Moving the Rhod. Fire Force concept to Afghanistan?

[Ken White]

I suggest what I am saying is how close the CAS target actually was. Not necessarily narrow escapes from off target ordinance.

So was I, no off target about it. Well trained and experienced troops did, can, will and do today put that stuff right on top of themselves (not a good plan for 8" / 203mm Arty).

The Cessna 337 was good for us in that it carried light ordinance that allowed effective delivery at very close safety tolerances.

Really?

LINK

[Ken White]

Here are the predecessor (the O-1, LINK), the successor (the OV-10, LINK) and the current replacement (the OA-10 CLINK) for that O-2 / 337.

Just as point of interest, that current jobby, serving in Afghanistan, is almost as maneuverable down low as the two Cessnas thanks to those huge wings and the big fans, is capable of carrying a far larger and more diverse weapon load and has all the mod cons including a titanium armor tub for the pilot and about twice the speed and range or endurance...

The Troops love it -- I mean the grunts, the infantry. It is the favored CAS bird, followed by the Apache, followed by the Harriers of the UK and USMC, then by all others.

[JMA]

Here are the predecessor (the O-1, LINK), the successor (the OV-10, LINK) and the current replacement (the OA-10 CLINK) for that O-2 / 337.

Just as point of interest, that current jobby, serving in Afghanistan, is almost as maneuverable down low as the two Cessnas thanks to those huge wings and the big fans, is capable of carrying a far larger and more diverse weapon load and has all the mod cons including a titanium armor tub for the pilot and about twice the speed and range or endurance...

The Troops love it -- I mean the grunts, the infantry. It is the favored CAS bird, followed by the Apache, followed by the Harriers of the UK and USMC, then by all others.

With aircraft like that and laser guidance there would have been much less need for a fire force. The recce guys or the pseudo team just sit off on a hill and mark the target and then sit back and watch the fireworks. The greatest improvement over what we had access to was the night flying and fighting ability. We could have done with that.

[JMA]

So was I, no off target about it. Well trained and experienced troops did, can, will and do today put that stuff right on top of themselves (not a good plan for 8" / 203mm Arty). Really?

LINK

Thanks for the clarification. Which of the fixed wing were able to provide the closest CAS?

Yes the little Cessna 337G which we called the Lynx was a sweetheart. .303 Browning Guns on top, 37mm SNEB and 18 gal Frantan (napalm) under each wing and we mostly had two of them around was all we really needed.



18 gal Frantan strike

[Ken White]

Thanks for the clarification. Which of the fixed wing were able to provide the closest CAS?

and only did CAS in an emergency. Of the two, the 0-1 was slower and thus able to do closer strikes. The OV-10 was a super aircraft, was also assigned as a FAC bird but had a useful load, was really maneuverable and was able to take care of many tasks with out calling in the big guys. Depending on the type rocket they had available, they could and would put some 2.75" warheads about 5 meters out.

Yes the little Cessna 337G which we called the Lynx was a sweetheart. .303 Browning Guns on top, 37mm SNEB and 18 gal Frantan (napalm) under each wing and we mostly had two of them around was all we really needed.

Was a good bird, yours were made by Reims in France under Cessna license. A few years later, when the US would not sell the Shah of Iran some O-2s for some obscure reason, he went to Reims and bought a dozen Lynx copies...

[baboon6]

and only did CAS in an emergency. Of the two, the 0-1 was slower and thus able to do closer strikes. The OV-10 was a super aircraft, was also assigned as a FAC bird but had a useful load, was really maneuverable and was able to take care of many tasks with out calling in the big guys. Depending on the type rocket they had available, they could and would put some 2.75" warheads about 5 meters out.Was a good bird, yours were made by Reims in France under Cessna license. A few years later, when the US would not sell the Shah of Iran some O-2s for some obscure reason, he went to Reims and bought a dozen Lynx copies...

The OV-10 was used in the dedicated attack role by the US Navy squadron VAL-4 in the Mekong Delta:

http://www.blackpony.org/

[Ken White]

The OV-10 was used in the dedicated attack role by the US Navy squadron VAL-4 in the Mekong Delta:

However, IIRC, they lost almost half the Squadron's birds to ground fire or accidents and had to buy replacements. Plus that was only one Squadron, 18 birds IIRC.. The Marines were the first to buy and they had two Squadrons, half OV-10A, half OV-10D, a dedicated night 'observation' variant with a 20mm M61 turret slaved to the FLIR. The Marines split the difference and used the OV-10A as a FAC bird that could do light strike and the 10D as a night attack plane.

The Air Force bought almost 200 and initially used the Bronc solely as a FAC Bird. Some FACs were more aggressive than others and those guys convinced a reluctant AF to let them to CAS missions. I think they ran a test of a dedicated squadron but ended up with most assigned as FAC aircraft. The hard charger FACs did more. People thing...

