Control the Air
On the ground with Marines in Afghanistan, the author sees a different side of close air support.
- By Ed Darack
- Air & Space magazine, September 2008
(Page 4 of 8)
As Pasnik refocuses his attention on one of his radios, pieces of this seemingly chaotic puzzle click together for me. In order to transmit all relevant information to an attacking aircraft, ground controllers use a standardized set of instructions, the “Nine-Line Brief.” The brief details the nine points of information required by pilots tasked with close air support, including target descriptions and locations of enemies and friendlies. Once an aviator reads the information back, the ground controller will issue the “cleared hot” call, granting permission to release ordnance.
Just as Rashman completes his brief, Smoke 21 rolls in; the pilot immediately confirms the information. Rashman’s voice booms out of the Coyotes’ monitoring radios: “Cleared hot.”
Smoke 21 dives and the roar of twin jet engines reverberates in my chest. A hundred-yard wall of roiling fire vaults skyward as six 500-pound, Mk82 bombs slam into the ground. Smoke 21 banks hard away from the conflagration—and barrel rolls. The FiST erupts in cheers. The rattle of .50-caliber machine gun fire resonates from tanks that have taken positions in the hills around the target, 81-mm mortars begin slamming the target anew, and the infantry swarms over its goal.
“That,” Pasnik says, “is how CAS is done.”
The Chaos of Anaconda
By all accounts, one of the great successes of the war in Afghanistan was an unprecedented coordination of air power with special operations forces on the ground, who accompanied Northern Alliance fighters and designated enemy targets for air strikes. But when the military leaders of the Afghanistan campaigns attempted to combine special operations with conventional forces for large, coordinated missions, there were also failures.
Among the most visible breakdowns—and the most analyzed—was the confusion that jeopardized Operation Anaconda in March 2002. Planned to trap al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who had slipped away from the December 2001 battles in Tora Bora and who were hiding in eastern Afghanistan, Operation Anaconda was a weeks-long battle in mountainous terrain. It had been planned months earlier and always with the expectation of close air support, but no notification had been given to air commanders until five days before the battle began, and no system was in place to manage and integrate close air support requests.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »





Comments (3)
As long as there are wars there will be a need for Close Air Support, and Naval Gunfire Support. God Bless All ANGLICOS of The Marine Corp. Keep up the good work. Thank All of you for your service.
Posted by George Walker USMC RETD. on December 25,2008 | 12:01 PM
With all due respect to Air Corps in Europe the tactical use of CAS was developed extensively with aircraft from Marine squadrons at Cherry Point working with infantry from Camp LeJeune in preparation for landings in Japan.
As a FAC my training for Korea was similar to that of today plus cold weather at Pickle Meadows. Serving with the grunts was an enlightening experience for all of us. I was part of the Commander's supporting arms center: artillery, heavy weapons, Naval gunfire and air. In the Marines, coordination was key. We spent our time in the field the same as the rest of the battalion and kept plenty busy.
As reported in the article, it was the times I was most proud of.
Posted by Ed Law on December 25,2008 | 05:52 PM
The continuing and increased use of UAVs merely reflects the style of warfare that has evolved on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gaza.
But there may come a time when the deployment of large numbers of UAVs will be necessary. Although cruise missiles are faster, there are single purpose. Using drones offers reuse ability and the ability to dwell over combat areas.
But drones like any aircraft must take off and land. By using cargo planes as airborne aircraft carriers,they can be brought close to a target area conserving fuel.
By having the carrier launch the drones while traveling established air routes the element of surprise can be kept by "hiding the tree in the forest. "
An additional benefit may be gained by making using of the carrier's airspeed and the downfall of the drone as it's pushed out the back. This would allow use of ramjets or other engine technology that doesn't require costly turbines and their attendant maintenance costs.
Use of a retractable system to retrieve drones in flight may prove problematic. But having drones land where carrier landed would allow refueling and rearming thereby allowing a shuttle system to be put in place allowing for greater coverage over hostile areas where missile armed drones could substitute for fighter support.
Posted by david korkia on January 5,2009 | 08:00 PM