# Views on air force modernization and capabilities expansion



## aesop081 (4 Aug 2005)

Allright folks, i figured i'd open myself to flaming.   A while ago there were some people saying that some of us were afraid of making suggestions on what we saw as ideal force structure for the army so, staying in my lane, here's what i think for the air force.   Feel free to question and pick apart as this is in no way perfect.

*Fighter aviation:*

Even with the current modernization, the CF-18A/B airframe is getting seriously old.   I realize that Canada is , at first glance anyways, waiting for JSF to come to production but, IMHO, this is somewhat of a long way off and will be a very expensive option.   I propose to replace the CF-18s sooner rather than later with the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Raffale.   personaly i favour the Raffale but since the Typhoon already has several custumers there could be economies of scale to be had there.

Fighter aviation would be concentrated around 4 Wing in Cold lake ( 416 & 441 sqn) and 3 Wing in Bagottville ( 425 & 433 sqn) and of course 410 sqn as the fighter OTU.   Cold lake ( 410 sqn) would assume the duties of center-of-excellence for all fighter aviation in similar fashion to what the army is doing.

*Maritime patrol*

IMHO, the current incarnation of AIMP is a complete disaster.   I feel that the CP-140 has to be replaced in the medium-to-long term.   Prospective candidates include the US MMA and the British Nimrod MR.4.   There are not very many options for replacements in this role.   One option would be to seriously accelerate the AIMP program.   14 Wing Greenwood would be the COE for maritime aviation. 405,415 and 407 as the operational sqns and 404 as the OTU.   MP&EU and 14 SES would remain in place to rpovide support the maritime patrol operational community.

*Tactical airlift*

I propose the replacement of CC-130 E/H employed in the TAL role with the C-130J for 429 & 436 sqn ( 8 wing trenton) and 435 sqn (17 wing Winnipeg).

*Strategic airlift*

I propose the purchase/lease of 6-8 C-17/A400M to be based at 8 Wing trenton ( 437 sqn)

*Search and rescue*

Purchase/lease 16 C-27 and equip 442(Comox), 413(Greenwood), 429(Trenton) and a new sqn in Winnipeg for the current "coast guard-type" SAR

*Snowbirds*

I would like to see the current aircraft replaced by Hawk ( lease or purchase)

*Maritime hellicopters*

Not to be marginalized, i would like to see the number of CH-148 purchased increased to 41 to compensate for long term attrition, maintenace and training.


Now for some other stuff:

1 Wing would lose 408, 427 and 430 qns as those would fall directly to the army brigades.   They would remain air force, responsible directly to 1 CAD for the airworthiness of the aircraft and crew currency but would report directly to the brigade commanders for training and day to day operations.   1 wing would concentrate around 400, 438 and 403 sqns to provide CH-146 initial training, augmentation fro the line sqns and deployable capabilities for "air force only" ops. 1 Wing should also gain 2 to 3 sqn of medium lift helicopters based on the Merlin HC.1 ot S-92 to provide more robust support to the army.

I would also like to see the creation of 2 dedicated combat SAR ( CSAR) squadrons based in Both 3 & 4 wing equiped with Merlin HC.1 / S-92 with modifications similar to the MH-53E/HH-53.   This would provided Canada with its own organic CSAR capabilities and would give of greater freedom of action during a crissis. Additionaly, 444 sqn, currently based at 5 wing Goose Bay would convert from the CH-146 to the new CSAR aircraft and move to cold lake to become the CSAR OTU after 5 wing closes.

Once a new strateic airlifter has entered service with 437 sqn, all of the CC-150 Polaris aircraft woud convert to full-time AAR and remain in trenton with that sqn.

In order to provide greater support the land operation i propose the establish a sqn   ( 6 aircraft) whos role would be similar to what the E-8 JSTARS is doing for the USAF.   As this aircraft is large and expensive, i propose to take a similar approach to what the UK Royal air force is doing.   They have decided to put in service the Bombardier Sentinel R.1, the first deliveries of which will begin next year to RAF Waddington's 5 sqn.   This would give the air force a true capability to support ISTAR for the army. This unti would be most likely based in trenton or Winnipeg.

I would also like to see the air force aquire an AWACS capability.   I beleive that the E-3 is far too expensive for us so options would be the E-2C Hawkeye ( proven design) or even the Embraer 145 AEW&C which has proven itself rather surprizingly during exercises such as CRUZEX 2004.   It is employed in that role by the Brazilian AF.   We could even benefit by using the same airframe for bot JSTARS and AWACS role by going with Embrarer's entire ISR line based on the EMB 145 airframe. AWACs would operate out of Cold lake where it would be in a good position to work directly with the fighter community and participate in MAPLE FLAG.

Thats as far as my thinking gets me for now.   Its a bit to ask but is more realistic for canada than some other options i have heard floating around.

Start flaming away troops......


----------



## Sf2 (4 Aug 2005)

myself being a TACHEL guy, I'll stay in my lane.....

If you put the TacHel sqns under OPCOM to the brigades, you'll have to enhance the ALO positions BIG TIME.  The whole point of maintaining the wing structure as it stands is so the tasks are stemmed from those who know how to employ the equipment.  

Also, giving command to the brigades, yet maintaining standards, airworthiness etc with 1CAD is much, much easier said than done.  Army will want different levels of standards that Air Force will be unwilling to provide, or give up, depending on the case.  Army has no idea what is required for daily training of a tachel pilot.  That's like asking a ship's captain to provide daily training plan for Sea King crews.   Just ain't going to happen.

Merlin/S92? WHy those?   What about Chinook?

What about SOG?  No mention of anything in that department.......


----------



## aesop081 (4 Aug 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> myself being a TACHEL guy, I'll stay in my lane.....
> 
> If you put the TacHel sqns under OPCOM to the brigades, you'll have to enhance the ALO positions BIG TIME.   The whole point of maintaining the wing structure as it stands is so the tasks are stemmed from those who know how to employ the equipment.
> 
> ...



I understand you points on all counts.   As i said this wasnt perfect or anything.   I just think that the army should be given greater control of TAC Hel.   But i do see what you mean and i also dont see it as insurmountable.   However, i yeild to the tac hel types there.

I chose to center on the merlin HC.1 / S-92 as both airframes will already be in canadian servise ( CH-148/CH-149) and i am weary of adding airframes if other options are available, even thought i personal like the Chinook.

