# Best Air Support ?



## toglmonster (29 Jun 2006)

With new Hercules soon to be on order, could some of our older models be converted into AC-130. Would a gunship be effective in a place like Afghanistan? :threat:


----------



## pbi (29 Jun 2006)

I stand to be corrected by one of our Air Force friends, but I think the best thing to do with our Hercs is to retire them. My understanding of the AC-130 is that it requires extensive reinforcement to accomodate the recoil system for the howitzer: I wonder if our current airframes are still good enough to use for that.

And, yes-the AC-130 could definitely be used in Afgh, because the US has been using it. There was at least one stationed at Bagram when I was there, and I know that it was factored into planning at least a couple of ops that I did liaison for, because of its accuracy with the howitzer, not for its miniguns.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2006)

I think we will be hard pressed to have a fleet of Transport Aircraft of sufficient size to handle all of our needs, without dedicating some as specialty SOF Aircraft, which would only have one use/task.


----------



## Danjanou (30 Jun 2006)

I ran your idea by the NDP defence critic and he’s all for it. One catch the 105mm has to be modified to only fire teddy bears at poor impoverished , yet still photogenic, orphans. :


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> I stand to be corrected by one of our Air Force friends, but I think the best thing to do with our Hercs is to retire them. My understanding of the AC-130 is that it requires extensive reinforcement to accomodate the recoil system for the howitzer: I wonder if our current airframes are still good enough to use for that.
> 
> And, yes-the AC-130 could definitely be used in Afgh, because the US has been using it. There was at least one stationed at Bagram when I was there, and I know that it was factored into planning at least a couple of ops that I did liaison for, because of its accuracy with the howitzer, not for its miniguns.
> 
> Cheers



The CC-130s we have now are reaching the end of their life.........some are already grounded because they have maxed out their flyable hours. No sense modifying them if thay cant fly anymore


----------



## toglmonster (30 Jun 2006)

The American A-10's are putting on a good show in Afghanistan, but will never see them in our inventory. The Apache, maybe but I won't hold my breath. Cf-18 too big a logistical tail to deploy to Afghanistan. The AC-130, well we already have Hercules in country. Just thinking of how to get the biggest bang for the smallest buck. Our own air support would be nice. Teddy Bears, hey why not.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2006)

toglmonster said:
			
		

> . The AC-130, well we already have Hercules in country. Just thinking of how to get the biggest bang for the smallest buck.



You dont understand aircraft structural life do you ?

i agree, it would be nice to have our own air support but thats been discussed already by peole more knowlegable than me.  Aircraft structural life i do understand quite well.  last aircraft i flew has over 21 000 hours on it.........and its all hard hours and i see the issues we deal with flying an ageing aircraft.  Those Hercs you are talking about are passing 40000 hours......they should have been made into popcans years ago...not turned into gunships.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jun 2006)

And new AC130s would only eat away at the limited resources we have to by tactical and strategic lift air craft. What do you think we need more of?


----------



## Zoomie (30 Jun 2006)

It has also been shown that the AC-130's are of limited practical/tactical use.  They work well only when you have complete air superiority and are facing a poor and squallied enemy force (i.e. Taliban in Afghanistan and Insurgents in Iraq).  Anywhere else (like a modern battlefield) they would have a very short life span.


----------



## CBH99 (30 Jun 2006)

Hey guys,

    C'mon now, can't we please both sides?  A teddy bear being launched out of a howitzer, being assisted by gravity at the same time, could still knock a few heads off - we get our gunships, and the NDP get their candy coated armed forces.  And hey, what better dual-purpose technique than to kill the bad guys with teddy bears flying down at them at 300km per hour, only to have some orphan find it the next day?  I think your onto something...


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (30 Jun 2006)

Also, if it's the Snuggles fabric softner Teddy we're using their clothes will be springtime fresh.  Come on...Do it!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (30 Jun 2006)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> It has also been shown that the AC-130's are of limited practical/tactical use.  They work well only when you have complete air superiority and are facing a poor and squallied enemy force (i.e. Taliban in Afghanistan and Insurgents in Iraq).  Anywhere else (like a modern battlefield) they would have a very short life span.



Just for the fun of it, what makes you think that Afghanistan and Iraq are not modern battlefields?  Is there some modern battle that the air force is fighting that I'm not aware of?

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.  AC-130 has capabilities that are quite desirable in the counter-insurgency theatre.  The A1 was quite popular in Vietnam, even though it was "obsolete."  Stukas might even do the trick.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## pbi (30 Jun 2006)

2B you make an excellent point. Afghanistan IS modern war. So was GWII, and so is the "post major conflict" operation that the Coalition is undertaking in OIF. It's all the way war looks, right now.   (And, anyway...what does "war" really mean any more? Isn't "combat" what we're really concerned with, not whether or not we call it a "war"?...but that's a different tangent.)

And, I think you're also right about  the kit: what works, works. A crossbowman can kill just as effectively today as he did 500 years ago, and in some situations he might be just the very system we want. So could a laser guided bomb. It all depends. As we have seen in Afgh, Iraq, etc, etc, it isn't always the flashy , expensive hi-tech stuff that works best: sometimes its the cheap, dirty and brutally effective.

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jun 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> Stukas might even do the trick.


STUKAS!  I'm all for it!  Complete with Sirens wailing as they drop in.  VERY cool.  Effective?  Don't know, dont' care.

