# In Defence of the Air Force.



## Kirkhill (14 May 2006)

Unlike the professional members of this forum I only played at soldiers.  At least that is the way that I see my Militia service during the 1980s.  

However I did have an opportunity to go to Gagetown and take Phase III training along with the real soldiers: a rare privilege for a MITCP officer.  While there I learned a bunch of stuff, some inconsequential stuff like the weight of an FNC1A1 complete with sling, bayonet and 20 round magazine attached.  And some stuff of real value, such as when you aren’t sure pretend you are.  People want to believe that somebody knows what they are doing. (Dropped off along Shanks Road at 0 Dark 30 with my syndicate for a night navigation exercise,  fumbling with bindings on banger boards while everybody else has competently slipped into theirs and are now arguing about where the heck we are, stand up, lead off and say “Right, this way, so-and-so with such-and-such,  whatsisname stay with me.”  Got lucky.  Guessed right.)

Also discovered a rare phenomenon pertaining to the radio.  It had magical properties.  

The way the course was run syndicate leader got the radio.  Everybody else tagged along behind.  Last man invariably lagging, a long way from 5 metre spacing,  no clue as to where they were, moaning and whining as he went.  It seemed to be a requirement for the position.  Leader spends his time yelling come on keep up.


Change legs.

Last man gets the radio.  Ldr drops to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to Last.  He starts lagging.  The guy that couldn’t keep up without the radio, suddenly, magically finds that he is 40 metres ahead of the syndicate and in yelling come on keep up.  Miraculous.  

Later, I observed similar effects in the absence of the radio and concluded the magical result had less to do with the power of the radio and more to do with the power of responsibility.

On to the Air Force.

A lot has been said about the Air Force and its 48 fighter jocks and how they don’t seem to want to play with the Army or the Navy.  Some guys that do work with the Army and the Navy seem to think they might be better off changing uniforms full time.  Perhaps they might.

On the other hand perhaps the problem is that the Air Force brass has constantly seen its responsibilities taken from it.  Its lunch been eaten if you like.  That does not tend to make for happy individuals.

Perhaps the answer is NOT to take responsibilities away but instead to add to the responsibilities.  

Consider 4 circles

The Heartland or Settled Canada (cities, villages, farms, roads, railways and such)
Sovereign Canada (trackless wastes full of vast exploitable riches etc etc reaching out to whatever we can claim under law)
Lines of Communications with the Rest of the World (the high seas)
Expeditionary Canada (Canada the good saving the world from itself and scoring points in the process)

The Heartland can be reached by truck on high speed highways and there are people scattered all over the place that are willing to help.  Not much chance of being hit by a bullet so little need for armour and big guns but lots of need for bodies to help and control situations.  A great place for a Militia to help out the civilian authorities like the RCMP.  They need a little stiffening from full time soldiers and airmen, but the threats the face will either be large crowds poorly armed and organized or small bodies well armed and organized.  Both will be faced infrequently.  Part time soldiers to deal with the occasional emergencies and a small force of well-trained and available regs would probably get the job done.

Skip Sovereign Canada for a minute.

Lines of Communications – the high seas, blue water, the Navy.  Keeping pirates, slavers, drug runners, and illegal arms shippers at bay.  The traffic cops of the sea lanes.  Secondary function making sure that Expeditionary Canada gets to where it is going and comes back safely.  A job for the Navy with help from the Air Force in helicopters.  No long runways at sea.

Expeditionary Canada.  Boots on the ground in foreign lands.  Primarily and Army force with some Air Force assistance – for planning purposes it might be better not to count on having long hard runways and a secure fuel supply.  Better to assume that support is going to come from Helicopters and the Artillery. 

Now back to Sovereign Canada.  As in the Heartland the threat is likely to be small bodies, some well trained, some not so much.  They are also scattered over an incredibly large area.  Where in the Heartland the countryside is under constant observation from busybody neighbours and the local constabulary the sovereign lands are largely unobserved. The same is true of the approaches.  

Sovereign Canada demands constant observation and occasional response.  The response however can be anything from photographing a polluter, to rescuing a downed aircraft, to interdicting a foreign fishing/mining/smuggling operation, to occasionally dealing with armed individuals and groups that choose not to accept the governments authority.  To meet all these needs requires multiple capabilities.  These capabilities can be duplicated and scattered widely or else, with good transportation they can be concentrated and deployed as required.