And yes, i did not mention Special ops as i am still thinking that one over.  I would say that i am leaning towards 1 sqn ( based near JTF, probably Petawawa or maybe somewhere's else) equiped with special ops variant of Merlin HC.1 or S-92  capable of those missions ( akin to the MH-53E or MH-60 ), cpmprised of about 12 airframes. Aircrew/ground crew training could be carried out at the CSAR OTU in Cold lake for on-type training and Spec ops specific training could be doe at the unit itself.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Aug 2005)

> *Fighter aviation:*
> 
> Even with the current modernization, the CF-18A/B airframe is getting seriously old.   I realize that Canada is , at first glance anyways, waiting for JSF to come to production but, IMHO, this is somewhat of a long way off and will be a very expensive option.   I propose to replace the CF-18s sooner rather than later with the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Raffale.   personaly i favour the Raffale but since the Typhoon already has several custumers there could be economies of scale to be had there.
> 
> Fighter aviation would be concentrated around 4 Wing in Cold lake ( 416 & 441 sqn) and 3 Wing in Bagottville ( 425 & 433 sqn) and of course 410 sqn as the fighter OTU.   Cold lake ( 410 sqn) would assume the duties of center-of-excellence for all fighter aviation in similar fashion to what the army is doing.


Hope you don't mind me straying from my usual lane. 
I am a Typhoon fan myself, but how many fighters would you be looking at?

[quote[*Maritime patrol*

IMHO, the current incarnation of AIMP is a complete disaster.   I feel that the CP-140 has to be replaced in the medium-to-long term.   Prospective candidates include the US MMA and the British Nimrod MR.4.   There are not very many options for replacements in this role.   One option would be to seriously accelerate the AIMP program.   14 Wing Greenwood would be the COE for maritime aviation. 405,415 and 407 as the operational sqns and 404 as the OTU.   MP&EU and 14 SES would remain in place to rpovide support the maritime patrol operational community.[/quote]
Agreed. Do you think we should look at some C27s for coastal patrols as well?




> *Tactical airlift*
> 
> I propose the replacement of CC-130 E/H employed in the TAL role with the C-130J for 429 & 436 sqn ( 8 wing trenton) and 435 sqn (17 wing Winnipeg).


Agreed

[quote*Strategic airlift*

I propose the purchase/lease of 6-8 C-17/A400M to be based at 8 Wing trenton ( 437 sqn)[/quote]
Can't fault your logic there



> *Search and rescue*
> 
> Purchase/lease 16 C-27 and equip 442(Comox), 413(Greenwood), 429(Trenton) and a new sqn in Winnipeg for the current "coast guard-type" SAR


Agreed, but will these C27s be armed or be fitted with hard points?



> *Snowbirds*
> 
> I would like to see the current aircraft replaced by Hawk ( lease or purchase)


What about using CF18s?




> Now for some other stuff:
> 
> 1 Wing would lose 408, 427 and 430 qns as those would fall directly to the army brigades.   They would remain air force, responsible directly to 1 CAD for the airworthiness of the aircraft and crew currency but would report directly to the brigade commanders for training and day to day operations.   1 wing would concentrate around 400, 438 and 403 sqns to provide CH-146 initial training, augmentation fro the line sqns and deployable capabilities for "air force only" ops.


I am kind of surprised you would keep the Griffon in service as a Tac Helo.



> I would also like to see the creation of 3 dedicated combat SAR ( CSAR) squadrons based in Both 3 & 4 wing equiped with Merlin HC.1 / S-92 with modifications similar to the MH-53E/HH-53.   This would provided Canada with its own organic CSAR capabilities and would give of greater freedom of action during a crissis. Additional 444 sqn, currently based at 5 wing Goose Bay would convert from the CH-146 to the new CSAR aircraft and move to cold lake to become the CSAR OTU after 5 wing closes.


I think this is a much neglected capability that we should have invested in a long time ago. Would the SAR Techs be trained to the same standards as the PJs of the USAF?



> Once a new strateic airlifter has entered service with 437 sqn, all of the CC-150 Polaris aircraft woud convert to full-time AAR and remain in trenton with that sqn.


That would bring us to 5 tankers?



> In order to provide greater support the land operation i propose the establish a sqn   ( 6 aircraft) whos role would be similar to what the E-8 JSTARS is doing for the USAF.   As this aircraft is large and expensive, i propose to take a similar approach to what the UK Royal air force is doing.   They have decided to put in service the Bombardier Sentinel R.1, the first deliveries of which will begin next year to RAF Waddington's 5 sqn.   This would give the air force a true capability to support ISTAR for the army. This unti would be most likely based in trenton or Winnipeg.


I am wondering if modified CP140s or the Acturus could be used in this role? Especially with the AIMP upgrades?



> I would also like to see the air force aquire an AWACS capability.   I beleive that the E-3 is far too expensive for us so options would be the E-2C Hawkeye ( proven design) or even the Embraer 145 AEW&C which has proven itself rather surprizingly during exercises such as CRUZEX 2004.   It is employed in that role by the Brazilian AF.   We could even benefit by using the same airframe for bot JSTARS and AWACS role by going with Embrarer's entire ISR line based on the EMB 145 airframe. AWACs would operate out of Cold lake where it would be in a good position to work directly with the fighter community and participate in MAPLE FLAG.


Another capability we need but I think we should lean towards E2C. I wonder do they still make it?


----------



## Sf2 (4 Aug 2005)

Going to defend the Griffon here.....

Amazing machine for domestics and limited out of area ops.  Awsome IFR platform, lots of variety in mission kits.

This bird could be used extensively for C3, VIP, Lightweight logistical.  

People put the griffon in a bad basket, mainly because it had to replace 3 different types of choppers, but as a direct replacement for the twin huey, while being supplemented by say, a Chinook, isn't a bad choice at all.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Aug 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> Going to defend the Griffon here.....
> 
> Amazing machine for domestics and limited out of area ops.   Awsome IFR platform, lots of variety in mission kits.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

I decided to stay with the CH-146 mostly for budget reasons as i waht i am proposing would not come cheap.

Ex-D,

Fighters: I am looking at 12 aircraft per sqn with 16 for The OTU

MPA: I dont think that the C-27 would make a good platform for this role.

SAR C-27: I would not arm them as i see these employed in their current planned role of the more " civilian rescue"   but if we were to expand CSAR in the future, we could benefit by adding these in the inventory in a more military version

SAR tech: Yes, pers employed in CSAR units would receive training relevant to their employemne ( i.e. USAF PJ)

JSTAR: i dont beleive that the AIMP aurora will ever live up to what it is intended to be much less as a ground surveillance platform. Plus i see the issue of too many roles there. The sentinel R.1 that the RAF is introducing offers better capabilities and is cheaper to buy and operate that US systems.

