4 ms·

That question is too broad. It depends on the situation. If you know in advance where you're going to need the extra firepower (i.e. "we're gonna take that vi

That question is too broad. It depends on the situation. If you know in advance where you're going to need the extra firepower (i.e. "we're gonna take that village over there") then you set up artillery. It's accurate gets where you need it quick, is cheap and can't be shot down en-route. If you are fighting a war of occupation and patrolling basically everywhere and don't know where you'll run into a fight then you need some way of getting your extra firepower to the ground units that need it. This is traditionally handled by fixed and rotary wind aircraft carrying bombs or air to ground missiles. I'm unaware of surface to surface missiles being used in this role.

eaandkw 7y ago
Surface to surface missiles are basically just indirect fire. I believe that the Army's MLRSs would qualify for IDF. The difference between IDF and direct fire is mostly to reduce collateral damage. Direct fire can be more accurate and limit damage to surrounding areas. It is also easier to hit moving targets with direct fire.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I don't know all that much about what weapons the US currently uses on the battlefield, but I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Also, wouldn't CAS be better handled by UAVs anyway? They're cheaper, they have much better payload-to-weight ratio, and don't put a trained pilot in harm's way.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Ground troops have a hard time lasing a target they can't see due to being pinned down in a ditch by a machine gun.
  - eaandkw 7y ago
    I think UAVs are great but not everyone is Type 1 CAS qualified. Someone could correct me but I think most UAV strikes are Type 2 or 3. A Type 1 CAS has to visually confirm the location of the target, friendly, and the approach angle. Most pilots, SF, and a lot of ground troops are but not all. And they are often not in a position to be able to confirm everything. Calling in CAS is a great responsibility in that you are accountable for every bomb or missile dropped.

eaandkw 7y ago

Surface to surface missiles are basically just indirect fire. I believe that the Army's MLRSs would qualify for IDF. The difference between IDF and direct fire is mostly to reduce collateral damage. Direct fire can be more accurate and limit damage to surrounding areas. It is also easier to hit moving targets with direct fire.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I don't know all that much about what weapons the US currently uses on the battlefield, but I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Also, wouldn't CAS be better handled by UAVs anyway? They're cheaper, they have much better payload-to-weight ratio, and don't put a trained pilot in harm's way.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Ground troops have a hard time lasing a target they can't see due to being pinned down in a ditch by a machine gun.
- eaandkw 7y ago
  I think UAVs are great but not everyone is Type 1 CAS qualified. Someone could correct me but I think most UAV strikes are Type 2 or 3. A Type 1 CAS has to visually confirm the location of the target, friendly, and the approach angle. Most pilots, SF, and a lot of ground troops are but not all. And they are often not in a position to be able to confirm everything. Calling in CAS is a great responsibility in that you are accountable for every bomb or missile dropped.