This job, part of the job that Canada Command is being tasked with, seems to me to be ideally suited to the Air Force.  Satellites, Radars, Air Defence and Search and Rescue are all primarily their job now in any case.  Add in responsibility for a brigade of light troops configured for platoon/company operations in Canadian territory as well as the Rangers.

All of a sudden Air Force commanders now have to figure out how to deploy, maintain and support THEIR guys on the ground out of THEIR budget.  They have responsibility, authority and budget.  They would also have to learn how to fight a ground battle.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they didn’t start producing results that were more convivial to the Navy, the Army dominated Expeditionary Command and the Militia dominated Heartland division of Canada Command.

Heartland – RCMP with Militia and support from Army, Air Force and possibly some Navy
Sovereign Canada – Air Force with support from Rangers, Army and Coast Guard/Navy out to 200 miles
Lines of Communications – Navy with support from Air Force
Expeditions – Army with support from Air Force, Navy and Militia.

Just some thoughts from an amateur.

Cheers.

PS I apologize to Edward and others for the abominable english.  Momentarily exercised.


----------



## aesop081 (14 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Lines of Communications – the high seas, blue water, the Navy.  Keeping pirates, slavers, drug runners, and illegal arms shippers at bay.  The traffic cops of the sea lanes.  Secondary function making sure that Expeditionary Canada gets to where it is going and comes back safely.  *A job for the Navy with help from the Air Force in helicopters.  No long runways at sea*.



I says "pardon me !! "

I dont see too many navy ships out there at the edge of canada's AOR.  I certainly dont see any sea kings out there either ( domesticaly speaking).  Who do you supose is the eyes and ears of the navy ?


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2006)

So if I am reading Kirkhills post correctly, we will need to establish "Air Expeditionary Wings" with the organic transport, recce, C&C, helicopter and air combat power to support a battle group; either shuttling it around Canada or to the far corners of the world.

While in principle I am certainly for each Area/JTF being able to pony up an AWACS, J-STARS, Heavy and tactical transports, transport and attack helicopters and some A-10s to get me out of those difficult situations on the ground, etc, we will have to think very far out of the box to make this an affordable concern.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2006)

I guess my enthusiasm has made me incomprehensible.  ;D

What I am suggesting is that, starting with the Expeditionary Forces - they can't plan on having a runway available from which to launch fixed wing aircraft.  Therefore they should configure themselves around rotary wing support (manned and unmanned) and whatever artillery can bring to the picture.  Arty can now reasonably deliver 500 lb warheads out to 100 miles from the back of a truck.  They can also supply 20 lb shaped charge warheads out to 70 miles by missile.  In from there they can deliver more conventional fire support.

If a runway is available then the Air Force can contribute Fixed Wing assets like CF-18s and CP-140s.

For the Navy, operating on the high seas and delivering expeditionary forces, they too would probably better off continuing to rely on rotary wing support and, like the Expeditionary Force, if a runway is available then the Air Force can contribute.

However in both cases I think it is better to plan on not having something and being pleasantly surprised than vice versa.

Domestically I am saying I don't think that heavy weapons are likely to be used in downtown Toronto any time soon.  Small arms and riot sticks, trucks and field kitchens are more likely to be the order of the day, along with comms and recce gear.  That is where civil authority leads and will either require a large number of lightly armed or unarmed individuals or else specialist skills.

In the area of Canada where roads do not run, that is where I am suggesting that the Air Force should take the lead.  As it does just now in monitoring air approaches, and with the new NORAD agreement, possibly/probably the sea approaches.  It is also responsible for conducting aerial patrols over Arctic territory and the EEZ.  It is also responsible for recovering lost bodies and for shooting down incoming aircraft and/or ships.  All I am suggesting is that the Air Force should be given Opcon of a force of light army troops responsible for reacting to crises within Canada.  It would be equivalent to turning the Canadian Airborne Regiment over to Air Command and making Air Command responsible for deploying and supporting that force domestically.  The skills and capabilities learned domestically could then be put at the disposal of the Expeditionary Force IF CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT.

I am not arguing for a LFWA AWACS.  Or half a dozen expeditionary wings.

I am saying that by making the Air Force responsible for co-ordinating an Air Land capability domestically then they will learn, they will get credit when it is due and they might be more inclined to spend money on capabilities that ultimately will benefit the army based expeditionary force.  For example, providing rotary wing transport and fire support, FACs, you name it.


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I guess my enthusiasm has made me incomprehensible.  ;D



i have that problem alot



> If a runway is available then the Air Force can contribute Fixed Wing assets like CF-18s and CP-140s.



2  CP-140 Aurora aircraft will be designated for the SCTF



> For the Navy, operating on the high seas and delivering expeditionary forces, they too would probably better off continuing to rely on rotary wing support and, like the Expeditionary Force, if a runway is available then the Air Force can contribute.



The air force is already contrubuting.....who do you think provides the HELAIRDETS for all those shiny ships....


Kirkhill.....I recently took part in EX MAPLE GUARDIAN in Wainwright.  The army just disovered that an orbiting CP-140 is its new best freind.  I would say that the air force needs little "defending".....IMHO


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2006)

aesop081:

I understand that little of what I am suggesting is particularly new.  And if the Air Force doesn't need defending then great.


----------



## Trinity (15 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And if the Air Force doesn't need defending then great.



Well, except in bar fights.

As much as we joke about the AF, I think we all understand it plays
a vital role.


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2006)

Trinity:

The only folks who don't understand the importance of the Air Force are the fighter jocks - and they're the ones who run the Air Force.

Notice how the Air Force went whole- hawg into refurbishing the CF18s?  At the same time, did they push to renew the transport fleet?  No?  Didn't they know that the CC-130s were reaching the end of their flight hours?  Well, yes, but fighters are sexier.  And more macho.  (The fact that it's multi-engine pilots who have more operational flight time in high risk areas is a topic best not disucssed in Bagotville, Cold Lake, or CAS)

The Air Force needs about a decade of CASes drawn from the multi-engine, TacHel or Maritime Hel worlds to properly focus the institution.  Maybe, if they learn to play nice, we'll be able to trust a fighter jock in the job around 2020 or so - by which time it will be all UAVs for air-to-air, anyways.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 May 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Kirkhill.....I recently took part in EX MAPLE GUARDIAN in Wainwright.  The army just disovered that an orbiting CP-140 is its new best freind.  I would say that the air force needs little "defending".....IMHO



How effective is a CP-140 in comparison to something like the new British Astor Sentinels, and does the capability difference (as well as the existing responsibilities of the CP-140) justify a new expenditure in your opinion?


Matthew.


----------



## mover1 (15 May 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Trinity:
> 
> 
> Notice how the Air Force went whole- hawg into refurbishing the CF18s?  At the same time, did they push to renew the transport fleet?  No?  Didn't they know that the CC-130s were reaching the end of their flight hours?  Well, yes, but fighters are sexier.  And more macho.  (The fact that it's multi-engine pilots who have more operational flight time in high risk areas is a topic best not disucssed in Bagotville, Cold Lake, or CAS)



That is because the last two shooting wars the airforce had, they found out that the CF -18 was totally outclassed and obsolete, it couldn't keep up with its allies and the computing power inside one of them was equal to a Commidore 64. Those upgrades were needed post 1991 Gulf War..... Finally the fighter force got what it originally needed (an upgrade) and the initial leg work for this was probably done way before the TPT Fleet started showing its age.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 May 2006)

It would help if we just signed onto US-modernization programs for identical equipment from the outset and build them into our forward cash flows so we don't even have to debate the upgrades in the first place.


Matthew.


----------



## mover1 (15 May 2006)

Or instead of purchasing x amout of units at the same time. Buy small lots of equipment at regular intervals. Thus ensuring regular upgrades of equipment.


----------



## Bert (15 May 2006)

Though I'm trying to understand the intent of the thread, Iterator's post in another related thread is
a good one:



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> The article postulates that Army effectiveness is not an Air Force priority and therefore 1 Wing is not required as part of the Air Force - however, that whole line of reasoning can be ignored if you accept that Joint effectiveness is one of the priorities. If changes are required by the Army to have greater (or more effective) support from the Air Force, then better direction is required from the higher levels of the CF/DND.
> 
> I'm not saying that more direct control shouldn't be sought, but Air Ops are Air Ops, and all
> aircraft should be "Air Force". There is no need for an Amphibious Assault ship to be crewed
> ...



I believe alot of what Kirkhill is describing is not exactly within the control of the Air 
Force proper, but above 1CAD, including direction, strategic logistics, equipment 
prioritization, and acquisition.   Iterator's post make sense to me as Air Ops are air 
ops and domestic ops are better under the direction of joint consideration (without 
having a road map for the current elemental transformations).

