing say 100 round burst, there is big difference between 500 and 180 round magazine.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The gun fires in about 1/2 to 1 second bursts. They don't stay on the trigger for over a second. But a hell of a lot of rounds are fired in that second. It's amazing.

That makes a lot of sense, especially in urban areas. Have you ever heard of a fighter slamming into a ground or mountain?
Click to expand...
That never happens. The pilots are scary good. Helicopters crash a lot, but not jets

How are friendly troops identifed at night?
Click to expand...
IR strobes and IR flares

I guess I meant from the point of view of a pilot. Does a pilot get a picture of the target, gps coordinates, or is the pilot simply told to target 3rd house from the corner? I am guessing here that pilots at 5000+ feet have difficulty seeing gun fire.
Click to expand...
It's a pain in the ass for everyone, that's why it takes so long. Marines work off of map coordinates. Airforce FACs work off of GPS coordinates. Jet pilots work off of GPS coordinates. The DASC does the conversion from map coordinates to GPS coordinates. Everybody around the target has to give their position, and somebody will always miss that call so you have to wait until they track them down, and when its really confusing all friendly forces pop the same color smoke--except somebody always pops red smoke instead of green smoke because they forgot to carry green--and then you have to wait until they figure out who popped the red smoke, and why--and meanwhile the bad guys have long since run off. Jets are a pain in the ass when it comes to CAS, I'm telling you. You need turboprops and helicopters to do it, somebody low and slow that can see you, who can see what you're talking about, and is reading map coordinates instead of GPS. (Everybody carries their own Garmins, but ground operations are still based on map coordinates instead of GPS.)

Do you know if this applies to A-10? My understanding is that A-10 can afford to take a chance with MPADS (armour, 2 engines, ...).
Click to expand...
Nobody ever comes around when the morning intel report reads: MPADS. The sky is clear. There will be no CAS until the spooks buy the MPADS back from the enemy. Half of what the CIA does is buying MPADS from bad guys. The Russians wanted to do to us in Iraq what we did to them in Afghanistan a`la the Stinger. But the CIA established a purchase (buy-back) program with tribal elders and leaders, smugglers, the former Iraqi army and insurgent leaders complete with bonus incentives to get them out of circulation as soon as they came in. Anyone that wouldn't cooperate got a visit from special forces operators. (It was an incredibly successful program--very expensive--but incredibly successful. The only MPADS losses we took were coordinated by Russian spooks. Russian manufacturing reps arranged to have a new product test shot at our aircraft, but we only lost two helicopters and one Iraqi helicopter before we got that shut down.) If the spooks can't buy them back, the special forces operators get involved. If the special forces operators can't find the guys, the area gets marked off. Nobody flies below certain altitudes when MPADS are marked on the map.

Bronc
 
Bronc, thanks for enlightening us. A lot of us can make technical guesses, but the operational aspects are totally unfamiliar.


Your comments about RPGs and Hellfires made me think of APKWS. It's supposedly precise enough to go through the right window, and should contain collateral damage reasonably well.
Too bad about Helos having low time on station...a Cobra could easily carry two dozen APKWS, but what use would it be if you can't hang around long enough to shoot them at pop-up targets?
 
AdamF said:
It seems to me that this capability is already here. B-52 can stay at 40,000 feet for quite a while. It should not be too much trouble to update it to carry SDB, which is really a small kamikaze UAV with a tiny warhead.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of mission that the "small smart bomb" program that evolved into the SDB was designed for. Unfortunately, during the long evolution to what we now know as the SDB changes were made. Wings were added for a standoff capability, etc. By the time the SDB was fielded, its software did not allow for the kind of approach to the target needed for low collateral strikes in urban environments. Only recently was the software updated to change this.
 
Broncazonk said:
Marines work off of map coordinates. Airforce FACs work off of GPS coordinates. Jet pilots work off of GPS coordinates. The DASC does the conversion from map coordinates to GPS coordinates. Everybody around the target has to give their position, and somebody will always miss that call so you have to wait until they track them down, and when its really confusing all friendly forces pop the same color smoke--except somebody always pops red smoke instead of green smoke because they forgot to carry green--and then you have to wait until they figure out who popped the red smoke, and why--and meanwhile the bad guys have long since run off.
Click to expand...
That is crazy! And an awful waste of time.
But the CIA established a purchase (buyback) program with tribal elders and leaders and smugglers and the former Iraqi army and insurgent leaders complete with bonus incentives to get them out of circulation as soon as they came in. Anyone that wouldn't cooperate got a visit from special forces operators. (It was an incredibly successful program--very expensive--but incredibly successful. The only MPADS losses we took were coordinated by Russian spooks. Russian manufacturing reps arranged to have a new product test shot at our aircraft, but we only lost two helicopters and one Iraqi helicopter before we got that shut down.)
Click to expand...
Fascinating, I have never heard about it. Makes sense to pay quite a bit to save a multi-million dollar plane or helicopter. The fact that it works also says something about the enemy's organization (or lack of).
Click to expand...
 
The fact that it works also says something about the enemy's organization (or lack of).
Click to expand...

If we would have kept the Iraqi army intact (and employed) instead of snapping their swords in half, ripping off their buttons, and sending them home, the insurgency would have been 1% of what it became. We lost Iraq right there--with that one decision. It was so stupid. Even during the very worst of it, the insurgency was 10% hard-core fighters and 90% guys trying to earn a living by shooting at us and planting IED's. If we had kept the Iraqi army intact THEY would have sorted that 10% out for us. Stupid decision by Paul Bremmer and the CINC.

