# Dedicated Counterinsurgency Plane for CF?



## Andrew Weitzman (4 Feb 2007)

Hi.  I'm not a member of the Canadian Forces--more of a slightly informed amateur interested in military affairs.  I've gotten interested in the Canadian Forces both due to reading about our military history and the current operations in Afghanistan.  I hope the regulars here don't mind a civilian here putting out a couple opinions and asking questions.

   One thing that's gotten my interest of late is COIN (counterinsurgency warfare) aircraft.  I have an attraction to the oddball or unusual.  An F-16 is impressive, but my fascination tends towards weird-looking birds like the A-10 or OV-10 Bronco.  Light strike/COIN craft like the latter have become a mild obsession of mine.  What I am wondering is if there is a role for such aircraft within the Canadian Forces.  To my amateur's eyes, there is room for an inexpensive close-air-support and armed reconnaisance plane like the OV-10 or the Argentine Pucara given our involvement in fighting guerrillas like the Taliban.

    I understand why we don't get a dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10.  The F-18's "jack of all trades" capability allows it to perform CAS missions without incurring the extra expense and training of a plane designed specifically for that mission.  But the F-18 is a high-performance jet that needs prepared runways and is rather expensive to run.  While it can do the job, it costs a lot to do while diverting it away from its intended missions of air-to-air combat and interdiction.  Something cheap, armoured, with long loitering times may be usefull.  Like, er, this:

[http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3...omplications in my reasoning

Andrew Weitzman


----------



## kingfisher (4 Feb 2007)

Andrew,

It's probably more in the area of an infanteer to answer the question of whether or not A-10's would be useful to them on the ground to the CF troops, but as an airforce member and a realist, I can tell you that the bleeding hearts in this country would never allow it.  We had enough trouble signing a deal for transport planes which the lefties claim are going to be used to fight in George Bush's wars.

If we were to get anything to support the ground troops directly, probably a helicopter gun-ship would be the way to go as it could also protect our forthcoming Chinook helicopters.  That being said...in this country, they too would be a tough sell. :

Ciao,
Kingfisher


----------



## Mortar guy (4 Feb 2007)

Andrew,

I've often thought about this very idea although I wouldn't take it as far as arming a crop-duster. I know this isn't a popular opinion in the AF (especially the fighter community) but my opinion has always been that perhaps we need two different fleets of aircraft rather than a fleet of jack-of-all-trades fighters. My thought was that with the impending requirement to replace the CF-18, we might have an opportunity to move to a split fleet which may save us money (although I'm not certain of this) but would certainly, in my opinion, provide a more relevant capability. I would see the JSF (or a contemporary like the Typhoon tranche 3 or the Rafale) providing a 'high end' capability for the AF in terms of strike and, to a lesser degree, air superiority. I would think that 40-50 of these aircraft would enable Canada to sustain a six-pack of these aircraft and surge a 12 a/c squadron against a near-peer competitor as part of a coalition effort. These aircraft would constitute what I call (cheesily) the AF's "Expeditionary Strike" capability.

On the other hand, in my opinion there exists a need for something along the lines of what you propose. I would see this a/c being relatively slow, even subsonic, yet with a large payload and considerable range/loiter time. It would be used in more permissive environments like Afghanistan and the like and would work as a flying 'coke machine' dispensing JDAMs, JSOWs, and even SDBs in response to FACs on the ground. It should also have a datalink and the ability to carry podded sensors like targetting pods, and podded ISAR/GMTI radar so that it can function as an eye in the sky as well. However, I would strive to keep the airframe and engine as simple and sturdy as possible (a la A-10) and keep the electronic bells and whistles down to a minimum.

Finally, I see the need for an aircraft to perform territorial air defence/sovereignty missions. In my infantry head, I think this latter aircraft could be the same as the CAS 'coke machine' above. It seems to me that our geography and the threat mean we need an aircraft with long range for air defence. I don't think we need a stealthy aircraft to shoot down 767s or even cruise missiles for that matter and I also think that supersonic speeds count for less than range and loiter time (but I may be way off the mark here). To me it appears that an aircraft that can take off from Bagotville and loiter near Ottawa for 6-8 hours without refuelling would be far more useful than a stealth fighter or even a supersonic gen 4+ fighter that can only stay there for 1-2 hours. Like the CAS variant, these aircraft would carry a large weapon load (or a lot of external fuel) and would be kept as simple as possible. As they will not ever have to fight in enemy airspace but rather will be fighting solely in NORAD's AOR against relatively easy targets that probably won't shoot back, they don't need the extensive DAS/ECM and so on that add so much cost to fighters today.

So, here is my totally uniformed, infantry opinion on what our fighter fleet should look like! 

2 Expeditionary Strike Fighter Squadrons (18 JSF/Typhoon/Rafale each)
1 Expeditionary Strike Fighter Squadron (OT) (~14 JSF/Typhoon/Rafale each)

2-3 Tactical Attack Squadrons (18 'CAS-coke machines' each)

2-3 Air Defence Fighter Squadrons (12-18 'AD-coke machines' each) [These units could contain a large percentage of Air Reserve personnel due to their domestic-only focus and simpler aircraft and tactics]

1 Attack/Air Defece Fighter Squadron (OT) (~12 CAS and ~12 AD coke machines)

I know, it's a crazy idea from a ground-pounder...

MG


----------



## JackD (4 Feb 2007)

Seems to me you are speaking about the beloved CF 100 Canuck,  CF 105, CF-5  (CF 116) combination... what goes round. comes round....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-100_Canuck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-105, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf-5


----------



## Mortar guy (4 Feb 2007)

JackD,

Close but not quite. Whereas the CF-116 was a short-legged aircraft with a relatively small payload and those being three aircraft vice two, it's a little different. But I still see your point in that we go to different fleets for different roles.

MG


----------



## McG (4 Feb 2007)

I don’t think that a “counter insurgency fighter” would provide anything of value that could not be had from more traditional airframes.

When troops are tens of kilometres outside the wire and things go bad, the response will come much quicker from traditional attack fighters (be it F-18 or A-10) & heavy bombers loitering in the air.  Any of these platforms would also bring far more firepower to the table that an up-armed trainer.


----------



## JackD (5 Feb 2007)

I know, Mortar Guy, I had to get a mention of the CF-105 (Arrow) in there - I mean it's been months since it was mentioned. But in regards to the CF-100, you must admit it was good for its role in NORAD. Now instead of unguided rockets - something more up-to-date? Realistically, and I believe there has been threads on this, helicopter gunships would be more appropriate - but I'm no expert - here's hoping the experts weigh in. By the way, Poland produces a nice little helicopter for that role. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_W-3_Sok%C3%B3%C5%82 - get somebody to buy it, this part of Poland I live in needs the business.


----------

