Close Air Support Using Armed UAVs?
By Lieutenant Colonel Jay Stout, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)
Proceedings, July 2005
"I have seen our UAV force evolve from one that was principally an intelligence-collection platform in Bosnia to one that today has a very potent air-to-ground capability and represents a truly flexible, combat platform."
— Lt. Gen. Walter Buchanan III, U.S.A.F., U.S. Central Command
The demand for responsive, accurate, air-delivered fires for support of friendly ground forces is as great as it has ever been. The "smaller, lighter" forces being fielded today, while fast and maneuverable, typically lack the ability to deliver the overwhelming firepower of years past. At the same time, improvements in technology are producing new systems that in turn are enabling innovative tactics and procedures in the sky above the battlefield. More capable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are products of these new technologies as are Global Positioning System (GPS)-based weapons and navigation systems. Unmanned vehicles in combination with precision munitions have the potential to change the way we provide close air support.
The nine-line brief is the legacy "recipe," or standard, used by our tactical aviators to deliver ordnance when close air support (CAS) is required. Its basic elements can be traced back at least to World War II, and it is the result of an evolution in tactics and equipment that—if executed correctly—ensures air-delivered weapons are put on target in a timely manner without injuring or killing friendly forces. As the principal tool by which the Marine Corps employs its "airborne artillery," the nine-line brief is ingrained in the ethos of the service's fighter and attack communities.
Nevertheless it is a cumbersome procedure that is difficult to learn well; it demands thorough planning and constant practice—not only for the aircrews but also for the ground elements that they support. Getting the infrastructure and people in place for this practice is a challenge to schedules and budgets and never happens often enough. The following quote from a Marine F/A-18 pilot describes a close air sortie during a combined arms exercise. These types of remarks are not unusual:
At first, I couldn't even talk with the FAC [forward air controller]—we screwed around for twenty minutes trying to get comms. When we finally got the nine-line, we had to push the time-on-target back five minutes, then the marking round went out late and the FAC's laser designator wasn't working. I ended up going around on the first pass because the FAC couldn't see me. And then my wingie dropped his first bomb in the middle of nowhere. We ended up finally getting eyes on the target and killing it, but it was a friggin' circus.
The nature of the battlefield, the real-time coordination, and the necessary skills are such that close air missions seldom come off perfectly. Traditional nine-line close air support is a difficult and complex mission; the entire process can fall apart quicker than a vacation budget.
Putting aside all the vagaries and difficulties associated with traditional close air missions, in the end it all comes down to the pilot getting his eyes on the target, and the Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC)—previously called a Forward Air Controller or FAC—gaining visual contact with the aircraft and ensuring that the pilot is indeed pointed at the target and not at friendly positions. Only then can the controller clear the aircrew to employ a weapon. Without the controller's clearance, the pilot is not allowed to complete his attack.
In truth though, very few instances in recent conflicts have seen the nine-line brief used in its entirety. Rather, the situation and level of threat has permitted aircrews to park overhead and deliver their weapons as and when required. The brief often came down to something like, "Hey you, this is me. I'm here and the bad guys are over there. Come kill them . . . hurry!" Still, that very important precept associated with close air—that of the terminal controller establishing visual contact with the supporting aircraft in order to preclude fratricide—is held as a near-holy requirement. It is not without good reason; we are still killing friendlies—and non-combatants.
Nevertheless, recent developments in tactics, techniques, and procedures have begun to truncate or evolve the nine-line brief. Chief among these has been the fielding of the joint direct attack munition (JDAM) that uses the Global Positioning System for guidance to a set of target coordinates. Now there is no requirement for a pilot to get his eyes on the target. If the weapon is programmed with the proper coordinates and released within a prescribed delivery envelope, it will disregard clouds, smoke, foliage, precipitation, and other hindrances to vision and head straight for the coordinates, which had better be correct. From a theoretical standpoint, if everything functions correctly, there should be no requirement for the terminal controller to make visual contact with the supporting aircraft because the weapon can not go anywhere other than where it has been directed.
In much the same way, the new weapons also ease the problem of providing support at night when visibility is severely degraded, night vision devices notwithstanding.
AV-8B Harriers equipped with the advanced close air support system have already successfully demonstrated two-way digital close air support.
|
|
Two other technologies combine with GPS weaponry to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of bomb deliveries. The first is precise geolocation—the ability to determine a target location in three dimensions with a great degree of accuracy. Laser rangefinders in combination with GPS equipment are enabling ground units to fix enemy positions with a fidelity that was never before possible. This equipment is being fielded now and improved versions are in development.
The second enabling technology—a form of digital connectivity on and above the battlefield—has already been introduced as well. Available systems enable terminal controllers to transmit briefs digitally with a laptop-type computer/radio combination directly into the cockpits of appropriately equipped aircraft. These are two-way systems that allow the pilot to respond digitally to the ground request. The pilot does not receive just an instantaneously delivered digital message, but rather the aircraft's mission computers process the message, calculate the navigation and weapons solutions, and then present the data to the pilot. All that is required is that the pilot accept or decline the mission. No longer should the process be drawn out and plagued by inadequate radio reception, enemy jamming, garbled language, and poorly delivered or understood briefs. Most important, throughout the attack, the terminal controller still retains the ability to abort the mission if required.
Pages 1 2