Bronc
 
AeroFranz said:
Bronc, thanks for enlightening us. A lot of us can make technical guesses, but the operational aspects are totally unfamiliar.


Your comments about RPGs and Hellfires made me think of APKWS. It's supposedly precise enough to go through the right window, and should contain collateral damage reasonably well.
Too bad about Helos having low time on station...a Cobra could easily carry two dozen APKWS, but what use would it be if you can't hang around long enough to shoot them at pop-up targets?
Click to expand...


Plus, APKWS is cheap, can take advantage of our existing 2.75"/70mm inventory, is suitable for use against moving targets and doesn't do that pop-up maneuver at the end which is great when shooting tanks but problematical in an urban environment (do all Hellfires still do that, BTW?).

AH-1Z can carry 14 or 38 of them.

It is also adaptable to the 5"/127mm Zuni, but naturally you can't carry as many.
 
Jet-supplied CAS in urban terrain is more difficult (and very different) than CAS in the country where there are no civilians or infrastructure to worry about. You still have the friendly fire prevention protocols, but things are much looser out in the country.

The other thing I forgot to mention. When jets are supplying the CAS, everybody's primary focus and concern is preventing friendly fire (having it come down on you, or a bunch of innocent goat farmers) and preventing collateral property damage. An airforce FAC is essentially a "mission safety officer." To a FAC, killing the enemy comes in a distant second to ensuring everybody's safety. And as ironic as this sounds, to a FAC, saving your ass is secondary to saving your ass safely. On the other hand, when helicopters are providing the CAS, everyboy's focus and concern is on killing the enemy, because the helicopter can see you, they know right where you are, they know exactly were the enemy is, and more often than not, the helicopter is directly overhead and the only danger is coming from spent 20mm and 30mm shell-casings that are raining down on your head.

Bronc
 
Broncazonk said:
saving your ass is secondary to saving your ass safely.
Click to expand...

Compare World War 1: "It is better to take 10% casualties by crawling right up the arse of your own rolling shrapnel barrage than it is to take 50%-plus from losing the barrage and blundering across an un-suppressed machine gun."
 
Here's another thing about CAS that's important to remember: It's all a matter of perspective. If you're a grunt, you want your CAS to actually be CLOSE. Air support is best delivered low and slow and methodically over an extended period of time. Attack from CLOSE air tend to freeze the enemy in place--it pins them down. 90% of the time, the enemy vapor-locks, they go quiet and passive and try to hide when the helo that just rolled in on them is still orbiting overhead. The 10% of the time they are still shooting, they are always shooting at the helo. Pinning the enemy gives you time to make whatever move you need to make--either in (and around) or out. Helo gunships are fearsome things and they are hunters in their own right--they live to hunt--and they are flown in a super aggressive way. Anyway, CAS should to be low and slow and methodically delivered from the perspective of the grunt.

Now if you're a jet pilot, you want your CAS to be high and fast and in a "UPS package delivery" short amount of time. Being high, going fast, and exiting in a hurry are the hallmarks of jets. They are hard to bring down for exactly those reasons. Attacking from on high means dropping a JDAM 95% of the time, and either it obliterates the target, or the enemy runs away. A JDAM doesn't freeze the enemy, it doesn't pin them. From the enemy's perspective, all of a sudden there is a giant explosion, and if you're still alive you will hear the jet leaving--within a couple of minutes after the drop the jet always leaves--so if you are still alive, that means you are fleeing the scene. But 99% of the time we don't want that, that's a bad thing, because now we don't have time to make a move on them. You always have to get everybody together and pull everyone back 300-yards (if you're in the open) and 200-yards (if you have a wall or a house to get behind) before the jet will release the JDAM (even a 500-pound one.) So right after the call (and the dust settles) everybody has to take off running to get an angle on anyone that's still alive before they run off. (Assuming they didn't already run away 30-minutes before the drop when everything got suspiciously quiet.) And it almost never works out, either the bomb got 'em or they run off before you get a chance to get around on them. When a helo is doing it, he's helping you move into position (either protecting you or distracting them) so when the hammer falls you are already in position and set, waiting for whatever comes running out. And let me tell you something fellars, there ain't nothing like seeing the enemy in the open when your ready for that to happen. That's better than sex.

Did I explain that right? Do you see the difference between the two?

Bronc
 
Yep, that's very clear. I for one hadn't realized the importance of suppressive fire.
 
Pity we never built the BA SABA, just what we need right now. We have been fighting far longer in Afghan than WW2, we developed lots of new kit then, why no new SABA type aircraft? BA have the design, get it in production, build them by the hundred and get them in the air 'cab rank' style.
 
To put it bluntly, all the money was spent on overhyped drones and the like.
 
Sure sounds like this Bronc argues for a Canard Rotor Wing (CRW) CAS uber chopper..going technically backwards w/ A-10, SABA etc. and surviving in High Intensity Conflict/Airland, Anti-Acces etc. where SOF can't touch the MPADs would be graveyard...Even mounting F-35s Distributed aperture and DEW countermeasures on old tech would not survive. However, restarting Boeing Dragonfly w/o siginificant procurement reform the creature would cost $280m..when will folks focus on the reforming the requirements & procurement system?

Thing would likely need to carry 4-6 troops as well..
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom