# Precision Strike Capability for the Auroras



## Mark M (24 Aug 2008)

I was just wondering with the upgrades that are being made to the Aurora, if it is possible to give it the capability to aid ground forces in handling specific targets or soften up the enemy with munitions such as SDBs.  This would give our troops more flexability when handling dug in threats or enemy armor (not a threat now I know but my motto is to plan for all wars) so they don't have to always rely on the M72 (could have used them up on another threat) or artillery (they are currently engaged or they are too far away).  This could also be used as I said to soften the enemy up for the main assault.

This is how an assault could play out:

Two squads are tasked with dismantling an enemy camp.  A sniper team is also providing overwatch.  The Aurora has already provided a lay of the land in regards to the training camp and have viewed what looks like a supply truck in the center of the camp.  This could be just a supply truck, or it could be rigged to blow and decimate the camp and everyone in it if the camp is over run.  The snipers don't have a clear shot and artillery is too far away to do anything.  The squad leader, who knows that the Aurora is equipped with munitions capable of destroying the truck request an air strike.  The strike is approved and the leader orders his men to engage the camp when the missile hits and for the snipers to provide precision fire on targets of opportunity.  The Aurora flies by again and the missile is fired.  The truck is destroyed and the enemy is started by the sudden explosion.  The squads takes the camp with little resistance because the air strike caught the enemy totally off guard.

This is just one of the many time the Aurora could be utilized by us and our allies and, in my opinion, would be a valuable addition to the aircraft.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2008)

There are assets better suited for that role.......the CP-140 does a great job at ISR.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There are assets better suited for that role.......the CP-140 does a great job at ISR.



Yup - BTDT.


----------



## bartbandyrfc (27 Aug 2008)

Despite CdnAviator's accurate statemement, I for one would love to see this capability on the Aurora. If we are there doing ISR anyway, I think it would be of value to have two 500 lb PGMs on board for targets of opportunity. It would not be hard to put a laser designator on the aircraft, although DAEPM and the Canadian aircraft industry would make it into a 80 million dollar design upgrade that would end up ten years late to need and 50% over budget.

BB


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

only 50% over budget ???
... forgot to take your greedy pills this morning >


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Aug 2008)

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> Despite CdnAviator's accurate statemement, I for one would love to see this capability on the Aurora. If we are there doing ISR anyway, I think it would be of value to have two 500 lb PGMs on board for targets of opportunity. It would not be hard to put a laser designator on the aircraft, although DAEPM and the Canadian aircraft industry would make it into a 80 million dollar design upgrade that would end up ten years late to need and 50% over budget.
> 
> BB



To hugely oversimplfy, like a honkin' _*manned*_ Predator?  If you're looking, and find something to shoot at, why not shoot at it then (or at least "paint" it for someone else to shoot at)?


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2008)

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> It would not be hard to put a laser designator on the aircraft,



Maybe we should have bought the MX-20* with * the laser illuminator instead eh ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Aug 2008)

Isn't the CP140 too valuable to put in harms way like that?


----------



## Bearpaw (27 Aug 2008)

I seem to recall from the 1970's that the Aurora was to be provided for the capability of carrying
the Maverick AGM-65----was this capability ever realized?

Bearpaw


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

Umm.... 
Don't our allies, with whom we are working, already have enough resources in theatre to fill potential needs of a CP140.
Don't we as a country with oceans on 3 sides have enough oceans to patrol - without thinking about shipping our CP140s overseas .

Use em for what they were bought for.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Isn't the CP140 too valuable to put in harms way like that?



We could hang out at high altitude but since we dont have things like MAWS, CMDS, DEWS or LAIRCM...........which would take another 10 years and be %50 over budget too !!



			
				Bearpaw said:
			
		

> I seem to recall from the 1970's that the Aurora was to be provided for the capability of carrying
> the Maverick AGM-65----was this capability ever realized?
> 
> Bearpaw


We didnt get the CP-140 until 1980. We have the capability to carry and drop Conventional bombs but thats about it. There are other issues with carrying wing stores but thats not for this forum.




			
				geo said:
			
		

> Don't our allies, with whom we are working, already have enough resources in theatre to fill potential needs of a CP140.



Yes



> Don't we as a country with oceans on 3 sides have enough oceans to patrol - without thinking about shipping our CP140s overseas .



