# CF-18's headed to A'stan?



## NovaScotiaNewfie (1 Nov 2006)

Hey all heard last night the Government/DND/CF offered Nato 6 Hornets I think for air support in A'Stan. Anyone hear more about this or if it's likely they will be deployed? Does the Army get much training working with the CAF for air support training? Have heard of live fire exercises using the Hornets not sure if that's the same as training for Air Support thought. 

Thanks,
Josh

Just found this article (From the Toronto Star).

"OTTAWA—Just a month after the defence department denied any plans to dispatch CF-18 fighter jets to Afghanistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has opened the door to a possible deployment. 

With opposition critics accusing the government of a flip-flop, O'Connor told the Commons yesterday: "Recently we made a commitment to NATO that we will have six CF-18s ready for NATO if they require us. That is why the money was spent to fix up these CF-18s." 

The Toronto Star revealed last month that Ottawa was making preparations in case its fighter jets were needed in Afghanistan. That included a $1.9 million contract with the U.S. government for "deployment support" for the CF-18s.

But the Star story sparked an angry response from the defence department, with officials taking the unusual step of issuing a statement to deny plans to send the sleek jets abroad.

"To clarify, the Department of National Defence has no intention to deploy CF-18s to Afghanistan," the Sept. 22, 2006 statement read.

That was the same day that Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in Ottawa for an official visit and there was speculation the Conservative government was uncomfortable with any suggestion that it was escalating its military commitment to the controversial conflict.

Yesterday in the Commons, O'Connor said there's been no recommendation to send CF-18s in support of the 2,500 Canadian troops now on the ground in Kandahar.

"They will not be deployed unless there is an operational requirement," he said.

But under further questioning from NDP MP Dawn Black, O'Connor confirmed that Canada has committed six CF-18s to NATO for use in operations, if needed. His officials could not be reached to clarify his comments.

Last month, O'Connor said he was not aware of any proposal to send the fighter jets. "I think I can deny it because no one's even brought it across my desk," he told Ottawa radio station CFRA. 

But newly revealed department emails indicate that even the top air force general was uncomfortable with the hard-line denial issued in September. 


"(Chief of air staff) is concerned that this statement has painted us into a corner for future, if for instance, our allies who currently provide support pull out," reads an email from one air force official, obtained under access-to-information legislation.

"At this time there is no intention but this doesn't necessarily close the door entirely to the future," responded Lane Anker, the associate deputy minister of public affairs at the defence department.

Currently, British and American fighters are providing air support for Canadian troops engaged in bitter battles to clear out insurgents.

The emails also confirm that the defence department was making preparations as far back as January to deploy CF-18s.

"The Government of Canada has an Urgent requirement for a Blanket Order Case to cover the deployment of the CF-18 aircraft in support of Operation Enduring Freedom," reads the Jan. 26 email from a public works employee.

The services that could be required for the CF-18 deployment include spare parts for aircraft and weapon systems, technical assistance for "in-theatre logistics" and hardware to "support deployed operations."

Another email within the department's materiel section said the contract was a "contingency ... should we be called upon to deploy CF-18s."

Opposition critics yesterday accused the government of a "flip-flop" over the CF-18s and said it was just the latest in a string of contradictions to plague the department and its decisions about staffing and equipment for the Afghan mission.

"They said over and over again that tanks wouldn't be going to Afghanistan. Now we know they're there," said Black, the NDP MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam.

"Originally he said there would be no CF-18s going to Afghanistan. (Now) I interpreted it that there may be CF-18s going to Afghanistan," Black told reporters yesterday.

"Who is running the show? ... How well-informed is the minister about what is going on in his department," she said.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South) said O'Connor had "contradicted" himself. 

"He's now saying that we've told NATO that if they need our CF-18s, they would be ready," said Dosanjh, the party's defence critic.

And coming after the military revealed plans to send air force and navy personnel as backups to Afghanistan, Dosanjh said this was further evidence of a government "flying by the seat of its pants.""


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2006)

Please cite your reference with a hyperlink.


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Nov 2006)

Poor Mr Dossanjh, once again he demonstrates his inability to distinguish a Minister that listens to his General's appreciation and requirements for a fluid situation _from_ his own party's draconian and doctrinaire approach to the military...'after all 'der just like de Boy Scouts...'

Fifteen minutes up , Ujjal, thanks, for the gag....


----------



## Mike Baker (1 Nov 2006)

> No plans for CF-18s in Afghanistan: O'Connor
> There are no plans to deploy Canadian CF-18 fighter jets to Afghanistan, Minister of National Defence Gordon O'Connor said Tuesday.
> 
> O'Connor was responding to questions in Parliament about newspaper reports that Canada had agreed to send six CF-18s to NATO if the Alliance asked for them.
> ...


Answered?


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Nov 2006)

> But Black then asked about the Department of Defence taking out a contract worth more than $1 million to get the jets *ready for combat.*



Fighters.. ready for combat... in our skies...

Fighters...

Ready For Combat....

In our Skies....

In our Skies....???

Is this the kind of Canada you want to live in????


----------



## Mithras (1 Nov 2006)

Deny, Deny, Deny.  Isn't this how things work in the CF?  Did they not deny that they were sending in the Leopards before actually sending them over?


----------



## Blakey (1 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Please cite your reference with a hyperlink.



VG, 
here it is (although I'm sure you have already found it)


----------



## Munxcub (1 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Fighters.. ready for combat... in our skies...
> ...
> Is this the kind of Canada you want to live in????



A Canada where our Armed Forces have combat ready equipment? Most certainly.

*If I missed some sort of humour/sarcasm/etc, please forgive me, I'm still new here


----------



## dardt (1 Nov 2006)

Mithras said:
			
		

> Deny, Deny, Deny.  Isn't this how things work in the CF?  Did they not deny that they were sending in the Leopards before actually sending them over?



Are we supposed to let the enemy know everything were doing ? "Hey Mr. Taliban better get ready we're sending some big guns over"  :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Nov 2006)

*clunking heads together*

Declaring aircraft available to NATO does not necessarily equate to declaring them for service in Afghanistan.  There's no contradiction here and certainly no "denial"

It even says this in the article:



> O'Connor said the jets were intended for use by NATO's rapid reaction force, not for specific deployment to Afghanistan or anywhere else. The Alliance is putting together the force from the military assets of member countries as demands grow for NATO involvement in various international trouble spots.


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2006)

we have ships committeed to NATO as well - but, to date, they haven't been sent to South East Asia....
So we've committed 6 aircraft to NATO, they're there for same said reason, doesn't mean that they will be used.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> we have ships committeed to NATO as well - but, to date, they haven't been sent to *South East Asia*....
> So we've committed 6 aircraft to NATO, they're there for same said reason, doesn't mean that they will be used.



South WEST Asia.......

South EAST Asia would be around Viet-Nam and the sort....


----------



## Mithras (1 Nov 2006)

Flatspin said:
			
		

> Are we supposed to let the enemy know everything were doing ? "Hey Mr. Taliban better get ready we're sending some big guns over"  :



I was just pointing out that the CF tends to deny what they are planning and therefore it could be possible that CF-18's are heading over,  I was not judging the policy.


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2006)

Mithras said:
			
		

> I was just pointing out that the CF tends to deny what they are planning and therefore it could be possible that CF-18's are heading over,  I was not judging the policy.



Opsec & denying what is being planned?..... Hmmm...... 
Nope, nothing wrong here.


----------



## Mithras (1 Nov 2006)

Like I said I am not judging the policy.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Nov 2006)

Mithras said:
			
		

> Like I said I am not judging the policy.



What policy is that ?

The announcement was not to deploy CF-18s to Afghanistan.  We are comiting CF-18s to NATO's reaction force. I dont see where the denial is.  The idea of sending CF-18s to Afghanistan was floated before and it had been decided, IIRC, that the cost and logistical dificulties outweighed the benefits.  Even if we were to now send them, so what ?  Can we not adapt to the situation as it changes with you interpreting it as government denial ?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2006)

CAS by fast movers has some problems, and even a "six pack" of CF-18's would require a fairly sophisticated support structure in place, unless we were planning to do something like fly the planes out of an unnamed Middle Eastern nation. CF-18's have fairly short legs compared to F-15's, and would need lots of tanker support as a minimum. Pilots might have issues with the very long round trips in a single seat fighter, Mark Bowden had an article in Atlantic Monthly (unable to search this right now) which described flights of 12 hr duration.

Just thinking out loud, but the Hawks used in pilot training might actually make better CAS platforms which could be based in Kandahar, if we actually owned them. Of course a flight or squadron of A-37 Dragonfly's http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-37_dragonfly.pl would be even better.....


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Nov 2006)

A question here...

Once the CF 18's are readied and put at NATO's disposal who gets the say on where/when they go?

I know that might seem trite, but does Canada tacitly agree that the resources can be sent anywhere that NATO needs them once they are assigned? Is there an element in the process that requires Canadian Gov't approval? Is this approval a rubber stamp?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Nov 2006)

The Canadian government always has the final say on deployments, regardless of the command relationship put into place when the resources are cut over to NATO.


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Nov 2006)

Thanks TR.

I was just trying to understand if this was being 'nuanced' in some way. I return to the article and to CAS's concerns that the hard line denials from MND was "painting us into to a corner" (sic). Call it my conspiracy theory tendencies but I began to wonder if a 'plausible deniability' factor was built into the assignment. 

I had visions of reading "_Gordon O'Connor denied a government flip flop in the deployment of CF-18's to Afghanistan stating that since the Hornets were assigned to NATO it was NATO's decision to deploy them not Canada's._.." somewhere in the future ....

I don't suppose I actually believed that was the case but the mind control waves are particularly dense today, not unlike my skull, and I am having some trouble being rational .... (to wit... ever since I read Jack Layton was willing to bring down the Gov't on the Clean Air Act... yeh right, a Boxing Day election....)


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (4 Nov 2006)

just curious do our pilots get much air to ground training? i never thought of our Airforce doing that  sort of training as the CF 18 is not really set up for that from what i have read ( limited reading so do not flame ) or will this require new toys and stuff for this sort of operation?


----------



## aesop081 (4 Nov 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> just curious do our pilots get much air to ground training? i never thought of our Airforce doing that  sort of training as the CF 18 is not really set up for that from what i have read ( limited reading so do not flame ) or will this require new toys and stuff for this sort of operation?



CF-18 was designed and built as a fighter-bomber from day one.  Did you miss the whole Kosovo air war ? In US nomenclature it is known as F/A-18 indicating its dual role. Our pilots are trained for this and its been used in training for years.  Exercise MAPLE GUARDIAN and WOLF SAFARI are going on right now where Canadian Hornets are quite busy providing CAS for our troops getting ready for the sandbox.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (5 Nov 2006)

actually at that  time i was in another country and did not hear much about Canadian Airforce in that airwar. I knew we sent them did not know they did CAS missions.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> actually at that  time i was in another country and did not hear much about Canadian Airforce in that airwar. I knew we sent them did not know they did CAS missions.


Technically, they weren't CAS missions.  Not being airforce, but I would say that their role was more similar to the old Strategic Bombings of WWII than CAS....


----------



## aesop081 (5 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Technically, they weren't CAS missions.  Not being airforce, but I would say that their role was more similar to the old Strategic Bombings of WWII than CAS....



yeah but i was simply pointing out that they didnt just do the Air to air role......


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Nov 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> CF-18 was designed and built as a fighter-bomber from day one.  Did you miss the whole Kosovo air war ? In US nomenclature it is known as F/A-18 indicating its dual role. Our pilots are trained for this and its been used in training for years.  Exercise MAPLE GUARDIAN and WOLF SAFARI are going on right now where Canadian Hornets are quite busy providing CAS for our troops getting ready for the sandbox.



By that you mean that the ground forces are working up with the CF-18, but they are not planned to deploy together, right?


----------



## aesop081 (5 Nov 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> By that you mean that the ground forces are working up with the CF-18, but they are not planned to deploy together, right?



RIGHT.....the task force is training to have CAS, thats why the CF-18s are participating. There are no plans that i know of to deploy our fighters to the sandbox


----------



## midget-boyd91 (5 Nov 2006)

Everything anyone hears or says about the CF-18 being sent to Afghanistan is completely speculation until we hear something from DND.
There is no doubt that the aircraft is capable of such job, but the Yankees, Brits and Dutch already have aircraft for those roles.
  I think that we should wait until DND makes an announcement before any more rumours are started. Its just too bad that the media dont care whether or not it was a rumor.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Nov 2006)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> Everything anyone hears or says about the CF-18 being sent to Afghanistan is completely speculation until we hear something from DND.
> There is no doubt that the aircraft is capable of such job, but the Yankees, Brits and Dutch already have aircraft for those roles.
> I think that we should wait until DND makes an announcement before any more rumours are started. Its just too bad that the media dont care whether or not it was a rumor.



Hey, thanks for the news flash......thats what i have said already.  For the training of the current task force, i know CF-18s are involved....i'm participating in the exercise myself.......


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Nov 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> RIGHT.....the task force is training to have CAS, thats why the CF-18s are participating. There are no plans that i know of to deploy our fighters to the sandbox



Thats what I thought. I can't see them handling both fast air taskings at the same time. I'm glad the troops are giving them a good work up phase, they'll be all the better for it.


----------



## Paul Gagnon (4 Dec 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Poor Mr Dossanjh, once again he demonstrates his inability to distinguish a Minister that listens to his General's appreciation and requirements for a fluid situation _from_ his own party's draconian and doctrinaire approach to the military...'after all 'der just like de Boy Scouts...'
> 
> Fifteen minutes up , Ujjal, thanks, for the gag....



Dosanjh doesn't even know what party he is in and you expect him to know something about the military?


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2006)

New party leader at the helm, would expect that he will place "his" chosen in the key shadow cabinet positions.  Placing Mr Dossanjh on a really high shelf - out of reach (out of touch) would be a good start - if Mr Dion is looking to clean house.

