Matrix Games Forums

However the question is what is CAS? You are all for the most part not really talking about CAS but Interdiction. CAS is bringing ordinence in the middle of a battle in on the front line troops of your enamy via air power. Hitting troops as they move into position or manever while not in direct contact is Interdiction. WW2 interdiction was very effective in Europe much more so than CAS.

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

However the question is what is CAS? You are all for the most part not really talking about CAS but Interdiction. CAS is bringing ordinence in the middle of a battle in on the front line troops of your enamy via air power. Hitting troops as they move into position or manever while not in direct contact is Interdiction. WW2 interdiction was very effective in Europe much more so than CAS.

I agree. Although it might be interesting to see some documents on what the Army considered CAS to be at the time. I suspect that as technology has advanced the concept of this mission has changed.

Until 5-6 years ago the services had different perpsectives on what CAS meant. [X(] We went more to a Joint definition after OIF I & OEF.

The TACP/FAC FAC (A) where first done during WWII in 43/44 I think in the PAC. Close CAS was conducted, but one of the biggest problems was geography with the small Islands. Okinawa is 30 nm acrross. If it takes 8-10 miles to control a flight in how many can run at once? The 3 division fronts in that small of a space would make it difficult to get them in while they where firing artillery and Naval Guns. The jungle,caves, terrain and weather did not help either. There was a request system in place to get the airborne CAS.

Korean War was when the Request system and C2 of it was put into place. The names have changed to get officers promoted, but the doctrine (basics) is still the same for all of the services. There was airborne CAS/XCAS and it was done quickly. I read a book about Chosin and the if I remeber right the Army/Marines/Brits/ROKA all agreed that CAS From TF 77/MAW/ and AF took out at least 1/3 of all chinese estimated KIAs[:'(]. Another third was the cold!


I totally agree that todays aircraft and bombs are much more effective at CAS. The TACP/FAC/JTACs on the ground providing the control also have much better means of marking targets. There are still problems. Officers get sold on systems and not training. As the ARMY gets bigger there is a concern in the AF that they may not have enough CAS aircraft to train the JTACs... Not trying to get into a a service fight here.

As my wife knows I love to argue!

[&o]
cutman

I would say the problem is that the airforces CAS platforms mainly the F-16 and A-10 are aging and that coupled with the US airforces production methods is the problem.

The US airforce tends to produce aircraft for a couple years and then once the order is met they stop production. The way the tend to keep those aircraft in service is by scraping older aircraft. (by the way the aircraft bone yards in Arizona are truely a phenominal sight, thousands and thousands of aircraft for miles and miles) This production style is starting to seriously limit A-10 activities as they are our best CAS aircraft but theere are only so many parts left. The F-16 not so much since its still being produced for export so spares are still being produced.

Instead of producing spare parts they use parts that were already in use? The US spends so many billions on their military and doesn´t have the money to order new spare parts? Must be a strange feeling if you´re flying such a bird that will be put together out of spare parts from 3 dozen aircraft that landed on the scrap yard.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Instead of producing spare parts they use parts that were already in use? The US spends so many billions on their military and doesn´t have the money to order new spare parts? Must be a strange feeling if you´re flying such a bird that will be put together out of spare parts from 3 dozen aircraft that landed on the scrap yard.

Yep that is exactly what they do. It's called 'cannibalizing' (rather appropriately) and they simnply take usable parts off of aircraft that aren't going to fly again, refurbish them, and put them back into use to keep other aircraft flying. Any plane type that has been out of production a while goes through this process...and all countries do this, its not just a US thing.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Instead of producing spare parts they use parts that were already in use? The US spends so many billions on their military and doesn´t have the money to order new spare parts? Must be a strange feeling if you´re flying such a bird that will be put together out of spare parts from 3 dozen aircraft that landed on the scrap yard.

Yep that is exactly what they do. It's called 'cannibalizing' (rather appropriately) and they simnply take usable parts off of aircraft that aren't going to fly again, refurbish them, and put them back into use to keep other aircraft flying. Any plane type that has been out of production a while goes through this process...and all countries do this, its not just a US thing.

I know that all contries do this. But I do understand it if Austria is doing this (I think we have some 5 dozen aircraft - ALLTOGETHER!!! it was a national outcry when we bought two dozen Typhoons, which were decreased to 18 later) as we´re not really spending a lot money on our military (below 1% of GDP). While on the other side, I find it strange if the country that spends the biggest amount worldwide for it´s military and which is involved in different wars all the time is relying on spare parts from scrapped aircraft.