[jcustis]

I often wonder how much use of tracking is made of in wars these days and who does it.

We absolutely do use tracking techniques today, and in fact we took three knuckleheads in after tracking them across about six klicks from the point where they ditched their pickup truck carrying a metric buttload of opium. Now, it wasn't a fair track, as they were on foot, high on dope, and dehydrated, and our boys were in LAV-25s and dashing across open desert where the tracks were fresh and easier to follow, but the fact that the intel summary referred to the track as "spoor" warmed me a bit.

The Marine Corps has embraced mantracking concepts in its Combat Hunter program, and although it is not a overly detailed or wholly comprehensive approach to the business of tracking, it does the task enough justice to get the boys to thinking and acting in the right direction.

Basic tracking TTPs were taught when I was attending basic infantryman training as a PFC 18 years ago, and at some point it died out. Iraq and Afghanistan brought that back into vogue.

[JMA]

We absolutely do use tracking techniques today, and in fact we took three knuckleheads in after tracking them across about six klicks from the point where they ditched their pickup truck carrying a metric buttload of opium. Now, it wasn't a fair track, as they were on foot, high on dope, and dehydrated, and our boys were in LAV-25s and dashing across open desert where the tracks were fresh and easier to follow, but the fact that the intel summary referred to the track as "spoor" warmed me a bit.

The Marine Corps has embraced mantracking concepts in its Combat Hunter program, and although it is not a overly detailed or wholly comprehensive approach to the business of tracking, it does the task enough justice to get the boys to thinking and acting in the right direction.

Basic tracking TTPs were taught when I was attending basic infantryman training as a PFC 18 years ago, and at some point it died out. Iraq and Afghanistan brought that back into vogue.

Good to hear some guys out there are hungry to "close and kill". Well I hope it does not take long before the USMC at least has a healthy combat tracking ability up and running (their moto should be "who are those guys?"

And yes "sign" and "spoor" is what tracking is all about.

Heres some (very) old stuff on RURAL TRACKING OPERATIONS with some formations at the Appendices

Note: The referred 32Z was a rifle grenade. The idea of the trackers and their flank guards loading these fell away with time.

And some general stuff on combat tracking

[JMA]

However, IIRC, they lost almost half the Squadron's birds to ground fire or accidents and had to buy replacements. Plus that was only one Squadron, 18 birds IIRC.. The Marines were the first to buy and they had two Squadrons, half OV-10A, half OV-10D, a dedicated night 'observation' variant with a 20mm M61 turret slaved to the FLIR. The Marines split the difference and used the OV-10A as a FAC bird that could do light strike and the 10D as a night attack plane.

The Air Force bought almost 200 and initially used the Bronc solely as a FAC Bird. Some FACs were more aggressive than others and those guys convinced a reluctant AF to let them to CAS missions. I think they ran a test of a dedicated squadron but ended up with most assigned as FAC aircraft. The hard charger FACs did more. People thing...

What makes for a "hard charger" pilot? Those are the boys you need.

[Ken White]

What makes for a "hard charger" pilot? Those are the boys you need.

one Air force and one old Marine Aviator -- both fighter pilots -- agree that selection can only tell part of it; that combat experience (good or bad) can have impacts that are difficult to foretell; current in which one is serving Squadron leadership can make a difference either way; the aircraft being flown is important (the OV-10, for example was woefully underpowered and thus couldn't get out of trouble as easily as the O2/Cessna 337; and that the type of airplane one first flew operationally has a big impact. The Marine thinks that last two are by far the most significant, he contends there was a major difference in attitude (as opposed to capability, which was pretty much a wash) between Navy F8 and F4 pilots and between Marine F8 or A4 pilots and their F4 counterparts.

He also contended it was hilarious to watch an ex A4 pilot get the stick of a big fat F4 for the first time...

An even older Marine Aviator agreed and said he'd noticed a slight difference in attitudes and aggressiveness between Marine F4U Corsair pilots and AD Skyraider pilots during the Corps brief possession of a single Squadron of the latter in Korea. Both were great aircraft and really good for CAS but they had very different flying characteristics.

Today, there are significant political constraints in the US. Our Congress, to avoid having to respond to complaints about process, is insistent that all military selection processes be 'objective' and 'fair' -- both to the point of overruling operational capability if of not sheer idiocy. Aggressiveness today as a characteristic is more likely to be frowned upon than to find favor (We're in one of our 'nice guy' phases -- those come and go ). It will stay that way unless we get in a big war, then it'll go away totally until peace returns...

Probably one of the Board's airplane driver types can add more (certainly more current than the views of four ORFs, one of whom is dumb grunt ) and far better info.