AWACS: Yes the E-2C is still available for purchase and is a viable candidate but when cost becomes a factor ( due to the lenght of this shopping list, i think embraer is a better solution to bring us this capability and the valuable experience that comes with it.

On the subject of the Arcturus...kiss that airframe goodbye...so no issue there.

CF-18 for the snowbirds ?  I would rather not.  As i said the airframes are getting old and being subjected to that kind of flying for protracted periods wont help much.  They are also more expensive to maintain and operate.  The Hawk presents, IMHO, a cheaper, more viable option to replacing the tutor.


I would also like to see an AEW variant of the S-92 come to light ( such as the RN's sea king AEW3. these could be based on the 280s at the center of a naval task group at sea


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Aug 2005)

Would you look into increasing the Cyclone order...ideally to give the 280s or replacement 2 helos and the AORs and replacements 3-4 helos?


----------



## Jungle (4 Aug 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> Going to defend the Griffon here.....
> Amazing machine for domestics and limited out of area ops.   Awsome IFR platform, lots of variety in mission kits.
> This bird could be used extensively for C3, VIP, Lightweight logistical.
> People put the griffon in a bad basket, mainly because it had to replace 3 different types of choppers, but as a direct replacement for the twin huey, while being supplemented by say, a Chinook, isn't a bad choice at all.


It's a nice aircraft from an Air Force perspective; but try loading 8 troops on it, with full winter kit... real Army helicopters can do that. The green-painted civilian CH-146 cannot.
The Sqns had to improvise a way to protect the cargo compartment floor, because they were being destroyed by kit, notably the C7 flash suppressor; so they put plywood on it... PLYWOOD, on a 6.2$ million aircraft !!!
The CH-146 may be good for C3, VIP, Lightweight logistical tasks, but that's about it...


----------



## aesop081 (4 Aug 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Would you look into increasing the Cyclone order...ideally to give the 280s or replacement 2 helos and the AORs and replacements 3-4 helos?



I think that the current order of 28 aircraft is inadequate as it replaces the CH-124s we have left but we started with, if i'm not mistaken, 41.   I think that this would be an adequate number of cyclones to put into service.   an AEW version would be over and above of course.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Aug 2005)

I would lean towards the Cyclone as your CSAR platform as well


----------



## aesop081 (4 Aug 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I would lean towards the Cyclone as your CSAR platform as well



I am torn between the two ( 148/149) as we already operated both ( mistake number 1 in my mind) and that the RAF is already using the Merlin HC.1.   regardless i'm more interested in brigning that capability to the air force than to which type as we will already have a mixed fleet in service


Could we dispense with the griffon bashing on this one.....its getting old. I made a concious decision to stick with it due to cost and the fact that the CH-146 has alot of airframe life left to it.

Also , so everyone knows, i am working on re-organizing 1 CAD and the various standards orgs like MPSET, MHSET, TRSET, TASET, CFS and such


----------



## aesop081 (4 Aug 2005)

Just thought of something reference CSAR:

The CSAR OTU, rather than be located in cold lake, could be located in Comox so that it is in the same spot as CFSSAR.  This may maximise training oportunities for both SAR techs and aircrews. The operational CSAR sqns would still be in cold lake and bag.  All SAR tech would receive the training they do now and those selected for employement in CSAR would then proceded to the CSAR course at CFSSAR for the more " combat" skills required.


----------



## mover1 (5 Aug 2005)

Before you go out and scrap the F-18 fleet. I would take the remaining few and and have them put them permanently at the Q locations in the north and on both coasts. Reservists can do the maintaining and flying in them. Logistically having them already there and on location would make sense. Three or so planes per location would mean we would be using a maximum of what? 18 planes. The rest in moth balls or for parts. 

Next I would would be putting funding into...OK here is where everyone says Im stupit and dum wif no gud idears.... One really bad assed prop driven (yes I said prop) close air support airplane. One that can land in a field without breaking. Loiter over an area for a very long time and carry a payload with enough variety and venom that would intimitate anyone around.  I say prop because everyone is going high tech.  when low tech can be an option. Cost, ease of maintenance and flexibility of roles.  

Fix it with a hammer. 

Another thing I would get is smaller transport planes for PAX duty only. IE a DC-9 or a 727. The airbus is nice but its big too. A lot of air ports do not have the equipment for loading and off loading them. Having a smaller jet for this type of duy would take the strain off the airbus fleet. Again the pilots could be reservists who fly for west-jet by day and DND by night. (hey the US does it).

Here is one to get me hated.......

Abolish the Sqn system as we know it.   SQN's would consist soley as aircraft and pilots and aircrew. Maintence would be divided into other organisations.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Before you go out and scrap the F-18 fleet. I would take the remaining few and and have them put them permanently at the Q locations in the north and on both coasts. Reservists can do the maintaining and flying in them. Logistically having them already there and on location would make sense. Three or so planes per location would mean we would be using a maximum of what? 18 planes. The rest in moth balls or for parts.
> 
> Next I would would be putting funding into...OK here is where everyone says Im stupit and dum wif no gud idears.... One really bad assed prop driven (yes I said prop) close air support airplane. One that can land in a field without breaking. Loiter over an area for a very long time and carry a payload with enough variety and venom that would intimitate anyone around.   I say prop because everyone is going high tech.   when low tech can be an option. Cost, ease of maintenance and flexibility of roles.
> 
> Fix it with a hammer.



I see your point but i structured my idea to keep it as close to realistic as i could.  I think that operating a multi-type fighter fleet is beyond our reach considering the limited funds we have and the number of commitments we have and capabilities we should have.  I could have made this into a "my dream air force" thread but i sort of wanted to stay withing the boundraies of the near possible.  That is why i stuck to a multi-role fighter.  I could easily have added CAS fighters and EW aircraft along with ELINT aircraft and PSYOPS birds, but that would have defeated my intention.



			
				mover1 said:
			
		

> Another thing I would get is smaller transport planes for PAX duty only. IE a DC-9 or a 727. The airbus is nice but its big too. A lot of air ports do not have the equipment for loading and off loading them. Having a smaller jet for this type of duy would take the strain off the airbus fleet. Again the pilots could be reservists who fly for west-jet by day and DND by night. (hey the US does it).



Once again i would agree, however i see this as a very low priority at best as this type of work can very easily be contracted out as light passenger duties are usualy away from tactical areas.  Even the USAF uses the Civil air reserve in times of war to ferry troops around the globe.  I think we should concentrate our limited funds towards other things than passenger transport.





> Here is one to get me hated.......
> 
> Abolish the Sqn system as we know it.    SQN's would consist soley as aircraft and pilots and aircrew. Maintence would be divided into other organisations.



Not realy my area or what my objective was but from all i hear from techs i know is that units like 14 AMS are an affront to god.  I feel it is better if both air and ground crews are integrated in the same units.


----------



## mover1 (5 Aug 2005)

I made most of my points from what I saw as wrong with the Airforce from My own point of View. I went to Aviano in 1999 and saw a dysfunctional task force because of the mixing of 3 wing and 4 wing personel  (ok 3 wing and 441 Sqn and once the Bagotville crew left we got along fine). If the support organisations were a blob then there wouldn't be so much childish in fighting going on. The same thing happend on roto 0 of Op Apollo.

The Air bus is a big bird. Airlift is a problem thats why skimmed it on my thoughts of what I would change.

Multi type fighter and the F-18 bit is within reach. We kept the T-bird in the air for 50 years. Why not the F-18 in less demanding roles. Why not start funding research into defence sytems that may find a niche thats missing in the world. (I was trying to satisfy the Attack helicopter  lets support the army cronies with this one.)

I would support a 500 series restructure program. Take the techs and stop trying to make them super techs that are supposed to know everything about the a/c. Bring back the specialty trades. Yes it means more people .  Training time is less and I bet the level of service and the servicability rate would go up. just through job knowledge


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> I would support a 500 series restructure program. Take the techs and stop trying to make them super techs that are supposed to know everything about the a/c. Bring back the specialty trades. Yes it means more people .   Training time is less and I bet the level of service and the servicability rate would go up. just through job knowledge



I couldn't agree more with that.


----------



## Sf2 (5 Aug 2005)

> It's a nice aircraft from an Air Force perspective; but try loading 8 troops on it, with full winter kit... real Army helicopters can do that.


So can the griffon, we do it every day.  I've personally flown 12 troops, in light fighting order, on a hot day, out of a confined PZ and took him over 50 miles.  Not bad for a civvie chooper.  I'm sorry if your experience was bad and your aircrew weren't able to meet your needs.  All it takes is planning.




> The Sqns had to improvise a way to protect the cargo compartment floor, because they were being destroyed by kit, notably the C7 flash suppressor; so they put plywood on it... PLYWOOD, on a 6.2$ million aircraft !!!



What other material would you suggest?  Plywood is cheap, light, and notably, solved the problem.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> *Fighter aviation:*
> 
> Even with the current modernization, the CF-18A/B airframe is getting seriously old.  I realize that Canada is , at first glance anyways, waiting for JSF to come to production but, IMHO, this is somewhat of a long way off and will be a very expensive option.  I propose to replace the CF-18s sooner rather than later with the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Raffale.  personaly i favour the Raffale but since the Typhoon already has several custumers there could be economies of scale to be had there.



In view of the USAF's reduced commitment to buy F-22s, I wonder what the incremental cost of adding to the back-end of their order would be (e.g., with fixed costs already absorbed by the USAF, and the production line ready to go, how much would Lockheed be willing to deal?) ... (one can dream  :blotto.

Speaking of costs, I don't think that "will be very expensive" is much of an argument against the JSF: IIRC, even the latest highest) estimated $50million unit cost is less than that of either the Typhoon or the Rafale (they are all pretty close, at any rate).


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2005)

Aesop, not a bad first cut.   I would make sure that first and foremost, all options consideration was with a "capability-based view in support of operations" and go from there, what you fly and how the various assets are grouped and tasked should fall out naturally from your definition of the principal missions and tasks.

Ooops...this is starting to look like battle procedure...      Commander's intent, mission, groupings and task, coord instr....eek, imagin the logic in that!   


Fast air - definitely still valid to think multi-role, the execution must be smoothed out so CAS, BAI and Atk isn't just paid lip service as it is today.   Call me crazy, but I'd actually consider Super Hornet (E/F's) for bang/buck ratio...if not I'd take a Rafale before Typhoon, and if it were JSF, I'd seriously consider at least the STOL variant if not prefer the STOVL.   The overall thought is that the boys need to get in tight with troops on the ground, in addition to the much vaunted NORAD DCA role.

Tpt - Strat, yeah we need something there...lease 17's and get on with life...look how long it took Airbus yapping about the 380...at least 8-10 years after they said it would originally be delivered...I see nothing different about the A400M. 

Tpt - Tac, hmmm the 130-J isn't the Panacea, some guys would actually lean towards redone H's (I yield to some of the TAL guys on this one, I tend to agree FWIW about H's vice J's)

Maritime Patrol - yeah, this one definitely needs work!   I'm tempted to jump out of the box on this one and consider something like a Bombardier Global Express with a big ISAR radar (seems that lots of folks are pushing MP's as C4ISR machines) and look to technology to address the ASW role with newer SB processing systems beyonf the -504 CDC systems curently in use.   This beast can then also do SOVPAT's a bit more efficiently, with the need for half a football team in the back.

MH - ASW (still boats out there, how much effort to spend though?   not sure.) and Littoral Sp ops - generally nothing to add about CH148 Cyclone except that we must also look at mission kit and TTPs for this thing to go ashore (as the SK boys did in Somalia) to support troops and other aviation assets as part of the SCTF.   I'm talking EO-IR sensors linked to precision munitions and M134 7.62mm miniguns sticking out both sides!   Hel Det structure and two coasts is good IMO...wouldn't mess with it.

Tac Hel - there are really four capabilities here: M/HTH, ARUH, SOA and TUAVs (won't debate this one much, I think it should have been done more by the army with avn advice, but higher ups in the AF didn't see it that way, it is now what it is...marching fwd with our orders).   I'll expand most on this one since it's in my lane:

M/HTH - I'm not fussed, I'll take MH47G or MH53E.   "Avoid another additional airframe" is noise.   Any EH-101 to meet this role would not be the CH149 Cormorant, it would look similar but be a different EHI product...plain as that.   Neither the 101 nor the CH148 Cyclone (S-92) can't lift enough IMO, an M777 lightweight 155mm field howitzer with limber, amoo and crew for light forsces, whether part of the SCTF or the MSTF is 14,000+ lbs -- that rules out both 92 and 101, point finale.   -47 or -53 are the only ones that can most combat effectively and cost efficiently do what is required of them.   
ARUH - Armed Recce Utility Helicopter...the jack of all trades.   Take the lift-albatross from the neck of the Griffon, give it a decent EO/IR system like the USMC UH-1Ns, whack on some laser guided CRV-7s and you have a nice little niche-filler based principally on existing machine with a bit of add-on kit.   Very cost effective and fills holes in all the right places...that's why the USMC still has the UH-1N doing ARUH stuff.
SOA - MH-47G and Griffon (to do Dom CT role).   Personal opinion on this one...   Long-range lift must have a refuel and all weather cap....
TUAVs - well, I think the Army should have UAVs at the formation level and lower (Bde to sect) personally.   I think 1 Wing was made to eat a crap sandwich when the big talking AF said if it flies, we should operate it, then dumped it in 1 Wing's lap when they saw how badly they really DIDN'T understand TACTICAL UAVs.   :rage:   Oh well, tac hel princesses dried their eyes and got on with life...thanks AF! (not)      Oh, did I mention "give the Army Bde and lower UAVs"?