You have to draw lines somewhere. If the U.S.A.F. did not migrate to new a/c (as painful as that can be), we'd still be ordering parts for P-51's. [:)]

Regards,
Feltan

It's economics, you can't keep production lines open forever... we aren't communists that can pay people to just stand around. [;)]

I believe the way it works is the AF tries to forecast how many spare parts they will need and produces that amount, rahter they plan to keep production open for so long. If they quess wrong, the plane's role changes or its kept in service longer than expected you're going to have logistical problems. The fact that these planes do stay useful and relevant so long and the fact that so many actually do stay in service is actually a credit to the AF. Clearly these aren't 70's Buicks we're talking about but extrememly sophisticated machines that require a lot of parts. Many of which have to be produced at facilities with security clearance.

It's my belief that UAVs, GPS and autonomously guided ordinance have only just begun to make their presense felt and some of these systems are going to find themselves very quickly obsolete.

Hey, when every hammer costs you $400 you damn sure are gonna cannabalize before ordering another $50,000 widget!

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I find the beaufighters and P39s to be very effective at 100 feet. Any second generation US fighter is great too as they have big bomb loads. Seems to work very well in disrupting units. If I have a major attack coming a large carpet bombing by 100+heavies and mediums seems to work. Also large attacks will usually break into two missions and attack two units.

Seems to work OK to me. 

100 ft? Could turn pretty fast into a disaster if there are a couple of base forces in the hex also... [:D]

Oh yeah.... I forgot to add not to try this with a base unless you are sure it is out of supply.. [:-]Units in the field get this sort of atttention.

ORIGINAL: flanyboy



P.S. On a side note there is one massive success that people never really talk about when it comes to vietnam. The gurrilla war was basically a clean cut victory for the US. The VC forces were so smashed during the TET offencive that after around 69 the war became more and more conventional. In fact the US essencially won the gurillia war, the problem was after 69 the NVA still had over 500,000 men and were training over 30,000 more men per year, so without an invasion of the north victory would not be attainable.

Good point...

One school of thought is that the Northern leaders fully committed the Viet Cong to the TET offensive knowing full well what the results would have been. The North who's true aim was to liberate and unify the entire country was wary of the Viet Cong's independence and feared a power struggle. The TET offensive served two purposes. It sorely crippled the Viet Cong and eliminated any sort of challenge to Northern leadership and it shocked and crippled American and world public opinion thus changing the course of the war. Militarily we kicked butt during TET but nobody really felt that the war was winnable after that. Stragetically, it was a significant victory for the North.

Man, talk about digressing.....[8D]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

It's economics, you can't keep production lines open forever... we aren't communists that can pay people to just stand around. [;)]

I think this also holds true for game patches as well....[:D]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

I still remember all the "we'll bomb them into the stone age" boasts by the UASF, along w/the over-estimated enemy casualties/body counts during Vietnam.

Doesn't really mean much to say "we'll bomb them into the stone age", when they pretty much were already living in the stone age.

LOL!

[/quote]

Joe I think you could say in your signature that it was the best fighter bomber of WW II and Korea if you wanted to.[:D]

It just occured to me that fratricide is the flip-side of CAS, esp. today when aerial ordnance is so "smart," i.e., lethal.

And I don't think fratricide is coded into the WitP/UV engines.

Honestly I still love Napalm even though we dont use it anymore... Thats to say we are not allowed to use that specific mixture but we still use a varient of it. Napalm might not be smart but you can bring it in closer than any smart bomb for one reason. No Shrapnal... We have lost many soldiers to smart weapons because the enamy was to close so the bomb's metal fragments hit both theirs and our guys. thats not to say napalm hasnt ever hit our own men, but you can bring it in closer safer.

Though napalm isnt a good weapon for urban fighting cause then the predictiblity of its explosion or coverage is much less and you risk hitting your own men. So Afganistan would be good for it, Iraq not so much.

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Joe I think you could say in your signature that it was the best fighter bomber of WW II and Korea if you wanted to.[:D]

Yes, since it was carrier capable, the Corsair was used during Korea, but F4U ryhmes w/WW II.

I suspect you're one of an elite few who recognized the Corsair in my signature is of Korean vintage, but I needed a good color photo of an F4U that wasn't copyrighted (this one came from Wiki).

The F4U was dubbed the "Angel of Okinawa" and the "Sweetheart of the Mariannas" by Marines on the ground who appreciated the Corsair's CAS.

Granted its the Airforce but the A-10 is today's beloved CAS aircraft. All my army buddy's absolutely love that thing, at least one of em has had his skin saved by a pair of A-10s.