# Why no CF Air Power for A-Stan?



## Guest (3 Feb 2006)

I don't understand why we don't have our own Air Support for A-Stan.

I mean, we sent 12 Jets to Aviano, 28 To GW1

Is the AF so tapped we can't support 6 jets at Kandahar?  ???

Thats a very sad situation if true.


----------



## Bert (3 Feb 2006)

This article was released by the National Post.  

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=420aa1ba-bde0-4f0c-a369-080d17073b6b&k=67952&p=1


----------



## Guest (3 Feb 2006)

Thanks for the link.

All I can say is .. wow.. Thats depressing.. the Dutchies can send helo's AND F-16s..  sheesh....

So how the hell are we going to form the supposed 6 plane wing for oversea's support. (That's supposed to be available, on demand)

We really ARE on the brink, I guess.. I hope it's not too late to fix this..


----------



## 23007 (3 Feb 2006)

Word on the street around here is that the 6-pack still might be going...Just not as early as previously planned...


----------



## karl28 (4 Feb 2006)

Just a curious note from that article . I thought that it said that one of the reason they couldn't send the fighters was do to a lack of tankers ? I thought that the airforce had a major story either this summer or last summer that stated that they finally had two airbuses equipped with air to air refueling ? I thought that I read in our local paper the "Trentonian" but I cant remember for sure so i apologize about not having a proper source  just wondering if any one knew for sure about the tanker question?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Feb 2006)

First of all, the Dutch have only just announced that they are coming in significant numbers - and I will wait to see them get on the ground (and fervently hope I wont be here to actually see it!).

Secondly, niether Dutch not Canadian jets will be here until the FOD free taxi way is established - and we are some ways away from that.

Thirdly, ramp and hangar space are at a premium, and with ISAF expansion compounding the ongoing work on the runway, there is still many i's to be dotted, and t's to be crossed before we get to the point of committing air assets.

But what do I know - I'm just a grunt...

Dave


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2006)

The Canadian tanker issue while true for the moment is not the biggest issue, IMO.  As PPCLI Guy notes, the MOB is not in shape to accept folks at KAF yet -- I would see the Hornets going into Baghram if they did come over here in the near future.  I've walked the flightline at both Khandahar and Baghram and while BAF is relatively mature and in good condition, things operating from KAF need wither a robust particle separator for the engines (a la helos) or higher mounted engines...  I can't comment on the manning and equipment issues of a 6-plane Tac Air det, but continuous support to deployed operations eats up people big time and is not to be undertaken lightly nor underestimated in its difficulty.  As well, I think some folks perhaps not familiar with the Air Tasking process may not appreciate that having your own assets in theatre does not always equate to your troops always having first call...there is prioritization and preference to force package employment contained in the ATO (air tasking order), for example, if you are a CAS package, your support is directed when and where it's required...TIC (troops in contact), whomever they may be, will often get prioritized package support, followed by secondary/tertiary targets.  Our troops would actually have a higher likelyhood of having own-country aircraft support if aviation were deployed into theatre in direct support of the Canadian task force.  Sorry to the fast air guys if I've mangled the ATO/CAS issue too badly, but I think the flavour is right.  I think that a package of Canuck 18's is more buy-in towards the overall coalition effort and credibility of the CF than it is an issue for having Canadian CF-18's dropping munitions in support of Canadian troops...I could be wrong though.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## karl28 (4 Feb 2006)

Hey PPCLI GUY and Duey thanks for the info on the runway conditions I guess that would be a big concern with FOD last thing you would want is having something get sucked into an intake than you lose an aircraft.  Also PPCLI GUY I think a grunt would now allot more than me on any military matter I am just a BLODY CIVY  LOL  ;D


----------



## kj_gully (4 Feb 2006)

Does anyone think that our inability to provide our Airmen a proper Combat Search and Rescue response factors into this at all?


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2006)

No.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (4 Feb 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> You are right for now but you could be rong tomorrow morning.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (5 Feb 2006)

I think the new Artillery Gun is better air support www.sfu.ca/casr/101-artym777.htm


----------



## CBH99 (5 Feb 2006)

I just read the National Post article linked near the top, and I think it hints at a lot more factors being involved than initially meets the eye.

One thing that struck me was the issue of transport aircraft being available to fly in all the spare parts and support crews required to keep the CF-18 aircraft properly maintained.  Right now, the Canadian Forces are experiencing such a crunch in terms of available transport aircraft, the issue of needing several more available to fly in all of the required parts/crew seems very influencial.  I have an uncle who works as a weapons technician at CFB Cold Lake, and having had a couple of tours of his work space (He's assigned to 1 AMS) - the amount of equipment required to properly maintain the CF-18 is pretty expansive!  

A lot of people seem to think that spare parts and support crew are all that are required.  People tend to forget about the huge diagnostic computers (Literally 9ft high and 7ft wide), etc, etc. that are required too.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Feb 2006)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> A lot of people seem to think that spare parts and support crew are all that are required.  People tend to forget about the huge diagnostic computers (Literally 9ft high and 7ft wide), etc, etc. that are required too.



Yes, armchair generals abound in these parts  :


----------



## Garry (6 Feb 2006)

Duey,

Re: ATO/CAS- close enough...well said.

Re the article (link above) ...while I hate to agree with Lou (really really hate to agree), he too is close enough.

Danged shame that we're not sending the Hornets.


----------



## TCBF (6 Feb 2006)

"Danged shame that we're not sending the Hornets."

-I understand that after the First Gulf War, it is increasingly hard to find a host nation that would be willing to put up with the constant whining, and no, I don't mean the engines.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Feb 2006)

i remember an article on army news recently talking about trg arty FAC dudes, I wonder if this means they could deploy in the future?


----------



## TCBF (11 Feb 2006)

Considering the FAC types in the Wainwright Annex in September FAC'ed in a B1B  Lancer dropping live 1000 lb bombs, I'd say they had other options.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Q.Y. Ranger (13 Feb 2006)

Just curious, does Canada have any aircraft in Afghanistan. If so, what exactly is their role. If they do not, is there any reason why. Again, just wondering. 

Mike


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Feb 2006)

M. Sparks said:
			
		

> Just curious, does Canada have any aircraft in Afghanistan. If so, what exactly is their role. If they do not, is there any reason why. Again, just wondering.
> 
> Mike



Yes, CC-130 Hercs conduct tactical air transport (TAT) in theatre here to support OP ATHENA and other related ops.

Duey


----------