Note: Second only to spec ops in operating a gainst a threat -- CSAR is a combat task, plain and simple.   See here: NATO Joint Personnel Recovery - JWP 3-66.     Tpt to jump the PJ's under black silk (nylon) and Tac Hel (MH if operating from a sea-base) and CAS support packages should do this.   You don't do ladder or expanding square search patterns in enemy territory.   You don't jump guys in orange in enemy territory.   You do take perimiter force protection with you (Tier 1 SOF or Tier 2 - ranger-type guys)   to secure the PZ.        Combat task, by combat operators...period!   (see pic below)

National SAR (fixed wing) - it is what it is.   FWSAR is going the way it is, not bad to have a smaller platform than the 130 for most of the FWSAR-type tasks, although it would be nice to have faster, longer range stuff for MAJAID, but perhaps that can just be a non-dedicated task for Tpt as required.   

National SAR (rotary)   Well, I don't think it's overly broken.   I wouldn't touch it... except *puts flame suit on* consider cutting that capability to the CCG, it is not a combat capability.   The kindest I'll be militarily to the capability, is that it would provide a domestic breather for folks in the MH and TH worlds operating around the world.   I know folks will kick the crap out of me on this one and talk about positive image for the CF and helping citizens and recruiting etc..., well folks would be saved by Coast Guard provided sar   Hate to sound harsh about it, but that's how I see NSAR. 

Mein 2 ¢

Cheers,
Duey

p.s.  081, the Merlin is the HC.3 Mk1 (HC2 being Chinook and HC1 was the Puma, ref: RAF website)


----------



## aesop081 (6 Aug 2005)

Duey,

Yeah it was a first cut and i'm glad to see people bring ideas to the table.

I forgot to include the F/A-18 E/F model and onlyrealized it this am when i was reading an article on the BlockII program which will enter OPEVAL next year.  Could be a good candidate.

C-130J:  I know what you mean, i have a stack of papers here on the reported shortcomings of this perticular model...something to consider for sure.

Maritime patrol : In related news, the US Navy has officialy assigned the P-8A designation to the MMA on march 30th. Wind tunel testing has been conducted and 5 aircraft will be manufactured for the test and developement phase.  Still a long way off option considering that the RAF is much closer with the Nimrod MR4

Tac Hel/ CSAR : I think that i did not explain my concept of ops well enough and i will work on clarifying that

Merlin: Yeah, i noticed my error but it was too late to correct it.

more to follow....


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2005)

Roger, Aesop.  Actually my tone on the CSAR bit wasn't aimed to ding you, but indicate to some of the folks who may ding me for having the nerve to touch the Sacrosant halls of SAR.  That fact that there happen to be three letters in an acronym that are similar lends some folks to think they should be doing it before they actually conduct a mission analysis and see what's required.  

Interesting question for those here that are in the know, do you think a SARTECH should form the basic pool of PJs or should they come from para units more attuned to the combat side of the AF PJ's task?

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081 (6 Aug 2005)

Duey,

Roger, you pose an interesting question reference SAR.   But you do agree that CSAR is something severly lacking in our AF ?

And re-reading things , i think we have the exact same concept for a SAR / CSAR division in this country,  Putting a flame suit on as well, national SAR should, IMHO, be cut to the CCG.  This would leave the AF to concentrate on CSAR, fitting this into the expeditionay concept. Perhaps something we could call HH-148 pave low III ?


----------



## aesop081 (6 Aug 2005)

Duey,

Re maritime patrol:

Overland ops, C4I are all things being considered for MPAs.  I think this is a big mistake ( but thats only the opinion of a guy who still has 3 weeks left to the aurora course).  This is why i proposed  the Bombardier Sentinel R.1.  If the air force is to support ISTAR, we need a dedicated capability not some ad-hoc system.  I feel that the E-8 is out of our reach but the RAF's solution to ground surveilance and battlefield management could work for us.  This could be a joint venture between the army and the air force, the airvracft being crewed by personel from both services as the USAF is doing in the E-8.  I was surprised to see no comments on this or on AWACS


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2005)

Aespon, I'm with ya!  Both on the AWACS elem fitting in to part of C4ISR and on the CSAR thing...yup, I'd figure that either HH-148 "Pave-clone"  ;D or the HTH MH-##E/G bristling with M134's, IFR boom and kick a$$ DEWS gear.  Sign me up... :threat:

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Zartan (8 Aug 2005)

What about the Saab Gripen, instead of the JSF?


----------



## aesop081 (8 Aug 2005)

Zartan said:
			
		

> What about the Saab Gripen, instead of the JSF?



Well, i think the JAS 39 is a fine design that has had some commercial success ( Hungary, South Africa).  But is is a very lightweight aircraft and single-engine.  When its all said and done, it could be considered but i put alot more faith in F/A-18E and Raffale.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Aug 2005)

For those not familiar with the Sentinel R.1 i refered to earlier:


----------



## aesop081 (11 Aug 2005)

As well, here is the Embraer AEW&C :


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Aug 2005)

Would the Phalcon system be an effective solution (both operationally and cost-wise: certainly the range of possible airframes is plentiful and cheap)?  (Note: this is a question rather than a suggestion) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/phalcon.htm


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Aug 2005)

Last time I saw that pic it was confidential- [not the aircraft, the runway].


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Aug 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Last time I saw that pic it was confidential- [not the aircraft, the runway].



