ARTICLE

April 2004

Fast Jets Not Ideal Choice for Close Air Support

by Roxana Tiron

Technologies such as unmanned aircraft and sensors can be strong “force multipliers.” There are instances, however, when modern technology hinders the work of special operators. One example is close air-support operations where high-performance jet fighters are coupled with forces on the ground.

“Fast moving aircraft are not designed to support ground troops,” said Army Sgt. First Class Frank Antenori. “As much as the Air Force and Navy would like to think that, fighter aircraft that travel at speeds can’t slow down to identify the targets,” he told National Defense.

The unit that Antenori led in Iraq was involved in a friendly bombing incident, in which 16 Kurds were killed and 45 were injured. His unit’s mission was to seize one of the main crossroads in Northern Iraq.

He said the Air Force A-10 attack plane and the Army Apache helicopter are the ideal platforms for close air support, best suited to SOF missions. Air Force F-16s and Navy F/A-18s are much too fast to be able to properly identify targets, he said. “The problem is getting the pilots at the altitudes and speeds that they are flying to be able to ID the targets,” he said.

A-10s and Apaches do a much better job, because they can move at a slower speed. “With fast movers, I never had any success,” he said.

Senior decision makers often become enamored of technology and fail to see the real needs on the ground. “They have this technical imperative that they have to get the next best toy on the market. I think that sometimes that comes back to haunt us.”

“The aircraft that we have are awesome, but they are too awesome, they are too fast, too high speed. The older technology, the A-10, is far better than the new technology,” Antenori said. “The A-10s never missed, and with the F/A-18s we had to do two or three bomb runs to get them on the target,” he said, recalling his recent experiences in combat.

Meanwhile, Antenori had much praise for the Javelin shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon, which automatically guides itself to the target after launch, allowing the gunner to take cover and avoid counterfire. Antenori’s unit had spent only 30 hours in training to learn how to fire the missile, “and it was worth the time,” he said. The first fired Javelin hit a truck at three kilometers much farther than expected, he said.

Imagery is key to the missions that Antenori and other special operators have to perform. The ideal situation would be to have updated imagery rather than old images retrieved from the databases of the defense mapping agencies.

“Before we went over the hill, if someone would have gone with a satellite and taken a picture and gave it to us—it would have been nice. That would be the ideal world,” he said. “Imagery is our big thing. All our missions, we base off imagery. Imagery is so important before we do hits.”

Persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities are vital for special operators. “Those are absolutely the key things, they give us the edge.”

A wide array of technologies that SOF units in the field have requested are being pursued at the U.S. Special Operations Command’s advanced technology office. Examples include a vehicle camouflage system, rugged PCs, color night vision sensors and navigation devices.

Operators are clamoring for lighter, longer-lasting batteries. “A third of the weight that [the soldier] carries is attributed to power sources and battery,” said Frank Wattenbarger, director of advanced technology at SOCOM.

Power sources must be capable of continuous operation with minimal thermal, electro-magnetic, acoustic or visual signature and operate effectively under water and underground, he said at a National Defense Industrial Association special operations conference.

SOF officials also are interested in robotics technologies. The command is looking to develop portable semi-autonomous and autonomous robotic systems.

Wattenbarger’s office spends much time identifying technologies that are ready to transition from the lab to operational use. For the 2006-2011 budget cycle, SOCOM has requested about 400-500 individual items—ranging from pick-up trucks to unmanned aircraft.

Funds in the 2005 budget support programs in fuel cells, all terrain vehicles, advanced composite ballistic protection, enhanced antennas and three-dimensional imaging systems.

Back To Top