Can we have Mr Graham back in the Defence portfolio "please"?


----------



## airiedd (13 May 2007)

Ladies and Gents.  Currently 409 TFS (Cold Lake's deployable CF-18 unit) is doing CAS support missions till it hurts in order to prepare our ground FAC (forward air controler) personel for the task of guiding pilots to ground targets in 'the sand box'.  As far as that unit deploying to the same sand box, right now it is not happening.  Two reasons for that, first the infrasturcture at KAF (Kandahar Air Field) is full (no more room on the ramp,so we are hearing) and second, why would DND spend money on sending CF-18s when they are getting free CAS from the US, the Brits and the Dutch?  Yes it would be great to see CAF aircraft supporting Canadian ground troops but with all things it boils down to dollars!  So in the mean time, CF-18 pilots, and ground crew do what we do...we get ready to go just in case.


----------



## Eggy (13 May 2007)

airiedd said:
			
		

> Ladies and Gents.  Currently 409 TFS (Cold Lake's deployable CF-18 unit) is doing CAS support missions till it hurts in order to prepare our ground FAC (forward air controler) personel for the task of guiding pilots to ground targets in 'the sand box'.  As far as that unit deploying to the same sand box, right now it is not happening.  Two reasons for that, first the infrasturcture at KAF (Kandahar Air Field) is full (no more room on the ramp,so we are hearing) and second, why would DND spend money on sending CF-18s when they are getting free CAS from the US, the Brits and the Dutch?  Yes it would be great to see CAF aircraft supporting Canadian ground troops but with all things it boils down to dollars!  So in the mean time, CF-18 pilots, and ground crew do what we do...we get ready to go just in case.


Wether the Dutch mission will be extended or not, the Canadian F-18s could replace the Dutch F-16s currently stationed in the south by August 2008. Especially the maintenance personell of the Dutch air force is overworked and could use a break hehe.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 May 2007)

Eggy said:
			
		

> Wether the Dutch mission will be extended or not, the Canadian F-18s could replace the Dutch F-16s currently stationed in the south by August 2008. Especially the maintenance personell of the Dutch air force is overworked and could use a break hehe.



The Dutch AF was in Goose Bay when I was there 93-96 and they were a great bunch. very serious about their training and always fostered a "warrior" culture in their pers. It seemed so ironic that you would see them with long hair...one guy I remember in dreadlocks....lots of jewelry and not very neat uniforms. Yet they were very effective at what they did. Most western military orgs think such things are signs of poor discipline but it seemed to work for them.

How many birds do they have on the ramp in KAF?  or is that OPSEC?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 May 2007)

They could be training to dovetail in behind the Dutch in Kandahar, if they rotate their F-16's out.


Matthew.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> The Dutch AF was in Goose Bay when I was there 93-96 and they were a great bunch. very serious about their training and always fostered a "warrior" culture in their pers. It seemed so ironic that you would see them with long hair...one guy I remember in dreadlocks....lots of jewelry and not very neat uniforms. Yet they were very effective at what they did. Most western military orgs think such things are signs of poor discipline but it seemed to work for them.
> 
> How many birds do they have on the ramp in KAF?  or is that OPSEC?



How many could fill a ramp would be parking spaces over total space avail math question......how many actually operate there is OPSEC.

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## Bandit1 (17 Jul 2007)

Vanguard = Canada having a deployable number of aircraft or any other vehicle available for NATO missions.  This has been a constant with every NATO mission that we've been involved in, and will continue to be.

The fact of the matter is that this was a reporter who thought that he could scoop a story from other reporters and sell it to an anti war city in a newspaper that is anti war itself.  

In my opinion, speculation at its worst, and at best, the worst play on words that I've ever seen.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Jul 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> How many could fill a ramp would be parking spaces over total space avail math question......how many actually operate there is OPSEC.



If you are looking for what is publicly available, there is information in all sorts of nooks and crannies on the net.  Try here for a start:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom_orbat-01.htm


----------



## larry Strong (13 Aug 2007)

Are any of our CF-18 Sqn's tasked to NATO duties, other than Afghanistan?


----------



## belka (15 Aug 2007)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Are any of our CF-18 Sqn's tasked to NATO duties, other than Afghanistan?



I don't believe so, unless some were sent from 3 Wing.


----------



## larry Strong (15 Aug 2007)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Are any of our CF-18 Sqn's tasked to NATO duties, other than Afghanistan?



Bad choice of words as we are not deploying palnes there. I am trying to find out if the CF 18's are Op tasked with NATO, sort of along the lines of NATO's ACE Mobile Force.

It's part of a discussion on a different forum where an individual is stating that we are commited to NATO taskings and can't deploy in Afghanistan.


----------