Do you mean the Phalcon I just put up?  I found it on FAS and Global Security has the exact same one ... hmmmmm.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Aug 2005)

Certaily looks like an interesting system.   I chose to concentrate, for the AWACS role, on the Embraer system as it is a smaller airframe, requires smaller crews and has already proven itself wothy in multi-national exercies.   I keep all that in mind trying to keep it in the perspective of an airforce short of air and ground crews and financialy limited.   As has been mentioned before, the E-2 Hawkeye would also constitute a good option for us as well.   The newest model, the E-2D, is ecpected to reach initial operational capability ( IOC) in 2011.   That being said, we could benefit from a larger, more complex system, but i think that is beyond the reach of the CF and beyond our politicians will to make the funding available.

Maybe if we were to   buy the Sentinel R.1 for JSTARS and get the systems from the Embraer AEW&C mated to the same airframe, we could convince the politicians to buy both as they would be built by Bombardier in "la belle province" ?


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Aug 2005)

Was a while back anyway, and it was part of a compilation. Open source is open source, so no worries.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Certaily looks like an interesting system.  I chose to concentrate, for the AWACS role, on the Embraer system as it is a smaller airframe, requires smaller crews and has already proven itself wothy in multi-national exercies.  I keep all that in mind trying to keep it in the perspective of an airforce short of air and ground crews and financialy limited.  As has been mentioned before, the E-2 Hawkeye would also constitute a good option for us as well.  The newest model, the E-2D, is ecpected to reach initial operational capability ( IOC) in 2011.  That being said, we could benefit from a larger, more complex system, but i think that is beyond the reach of the CF and beyond our politicians will to make the funding available.
> 
> Maybe if we were to  buy the Sentinel R.1 for JSTARS and get the systems from the Embraer AEW&C mated to the same airframe, we could convince the politicians to buy both as they would be built by Bombardier in "la belle province" ?



I'm not sure if you've accounted for this already, but while the pic is of a 707, the Phalcon can supposedly* be 'mounted' (obviously it is a permanent modification) on a C-130 airframe, among others.

*according to FAS


----------



## aesop081 (12 Aug 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you've accounted for this already, but while the pic is of a 707, the Phalcon can supposedly* be 'mounted' (obviously it is a permanent modification) on a C-130 airframe, among others.
> 
> *according to FAS



I have learned to take FAS with a grain of salt over the years.  As for the C-130 mod, even though i chose the C-130J for TAL, i am still not confident in the latest herc model's capabilities.  The RAF is looking at getting rid of at least 5 of its Hercules C.5 ( short version of the C-130J) in order to expand its fleet of C-17s to seven aircraft. There are reports in some aviation press that there is talk of canada leasing/purchassing those aircraft so maybe the Phalcon is a possibility but i highly doubt that if we were to get 5 C-130Js from the RAF, that they would go to anything else that TAL.  I would not invest that kind of money into the CC-130E/H.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Aug 2005)

Fair enough ... thanks (now I can be the smart guy at the Air Show tomorrow!)  ;D


----------



## Zoomie (12 Aug 2005)

Those have got to be the ugliest planes in existence - it makes the veritable CC-115 look pretty...

Oh, and by the way - I think you guys are way out to lunch if you think the service that the CF provides in SAR could be outsourced to the CCG.  It would be akin to saying that DFO should take over the MP community - and why not, they pretty much do the same thing (minus the whole sub-hunting smozzle).


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Aug 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Those have got to be the ugliest planes in existence - it makes the veritable CC-115 look pretty...
> 
> Oh, and by the way - I think you guys are way out to lunch if you think the service that the CF provides in SAR could be outsourced to the CCG.   It would be akin to saying that DFO should take over the MP community - and why not, they pretty much do the same thing (minus the whole sub-hunting smozzle).



Zoomie, you mention that DFO could not do the ASW things but could do other stuff that MP does (SOVPAT, etc...) and I agree with you on that.  

Now could you tell me what NSAR does that specifically could not be done by CCG?  

Cheers
Duey


----------



## Zoomie (13 Aug 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Now could you tell me what NSAR does that specifically could not be done by CCG?



Where shall I begin?  Keep in mind that most things I will mention are skill based, which can be easily countered with a retort such as "...they can learn to do that.." 

CCG does not practice the following NSAR skillsets:

- SAR Tech - no such creature outside of the CF - you can't just hire them off the street you know 
- helicopter hoisting 
- para insertion of supplies, equipment, personnel - akin to Buffalo skills - if CCG can do this, why not let them do TAL too?
- overland Search and Rescue - CCG is water based

We are basically examining a fundamental role of the CF and trying to think of ways that we can farm out the service to our civillian breathren.  I concede that NSAR could be outsourced, it would be a very expensive and foolish foray - why not do the same for the entire CF.

I submit that Tac Hel duties could be just as easily tasked to CHC - they have the ability, why not let them?  Operational duties(ie overseas, domestic Ops, etc)  do not preclude a civilian from taking over - please rememeber that the most operational unit in the CF are our SAR squadrons.


----------



## Roy Harding (13 Aug 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> ... please rememeber that the most operational unit in the CF are our SAR squadrons.



Zoomie:

As much as it pains me (as an "Army Guy") to say this - you're right.  Back in the early '90s I endured a mutually unsatisfactory posting with 440 Sqn.  In retrospect, I failed to "adapt and overcome" - the result was a train wreck, and I accept 60% of the fault for that particular wreck.

However - while I was there, I gained a level of respect for the SAR Techs which has never lowered.  These guys are outstanding soldiers (and I know they are Airmen - it's a mark of my respect for them that I include them in the pantheon of "soldier").

Having said that - when I left (or perhaps was booted from) the SAR world, there was much debate regarding the concept of "Combat SAR".  I wonder how that debate has got on.

Civilian SAR is one thing, but Cbt SAR is a whole different kettle of fish.  For the record, I do not doubt that a single SAR Tech I was ever acquainted with was capable of "Cbt SAR" - they were, for the most part, folks I'd known or heard of in the Airborne Regiment, BUT, has the Air Force hierarchy seen the need for such a change in role?


----------



## Sf2 (13 Aug 2005)

> I submit that Tac Hel duties could be just as easily tasked to CHC - they have the ability, why not let them



That's a pretty bold statement, for a number of reasons:

1)  Yeah, when was the last time TAC HEL did a company airmobile into a Hot LZ with guns ablazing, but there IS the remote possiblity.  Would CHC be will to perform such a task?
2)  NVG ops are still very very new to the civi side.  There are very few civi helo pilots trained on NVG, let alone night contour flying, and formation flying on NVG.
3)  Don't forget a small, very small portion of TAC HEL performs SOA duties (special ops aviation) - are you going to hand that over to CHC?  Not likely.


----------



## Zoomie (13 Aug 2005)

I concur Short Final - my response was more tongue-in-cheek to Duey than anything else.