Some issues are addressed in the deployability of air mobile support units, air 
expeditionary units, and maintenance of readiness levels that are tied up in the 
transformations today.  However, under differentconditions, one would need more 
facts to understand why its works or why it doesn't to portray the real situation.


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> How effective is a CP-140 in comparison to something like the new British Astor Sentinels, and does the capability difference (as well as the existing responsibilities of the CP-140) justify a new expenditure in your opinion?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



I respectfully decline to comment........sorry


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 May 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> It would help if we just signed onto US-modernization programs for identical equipment from the outset and build them into our forward cash flows so we don't even have to debate the upgrades in the first place.



Not possible; some of their equipment is US-only, and other equipment is designed for missions and capabilities that our higher levels see little use for.


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Not possible; some of their equipment is US-only, and other equipment is designed for missions and capabilities that our higher levels see little use for.



 :

The CF-18 upgrades is based on the USN's F/A-18C as somewhat described here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1602

and as much as i hate to use CASR as a source:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-cf18-3-2.htm

A more detailed search on google would have told you that. I guess one of your many duty stations wasnt the CF-18 upgrade PMO


----------



## mover1 (15 May 2006)

The Airforce has the knowledge and the experience to deploy anywhere any time. We just choose not to.

If the airforce has any short comings tactically. IE being able to deploy. one only has to look at the Air Crew and Ground Crew and the calibre of the people that wear the AF uniform. 
We Get to thank fine regiments like the PPCLI, RCR, Vandoo, ARTY and Engineers for sending us such gung ho airmen through the LOTEP program. They scream army for the first six months. but then after thier first deployment overseas in a five star hotel, we get to see the true blue in all of them.....

Right AESOP081


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 May 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> :
> 
> The CF-18 upgrades is based on the USN's F/A-18C as somewhat described here:
> 
> ...



My sources were the CF-18 pilots themselves.  Last I heard they were a better source than google.   :


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> My sources were the CF-18 pilots themselves.  Last I heard they were a better source than google.   :



I'll make sure to go ask tomorow...there's a half-dozen Hornet pilots downstairs.  I have to go talk to those guys anyways...between the CF-18s and the  E-3A's....there's way too much noise here lately  ;D


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Not possible; *some  * of their equipment is US-only, and *other equipment *  is designed for missions and capabilities that our higher levels see little use for.



Hopefully you can read as well; note the underlined portions.  When you go 'downstairs', to the DIAC I presume, make sure you talk with a pilot who's actually flown in a US aircraft.


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Hopefully you can read as well; note the underlined portions.  *When you go 'downstairs', to the DIAC * I presume, make sure you talk with a pilot who's actually flown in a US aircraft.



 ;D fair enough but i guess you dont know where the DIAC is........Wont find too many CF-18 pilots in the DIAC either.  "downstairs" would be transient ops...where the Hornet guys hang out.........


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 May 2006)

If you're in Comox I can draw a map from memory - I used to work down the hall from it on the way to where the Ops O was in my day. The T-birds were also down by Ops, the met guys had the office overlooking the airfield, and all the CP-140 flight crews had offices across the hall from us.  (That little room with the camera over the door).  Do they still do the 'photo of the month' contest for the aircrews?


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> If you're in Comox I can draw a map from memory - I used to work down the hall from it on the way to where the Ops O was in my day. The T-birds were also down by Ops, the met guys had the office overlooking the airfield, and all the CP-140 flight crews had offices across the hall from us.  (That little room with the camera over the door).  Do they still do the 'photo of the month' contest for the aircrews?



Well if thats the case you should know that my crew room is on the same floor as the DIAC, thus not needing to go "downstairs" to get to it.  I dont think we have the photo of the month anymore, i know its still done in CYZX, but since none of my pictures would win.....i realy dont care  ;D


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 May 2006)

I havent been there since 1997 so dont know how much the place has changed. From what you said I presumed the whole unit might have been moved upstairs to where the riggers and other tech guys had their work areas.


----------



## Loachman (17 May 2006)

There is a very good reason why there are generally three environmental services in most countries.

If you want a ground role performed very poorly, give it to the a** f**ce.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 May 2006)

Loachman:

Not arguing to give the Air Force the ground role.  Arguing to give the Air Force responsibility for a ground force (an Army ground force).


