# CRV7 Rocket Pods



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jan 2008)

Just wondering if we are still using them?


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2008)

Some in inventory packed away...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jan 2008)

So I assumed they are no longer used and our air crews are no longer being trained on them?


----------



## Zoomie (4 Jan 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So I assumed they are no longer used and our air crews are no longer being trained on them?



Don't think so - anyone know if the Hornet uses CRV's?  Since Tracker and CF-5 are gone and our -146's don't have them mounted, no other airframes use them.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jan 2008)

YUP, i have several pictures of 18s letting off volleys of CRV-7s

as much as i hate CASR

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-cf18-crv7-rocket.htm


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Jan 2008)

I controlled CF-18s in Pet in 1995 in support of the BC's Fire Planning Course.  Fired a couple of pods of CRV-7s into Area 7...


----------



## Bandit1 (4 Jan 2008)

Not sure if they're the same rocket, but this is from a training run out at 4 Wing from a couple of years ago...

How to make 300+ rockets disappear

Bandit


----------



## childs56 (5 Jan 2008)

When I was working on the Hornets the rockets were put away. 
They were talking about training with them again.
Who knows they may come back if we ever get into the CAS.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2008)

In the current context, using PGMs is better for CAS , but thats just IMHO


----------



## h3tacco (5 Jan 2008)

I had the chance to visit Magellan (formerly Bristol), Winnipeg just over a year ago. They manufacture the CRV7. They said that the CF was no longer purchasing the CRV7 but that RAF was still buying them and using them on harriers and apaches in Afghanistan. They did mention that they are developing (or already developed) a guided CRV7 that they were selling to some Nordic country to mount on ground vehicles (something like that at least). And were working on trying to sell a guided CRV7 to the CF for a number of different fleets (jets and helos).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2008)

I never considered the PGM approach before. Thanks.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jan 2008)

That's not to say there isn't a place for std munitions, though.  They can be "precision" (or precise enough for the task) depending on the tactical situation. 

G2G


----------



## childs56 (5 Jan 2008)

They were talking about bringing them back into the training system for the Fighters. 
I think they needed to focus the training elsewhere. 

As for accuracy, our pilots have seemed to be able to drop a dumb bomb where ever you wanted. 
Guided munititons have their place. They also cost lots, if you can use a few cheap rockets in place of PGM then why not. 
This fascination of PGM only ordanance has me worried that we will loose the art of killing and having skill at doing it. A pilot with PGMs has to line up a cross hair on a moniter to drop a bomb, as opposed to dive bombing in on the target and seeing what they are hitting with their own eyes.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2008)

I did not say we should use PGMs 100% of the time. What i said was "current context"

Blue-on-blue is not acceptable and neither are civilian casualties. In operations in the sandbox, IMHO, using unguided munitions on an ennemy that is amongst the civilian population is not the best way to go. There is a place for unguided munitions of course.

"losing the art of killing" because pilots dont see the target with their own eyes ?

I never see my targets. They are under water and out of sight. Are you saying i'm not skilled at killing the bad guys ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2008)

I am in the OPS Room we never see our foes either...


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator, yup, always a time and a place for non-PGMs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2008)

Could they be fitted on the CP140?


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jan 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Could they be fitted on the CP140?



Yes they could. Its designed for that as long as the wing pylons are installed.


----------



## childs56 (6 Jan 2008)

Its a little different if your on a ship taking out another ship/missle/aircraft. As opposed to taking out a group of enemy who are now attacking a Company of your own troops. 
PGMs will have their place, 
Seeing a target has it's place. As for a pilot seeing his target and visually identifying it is of the utmost importance. 
When you use sensors, echo beacons, IR to identify, targets some times those targets do not look the same. 
Then there is the cost, A PGM  would cost lets say $200,000 as opposed to $50,000 for a dumb bomb. (note prices may not be accurate but do reflect the price gaps). 

The argument can be made that PGMs can be used to prevent collateral damge, so can dumb bombs if used properly.  Not in all situations but in lots. 
There is no right or wrong answer here, every sitiation is different. 
I do know one thing leashing a salvo of rockets at me from a Hornet sceaming down on me would deifnalty keep my head down and pissing my pants. As opposed to not seeing the airplane and then seeing some one blow up. Then it becomes a chance not a reality.. 
Phsycological effects of CAS can have greater consequesnce then the actual bombs themselves. 

Fire and forget is just that everyone forgets.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jan 2008)

CTD said:
			
		

> When you use sensors, echo beacons, IR to identify, targets some times those targets do not look the same.



Really ? i didnt know that 



> Then there is the cost, A PGM  would cost lets say $200,000 as opposed to $50,000 for a dumb bomb. (note prices may not be accurate but do reflect the price gaps).



Absolutely right. But when the job gets done with one PGM instead of a larger number of unguided munitions, your point is not always valid.



> There is no right or wrong answer here, every sitiation is different.



Agreed



> I do know one thing leashing a salvo of rockets at me from a Hornet sceaming down on me would deifnalty keep my head down and pissing my pants. As opposed to not seeing the airplane and then seeing some one blow up. Then it becomes a chance not a reality..
> Phsycological effects of CAS can have greater consequesnce then the actual bombs themselves.



Agreed on the Phsyc effects. However the reverse is also true. One could say that there is a huge effect on enemy troops when they know that out of nowhere, their world can just turn into a fireball without warning. Being killed by an enemy you cannot see and thus not fight back is just as demoralizing.


----------