Everything that you mentioned about Tac Hel is a military skill that is honed over years of training and experience.  I can say the same about SAR in the CF - it would be difficult to hand this role over to civi's as it would be to task CHC to play with the boys at DHTC.

Mr. Harding - I am sorry that your experience with 440 Sqn was less than ideal - I can share your pain and even recognize what you went through.  Being ex-green myself, it has been an "interesting" past 6 years.  I tend to get along with our unit's SARTechs better than fellow aviators - mainly due to my initial indoctrination into Her Majesties CF.  The airforce is more of a gentleman's flying club - even our Hu-Ah Tactical Aviators tend to pale with the true esprit de corps found within the LFC.  I trust you have found your niche...

Combat SAR is not something that can be picked up overnight and is not, at this moment (IMHO), a role that the CF: (a) requires; (b) has the aircraft/equipment; and (c) has the necessary political backing to support.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Allright folks, i figured i'd open myself to flaming.   A while ago there were some people saying that some of us were afraid of making suggestions on what we saw as ideal force structure for the army so, staying in my lane, here's what i think for the air force.   Feel free to question and pick apart as this is in no way perfect.
> 
> *Fighter aviation:*
> 
> ...




*Fighter Aviation*
I'd designate the new JSF-B as the NEXT Canadian Fighter because I believe it will provide a significant dominance over any of the current alternatives available including:  F-16 Block 60, F-18 E/F, Rafale or Typhoon.  Short Version:  I think it's worth the wait.

In the meantime, I'd identify the airframes in greatest need of refurbishment and set-up a line identical to the one being used by the US Navy for its "Center Barrel Replacement Plus Program" for its F-18 C/D's.  The Americans I believe are forecasting their F-18 C/D fleet with this refurbishment to last past 2017.

In addition, I agree with the idea of downsizing squadron sizes as I don't see the likelihood of an airborne attack being high, but having a deterent in each area of the country (especially the north) seems absolutely necessary.

Lastly, the JSF-B would be my choice due to its abiltiy to operate off of LHD's (which I continue to believe MUST be part of our future navy - in particular I think the new Navantia design is just about perfect), or off rough runways should we deploy in areas with limited infrastructure.


*Maritime Patrol/AWACS/JSTARS-equivalent/SAAR*
Going to step outside the box for a moment on this one.  I propose we explore the possibility of going to a single airframe for all these roles - specifically the Airbus A320 (CC-150).  With that airframe add the Erieye radar system (as per 737 wedgetail), the Raytheon Raytheon ASARS-2 (from ASTOR) and the magnetic anomaly detectors/magnetic compensators (from the AIMP upgrade) to build one multipurpose surveillance platform.  With this new fleet of 12-16 aircraft (and the matching SAAR assets) we should be able to provide excellent coverage of our coastal areas, the north, as well as full-spectrum analysis of any expeditionary areas we may deploy to.


*Tactical/Strategic Lift*
I continue to argue since the C-130 cannot lift our primary land warfare system, it has outlasted its usefulness unless we start re-design all our ground units into light infantry that are going to be specifically restricted to allow for C-130 deployment.

Since I believe that would be insane and assume the we will to continue to use the LAV-III as the basis of our ground forces in my mind that justifies the transition to a different class of aircraft.  That leaves only two choices:  C-17 or A400M.  Based on its track record I would lean towards a C-17/C-27 mix however since we are still years away from redesigned land force, we probably have the luxury to wait for the A400M if we can work an economic deal similar to what was done with Sikorsky at which point I would propose we move to an all A400M force.


*Search and Rescue*
Based on the comments here and elsewhere, it appears the C-27J is a no-brainer.  My only change with what aesop said, was again for political reasons, I would be building bases in the North now.  Specifically, I would look at a building a series of small northern bases (Resolute, Holman, Kugluktuk, Pond Inlet, Clyde River, etc.) with a combination of JORN Radars and runways for C-27J.  I would also build two larger bases (one at Iqalut and the other at Inuvik) with the objective of maintaining full-time AIMP's and eventually JSF-C/A320 multi-role aircraft.


*Snowbirds*
Hawk makes the most sense due to low cost operation.


*Maritime Helicopters*
Agree with the increase in numbers and again would at least have a seasonal deployment to a new Northern Base.


*New Medium Lift Helicopter + CSAR*
Makes sense to me.  Using the Cyclone as the base considering we're building them here makes further sense.  Designing them to operate off our JSS ship, with recovery by current/future frigates, destroyers makes further sense.  Keeping a single platform with one engine type to simplify supply/logistics for all expeditionary deployed helicopters seems smarter still.


*Other Stuff*
I remain a proponent of long endurance unarmed UAV's remaining over deployed battlegroups at all times with the ability to provide surveillance and targeting information to ground-based firing systems such as GPS-guided 120mm mortar, 155mm artillery and HIMARS.


That's the end of my brain cell tonight....off to the bar.

Cheers all...



Matthew. 

P.S.  As a side note, it would also be worthwhile to begin planning for naval bases to control the Beaufort Sea and Hudson Straits as well...


----------



## Roy Harding (14 Aug 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Mr. Harding - I am sorry that your experience with 440 Sqn was less than ideal - I can share your pain and even recognize what you went through.  Being ex-green myself, it has been an "interesting" past 6 years.  I tend to get along with our unit's SARTechs better than fellow aviators - mainly due to my initial indoctrination into Her Majesties CF.  The airforce is more of a gentleman's flying club - even our Hu-Ah Tactical Aviators tend to pale with the true esprit de corps found within the LFC.  I trust you have found your niche...
> 
> Combat SAR is not something that can be picked up overnight and is not, at this moment (IMHO), a role that the CF: (a) requires; (b) has the aircraft/equipment; and (c) has the necessary political backing to support.



Please call me Roy - I wasn't fishing for sympathy, and I did, eventually, re-claim my "niche" in the Army.

Back to the discussion at hand - I've always been curious, what resources (if any) are currently tasked to the role of CSAR?  Given the fact that we contributed Airforces to both the Gulf War and Kosovo, and that the possiblity of actually employing CSAR assets was very real (especially in the first instance), did we simply rely upon our allies for this function?  For that matter, we have assets flying into/out of Afghanistan as well - same question applies here.


----------



## Sf2 (14 Aug 2005)

> New Medium Lift Helicopter + CSAR
> Makes sense to me.  Using the Cyclone as the base considering we're building them here makes further sense.  Designing them to operate off our JSS ship, with recovery by current/future frigates, destroyers makes further sense.  Keeping a single platform with one engine type to simplify supply/logistics for all expeditionary deployed helicopters seems smarter still.