----------



## Loachman (18 May 2006)

Full marks for thinking outside of the box, but not a good idea this time.

Trust me.


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Loachman:
> 
> Not arguing to give the Air Force the ground role.  Arguing to give the Air Force responsibility for a ground force (an Army ground force).



Are you talking about something like the RAF Regiment? I have to confess I am having some difficulty understanding your argument, although another cup of coffee might help......

In my small Infantry mind, I see the Airforce as a delivery service (gets me and my friends there and back, brings on the bombs and rockets when things get hot), a support service (recce, surveillance, communications relays, AWACS, J-STARS, shapes the battlefield with deep strikes, etc.) and an umbrella (Combat air patrols). I am sure the Air Force members are amused at my inversion of their priorities, but there it is. 

I understand the concept of a Joint Force which integrates air and ground and sea elements under one command to carry out missions in particular environments, but this doesn't seem to be what you are arguing for either.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 May 2006)

a_majoor:

Think in terms of Germany's Fallschirmjager in World War 2.  They were not part of the Luftwaffe and were commanded by Goering.  The Luftwaffe delivered cargo, bullets, bombs and its own soldiers.  It was the equivalent of the making the Paras part of the RAF,  not the RAF Regiment which specialize in local defence.

I am not suggesting putting ground forces in blue uniforms at all.  I am suggesting that domestically where the need for ground forces is rare, widely scattered and can probably be handled by small numbers that it might make sense to put a Land Force unit (something like the old CAR or maybe a larger force), put it at the disposal of the Air Force and make the Air Force entirely responsible for first reaction to all crises in the Bush and the Arctic and, maybe, even the EEZ as well.

Give the Navy primacy on the High Seas, the Army in Expeditionary Force and maybe, just maybe, the Militia/Reserves in the settled parts of Canada.

That would make the Air Force and the Militia the dominant elements in CanadaCom, the Navy and the Army would be dominant in the Expeditionary Command.

On the other hand Loachman advises I am too far out of the box here, so I sit to be corrected. ;D

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 May 2006)

Further to my last:

After reading Loachman on Infanteer's 1st Wing thread I have a much better appreciation of his position.  Hard to argue against him.

Maybe though.....

After I finished a_majoor's question by suggesting the Luftwaffe/Fallschirmjager as a model, and also deciding that blue suited soldiers falling from the sky wasn't quite what I had in mind another model occured to me: Royal Navy/Royal Marines, or for that matter US Navy/US Marines

In both these instances, although arguments can be, were and have been made that the "soldiers" (apologies to BBJ and Greenlid) should be army types one of the advantages in leaving within the control of the Navy and the Air Force is that it encourages the parent organization to figure out how to support and deploy them and how to use them.

Although there is still internal tensions over budget and whether driving a troopship is a real command it is harder for the parent service to deny that the task of supporting and delivering a ground force is their responsibility.  Accordingly they, however reluctantly, pony up funds and personnel to support the task and, more enthusiastically,  fight the political fight alongside the Army to secure the funds from Treasury.  They also have the added carrot of being in command of a larger force with Army personnel under command,  such as in the Falklands where Admiral Woodward was in overall command, with Maj Gen Moore (RM) in command of Land Forces and Brigadier Thompson (RM) i/c 3 Commando Brigade with 2 and 3 Para attached.  This encourages the Navy to support the purchase of transports to deliver army troops with tanks and guns and stuff, to support their forces.

If you want jointery then make it jointery for all with two way streets.  

Or do it like the US Marines and integrate ground training into the training of aircrew so that they know what the job on the ground entails and then make it clear that advancement will require ongoing training on the ground in support of, and in command of, ground operations.  A guy in fighter, as far as the Army is concerned is nothing more than an Air Defence Gunner moving at a high rate of knots or else a gunner with a really long distance cannon and a penchant for riding the bullet to the target.  If gunners can learn to command ground forces why not pilots?


----------



## Loachman (20 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Further to my last:
> 
> After reading Loachman on Infanteer's 1st Wing thread I have a much better appreciation of his position.  Hard to argue against him.



Thanks. Perhaps someday we'll have a CDS who sees it my way, too.

I've already cast my ballot for John King for the position.

I've just spent a long time bashing out another reply (twice, because I somehow erased it with only a couple of paragraphs to go) so I'm going to leave responding to yours for a bit if you don't mind. I'm not the fastest typer.


----------