No, we dont have enough Auroras around. Not right now anyways. not with 10 of them only getting block 3. IMHO.


----------



## FoverF (27 Aug 2008)

It famously quoted by a fairly senior USN officer (who's name eludes me at the moment) that the P-3C carrying the SLAM-ER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standoff_Land_Attack_Missile) was the most potent precision strike asset in the USN. This was a few years ago, but the P-3 can still fly a couple thousand km's, and chuck a cruise missile a couple hundred km's into enemy territory, without ever entering hostile airspace. A few tiers up from dropping an SDB in support of a platoon-level attack, but there you go. This would be where I would want to take the over-land combat role for the Aurora.

But I think that this is mostly moot, since (from an outsider's perspective) it looks to me like any attempt to upgrade the Auroras inevitably gets stuck in a cycle of a$$-clownery (upgrade project goes over-budget, gets cut  back so that it's only implemented on part of the fleet, barely gets started if at all, and then takes so long to implement that it gets rolled into the next batch of upgrades. Rinse and repeat).

On the topic of dropping SDBs:
  





> There are other issues with carrying wing stores



If this were to be implemented, just for the sake of discussion, couldn't a 250lb store like the SDB be carried internally?


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2008)

FoverF said:
			
		

> If this were to be implemented, just for the sake of discussion, couldn't a 250lb store like the SDB be carried internally?



Why not. We already carry the Mk46 Torp internaly so an SDB is not a big stretch. What i was talking about in ref to wing stores has nothing to do with the weight of the munition.



			
				FoverF said:
			
		

> it looks to me like any attempt to upgrade the Auroras inevitably gets stuck in a cycle of a$$-clownery (upgrade project goes over-budget, gets cut  back so that it's only implemented on part of the fleet, barely gets started if at all, and then takes so long to implement that it gets rolled into the next batch of upgrades. Rinse and repeat).



You only know the half of it my freind.........


----------



## bartbandyrfc (27 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Maybe we should have bought the MX-20* with * the laser illuminator instead eh ?



Possibly.  But an illuminator is not the same as a designator.

Conceptually, it wouldn't be to hard to put two 500 Lb PGMs (or maybe two 250 lb'ers) in the bomb bay and drop them from the racks at a high altitude.  All the while, one of our guys is designating a target with a laser designator. Or perhaps one of our SOF ninjas could do that for us.  The appropriate boxes could be quite easily fitted, given the coin and the operational will. However, we would need to design the equipment in Canada, find a manufacturer in Quebec, fit the kit, and get the stuff through EMI, technical, and operational, testing; all while employing at least 500 PYs from some have not province (Ontario ;D) over the life of the airframe. 

My view, if we are to support ground forces with ISR in a hostile AOR (like we have exercised in the benign environment of MAPLE GUARDIAN), why not bring some weapons along with us.  

All this said, others are right: too many tasks at home, too few airplaes to do those tasks, and too little in the way of will.

BB


----------



## aesop081 (27 Aug 2008)

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> Possibly.  But an illuminator is not the same as a designator.



Would be better than what we have now, nothing.



> The appropriate boxes could be quite easily fitted, given the coin and the operational will.



Just look at the fight it was to get Falconview and the schemozle it is to have the OEMS on-board now. Having a 349 open for that...... :




> All this said, others are right: too many tasks at home, too few airplaes to do those tasks, and too little in the way of will.



Theres plenty of will down here at the line sqn level. But there is one employement for the Aurora that doesnt seem to be getting anywhere ( you know what i am talking about). The block 2 production and CT arent helping.


----------



## bartbandyrfc (27 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Theres plenty of will down here at the line sqn level. But there is one employement for the Aurora that doesnt seem to be getting anywhere ( you know what i am talking about). The block 2 production and CT arent helping.



CDN Aviator,

I'm with ya dude.  Lots of will down here at the "coalface".  Without appropriate levels of will at the CAS, VCDS, CDS, PM, and Privy Council levels, I am afraid us tactical chumps are just pissing in the wind.

BB

PS An illuninator cannot be used for direct designation of targets without third party assistance.  I agree it s better than what e have now, but without a designator the platform remains dependant on others for targeting.  Maybe that's a god thing, but maybe it ain't.


----------