My opinion - FLAME SUIT ON - but what you said makes about as much sense as buying the Griffon - they're built here, mass spare parts availability ect.....However, the Cyclone, like the Griffon, is a civilian derivative.  What does that mean? A number of things

1)  no matter how hard you try to modify it, it will never be a hardened, military aircraft
2)  there will be regimes that us as users will want to fly the machine in, however, due to the fact that its a civilian bird, will not have been tested during its design stage, which means we can't use it in those regimes - this is very common with the Griffon (eg: beep back to 97 with mission kits).  Can you fly the S-92 with the main ramp open in ALL regimes?
3)  Has the S-92 been tested in high DA environments?  Even the 53's are having problems with tail rotor authority in afganistan
4)  Has the S-92 been designed with CSAR in mind?  Deep penetration with a laser/radar warning receiver on board?  Self defense?   This has do be designed with the helicopter, not as an afterthought.

Something to chew on........


We need a proven, military purpose machine - not to purchase because its convenient, but because it works well.  We all know what chopper I'm talking about, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## h3tacco (14 Aug 2005)

short final I think you are bit off base on your S-92 comments. First of we purchased a variant of the H-92 not the S-92. The H-92 is a military variant of the S-92, a civilian helicopter, which in turn was a evolutionary extension of the military H-60 series. The H-92 (ie CH-148) will be hardened, mainly in the form of its marinization. The H-92 will be tested for all regimes to be used by the military. In high DA conditions there is nothing that gives performance advantage to civilian vs military variants aerodynamics are the same throughout, not withstanding differences in engines and gearboxes. The CH-148 will be equiped with RWR, MAWS, LWR and chaff/flare. As for the CSAR the CH-148 will not be directly designed for it but Sirkosky is currently pitching the H-92 to the USAF to do exactly the CSAR role replacing the HH-60H, including the addition of a refueling boom. As for another corretion the CH-148 will not be built in Canada but at the sikorsky plant in Connecticut. I think it is in Sikorsky's best  interest to fully develop the H-92 since it will continue to market it to a vast number of larger contracts to other nations. At the end of the day there may end up being similarites between the CH-146 and CH-148 only time will tell. However, the process to purchase the two were distinctly diiferent. The CH-146 deal was closed before  Statement of Requirement (SOR) was finished  whereas the CH-148  SOR was finished long before the contract was signed.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Aug 2005)

h3tacco said:
			
		

> However, the process to purchase the two were distinctly diiferent. The CH-146 deal was closed before   Statement of Requirement (SOR) was finished   ...



And that, my friends, pretty much sums up how we were forced to do things under the backwards regime that was in power for far too long.  

"The times are 'a changing ..."  Thanks h3tacco!!!


----------



## h3tacco (14 Aug 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Where shall I begin?  Keep in mind that most things I will mention are skill based, which can be easily countered with a retort such as "...they can learn to do that.."
> 
> CCG does not practice the following NSAR skillsets:
> 
> ...



First off I think that conceptually the CCG should handle NSAR. I think it is possible even despite zoomies points, however I am not sure the cost benefits. There would be a cost of  the transition itself and then if DND simply lost its portion of the budget dedicated to NSAR DND would be no more better off than before. 

How would we do the transition well I am sure there a million ways to skin a cat but here it is  off the top of my head:

1) The CF couldn't just drop NSAR on the CCG's lap and say here you go as Zoomie points out they don't have most of the skill set. There would have to be a transition period  that could be at least 10 years or more. 

2) The coast guard could start by sending people through the OTU and SAR Tech school. Difficulties here would obviously arise in finding suitable candidates. I firmly believe that if you can  teach a military student pilot to fly the Cormorant and Buff with only some 200hrs you can find civilian or CCG members to do the same, albeit CF has pretty high ab itio  standards that would have to be considered. An option would be for the CCG to piggy back onto CF pilot training system, NFTC already  provides training to other customers. The USCG piggy backs onto USN pilot training. The same can be said about other aircrew ie Flight Engineers, NAVs, Loadmasters. Unfortunately, this wouldn't really save the government any money. As for SAR techs my experience with them is limited at best but IMHO there are people outside of the CF capable of conducting SAR tech training, of course selection would be critical. The CF would basically be left with the burden of getting the CCG up and running and giving them all the skill sets zommie mentioned.  The CF isn't the only one able to do hoisting or SAR in general. One only has to look at Europe to see that a vast number of countries completely or partially outsource SAR to civilian companies, not simply  another Federal Department.  As for techs this might be easier since there is not as much difference (correct me if I wrong) military techs working on SAR birds and civilian  techs working on civilian aircraft. 

3) What to do with current military members in the SAR community would also be a difficult issue. I am not sure how many would want to lateral transfer to CCG. If no one wanted to lateral transfer than the CF would be basically either have to force people or wait to current members finish there career and the CCG has built up a cadre to completely take over completely. I think that this would be probably be poorly handled and would leave a lot of upset people. 

Anyway I am sure people will find issue with what I just said and to be honest I don't really think the CF would be any better off if we didn't have to do NSAR at least not in the next twenty years. As for outsourcing to civilians in general,  if people don't believe almost everything the military does can be outsourced to private military contractors (PMCs), they haven't been paying attention to the news in Iraq. Blackwater operates a fleet of helicopters in support of its employees in roles vary similar to what the TAC hel community. Of course PMCs may not have the size or more complex weapon systems (attack helos, MBTs, fast-air) (I doubt we will see the PMC CVBG anytime soon) and not to mention the majority of its employees are ex-military in the first place. Given the money and time there is no doubt you could outsource majority of what we do overseas to CHC but that opens a whole other can of worms and I personally don't see it as good option. All that to say I believe conceptually/doctrinally the NSAR lays within the realm of the CCG and it is realistic option to consider but at least in the short term it would cost too much money and cause too many headaches to be worth it.


----------



## Sf2 (14 Aug 2005)

all good points tacco - I guess I learn something new every day.

I guess I'm in the mindset that when you say med/heavy lift, I think SOG first, then what ever is left over goes to 1 Wing.  And I don't think the new SOG would remotely consider an H-92


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Aug 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Where shall I begin?   Keep in mind that most things I will mention are skill based, which can be easily countered with a retort such as "...they can learn to do that.."
> 
> CCG does not practice the following NSAR skillsets:
> 
> ...



Good counter-points, Zoomie..........    

Yup, I better stop while I'm behind...


Duey


----------

