CAS is a mission, not a platform.

So, Ron commented about the B-1 in the previous post: I can see the B1 being used in a strike role. But CAS? Not sure I would trust any high altitude jet dropping ordy for CAS. Rotary and A-10's are about the only platforms that I've heard the guys that have been there talk about.…

So, Ron commented about the B-1 in the previous post:

I can see the B1 being used in a strike role. But CAS? Not sure I would trust any high altitude jet dropping ordy for CAS. Rotary and A-10's are about the only platforms that I've heard the guys that have been there talk about.

There’s a technical DoD definition for CAS, but for our purposes, it’s accurate enough to say that any airstrike conducted under the auspices of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller is CAS. That is, if you get on the radio and call for an airstrike, it’s  CAS. And virtually every bit of ordinance expended in Afghanistan, and in Iraq from 2004 to 2007 was CAS. And while grunts absolutely love the A-10 and the Apache and Cobra gunships, the fact of the matter is, most CAS has been provided by fast jets using either JDAM  or laser guided bombs.  And the key here is, it doesn’t matter all that much which fast jet the bomb comes from. Indeed, the B-1B has several advantages over other platforms in this role. First, it’s really, really fast. It can get overhead faster than almost any other platform. Second, it has a really, really long endurance. You might be able to have an F-16 loiter overhead for 45 minutes. A B-1B might offer as much as four hours of loiter time.

And the B-1B holds a lot of weapons, and with the newest bomb racks, actually holds a wide variety simultaneously as well.  B-1Bs also use the same Sniper targeting pod as other aircraft providing CAS to our troops.

GBU-38_munition_explosions_in_Iraq

Via Wikipedia:Six GBU-38 munitions are dropped by a B-1B Lancer aircraft onto an insurgent torture house and prison in Northern Zambraniyah, Iraq, March 10, 2008. The munitions drop was cleared by a USAF JTAC from Fort Hood Texas, and deployed with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division.

In the 1990s, as B-1B crews shifted focus from the nuclear deterrence mission to conventional strike, they refined their capabilities. Even before they had access to JDAM and other guided munitions, they had demonstrated a Circular Error Probably of a single dumb, unguided  500lb Mk82 bomb against a radar significant target (a tank, as it were) of less than 10 meters. That is, just using radar, 50% of the time, the dumb bomb would land within 10 meters of the target. That’s better than any other platform in the Air Force. Heck, that’s better than the A-10’s gun!

Today, the B-1B fleet is equipped with precision weapons, a fantastic communications and command and control suite, and a community with literally a decade and a half of experience in providing Close Air Support to joint and multi-national forces.  On the downside, the B-1B fleet is still plagued with reliability issues for the airframe, and a very high operating cost compared to other platforms such as the F-16 or the F-15E Strike Eagle.

Overall though, it still provides a theater commander with a powerful tool to support the fight.

Tags:

Responses to “CAS is a mission, not a platform.”

  1. Esli

    Interestingly enough, I was within a couple miles of the strike pictured in the picture. This strike was done by 2BCT’s organic squadron while mine was attached to the same brigade. There were some amazing pictures of it, but I thought it was overkill. Note, the GMLRs that I finally got to you were sufficient to drop the structure with one rocket each. This was a similar structure a couple of miles away as the crow flies.

    Like

  2. timactual

    “Six GBU-38 munitions are dropped by a B-1B Lancer aircraft onto an insurgent torture house ”
    Six 500 lb. bombs. Must have been one yuuge house/prison. Tough luck for the torture victims/prisoners, but what’s a little collateral damage?
    Whether we like it or not money is a limited resource. Throughout history it has dictated how or even whether wars are fought. It makes my mind boggle when, at the same time the AF wants to retire the A10 for financial reasons, it wants to use the B-1 to replace it. Absurd.
    Speaking of collateral damage, it seems that hospital building destroyed in Kunduz last year was a case of mistaken identity; they destroyed the wrong building. And that is with those “overly restrictive” ROE.
    Question; is it still collateral damage if the intended target wasn’t even damaged? If so, just what is the actual difference between collateral damage and wanton destruction?
    http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/11/25/us-troops-suspended-kunduz-hospital-attack-top-general-says/76371506/

    Like

Leave a comment