The Battle over Fire Support: The CAS Challenge and the Future of Artillery
Traditionally, maneuver units are designed for mobility and control of the ground, while supporting forces (artillery, aviation) deliver fires to protect the former and ensure their freedom of action.
As a result of the introduction of mobile artillery in the XVIIIth Century, and even more so with the development of an effective tactical aviation, fire support has played a crucial tactical role in the major conventional conflicts of the XXth Century. No longer subject to the marginalization imposed by the nuclear era, fire support has now come to the crossroads: while Close Air Support often proved decisive during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, practical experience has nonetheless shown that artillery and mortars remain essential. The future of fire support will therefore depend on both budgetary constraints and strategic considerations: armed forces will have to define a new joint balance that takes into account the various components of fire support and is politically and financially sustainable.
Available in:
Regions and themes
ISBN / ISSN
Share
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
The Battle over Fire Support: The CAS Challenge and the Future of Artillery
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programsFind out more
Discover all our analysesFury from the Skies. A Strategic Analysis of Air Campaign against Iran
What is the outcome of Operations Roaring Lion (RL) and Epic Fury (EF), launched by Israel and the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026?
Finland: The Ally Who Came in from the Cold
Among all European countries, Finland is perhaps the one whose strategic culture and military model have changed the least since the end of the Cold War. Built after the end of the Second World War to deter a potential new Soviet invasion, this model enabled Finland to serve as an example of European rearmament.
Stability under Pressure. A Pakistani View on Nuclear Deterrence after Pahalgam
The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam attack has generated a familiar but incomplete debate: did nuclear deterrence work, or did it merely allow both sides to fight a limited war under the nuclear shadow? The better answer is that deterrence worked at the level at which it was designed to work. It prevented a general war and an uncontrolled vertical escalation, and kept nuclear weapons in the background. But it did not prevent India from attempting to carve out space for conventional action, nor did it prevent Pakistan from responding conventionally to restore deterrence credibility.