;D


----------



## Danjanou (30 Jun 2006)

I just checked Jack and Olivia said no to Stukas, didn’t give a reason but I think it has something to do with mustache envy. They did however say that after talking to Gilles Bombardier is now developing a Teflon coated teddy that will survive the 300kph hit without losing its fur or glass eeyes. Hey can’t have those kids photographed with beaten up raggedy teddies. Cost is estimated at 4-5 billion so good bye to some of the goodies announced this week. Delivery guaranteed in 10 years.

Seriouly good points 2B and PBI re low tech still works especially in this type of conflict , but not too loud or they’ll be raiding the was museum and you guys will be going outside the wire with Brown Besses and Iroquois war clubs.  8)


----------



## Franko (30 Jun 2006)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Seriouly good points 2B and PBI re low tech still works especially in this type of conflict , but not too loud or they’ll be raiding the was museum and you guys will be going outside the wire with Brown Besses and Iroquois war clubs.



I can see it now....Red Coats on, drums beating      :rofl:

Regards


----------



## geo (30 Jun 2006)

Marines continue to use the Cobra (OK... super Cobra) while the USArmy has moved on to the Apache..... simple reliable design wins out over the new & improved product.

The A10 was supposed to be "dumped" a long time ago.... and then they had a chance to prove themselves in GW 1.... simple reliable design wins out over the new & improved product


----------



## GAP (30 Jun 2006)

Cobra's of whatever variety rock. Go anywhere, do anything for support. Apache is nice but where comparing Pontiac to Cadillac.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Jun 2006)

Just a note:  I personally am not in love with the idea of being launched from an aircraft but jack the hardship and risk up a bit more and I'll think about it....I assume I'll get some sort of parachuting allowance and a C-8?

Teddy


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Marines continue to use the Cobra (OK... super Cobra) while the USArmy has moved on to the Apache..... simple reliable design wins out over the new & improved product.



Just a point that I have 'pointed out' to others in the AFV Recognition lines of discusion....The USMC has a lot of its equipment predeployed aboard ship.  A Super Cobra is very small, it, besides offering a smaller head-on profile, takes up little space compared to an Apache.  As such you can fit two or three Super Cobras in the space that an Apache may take up aboard ship.  

Now ask yourself;  "Would I want one Apache in support of my Operation, or two or three Super Cobras?"


----------



## Shec (30 Jun 2006)

No AC-130's, Cobras, or Stukas?

How about a Twin Otter with a C1 SMG mounted in each window?


----------



## Old Guy (30 Jun 2006)

But how many teflonized teddy bears can a Super Cobra carry?

If the Apache can carry three times more in a single load, it might be the better choice.

How high to these teddy bears bounce?  Will the firing aircraft have to take evasive action for its own projectiles?

Obviously, a test program is needed.  

Let's start by forming a company . . . . how about T-Rux, Inc?


Jim


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (30 Jun 2006)

What's the range on a Brown Bess and do they come in different barrel lengths?  

What is this talk of teddy bears?  Two squadrons of Stukas, one million dollars in US funds and a regiment of those flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz with crossbows and MNVGs is all that I need to end this conflict.  Oh yeah, and a Sherman.  No school like the old school.

And they said my methods were "unsound."


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2006)

Couldn't we find something that would be more flexible and versitile than MNVGs?  I know Monkey Night Vision Goggles would be needed by this regiment, but what if we have to pass that kit on to the next ROTO?  They would be kinda small, don't ya think?  Or are they adjustable to fit larger heads?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Jun 2006)

> What is this talk of teddy bears?



Hey, don't be dissin' me, man.  I need another tour and this sounds as good of an idea as any... Although I'll take your Sherman...  ;D


----------



## geo (30 Jun 2006)

Was told at one point that the Apaches were having a hell of a time with their composite rotor blades in the desert sand.  They were being sand blasted to nothing and suceptible to delamination... and that isn`t a good thing.  The cobras have (or did have) an older solid design that wasn't / isn't suceptible to separation.... so il'll have those 2 or 3 Cobras please.

Chimo!


----------



## Danjanou (30 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Just a note:  I personally am not in love with the idea of being launched from an aircraft but jack the hardship and risk up a bit more and I'll think about it....I assume I'll get some sort of parachuting allowance and a C-8?
> 
> Teddy



Of course you'll be getting a allowance teddy. The special air delivery for stuffed substitute pacifiers/maternal objects (SADSPAM) allowance bill is now before the Senate. Downside is it won't be cash, but payable in bio degradable certificated redeemable at various herbal and granola venders in the Lower mainland of BC and downtown Toronto.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jun 2006)

OK to try and get this thread back on target....( not that the teddy bear idea is bad )

Lets think this through...out of all out CC130's there has to 1 or 2 that could accommodate the refit yes?

So lets work off the base of 2 with crews so that's what 2 pilots, 1 Nav, 1 FE, and I'm taking a stab in the dark here so feel free to correct me 2 Airborne weapons operators? so 6 total per aircraft so 12 in total for our "new" fleet of 2 ACC130's.. So with 2 aircraft we have 1 in theater with one rotating home for refit and crew swap so we would need say an additional 24 pers in Flight crews.

So is that sustainable? I'm sure short term it's very do able.

I haven't gotten into the benefits of having the ACC130 in theater because everyone knows why it's good and I could site some historical precedence for how it could have been useful in the Balkens and obviously in Afghanistan, plus it gives us even more independent operational ability.

So lets hear it doable yes....but why not?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Jun 2006)

Are you talking about our existing fleet for refit?  Could these airframes take the punishment of firing a 105mm?


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jun 2006)

I am yes, and I did say maybe 1 or 2 could sustain the refit.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Jun 2006)

What is the least amount of flying hours for the Herc's?


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jun 2006)

Basic stats for the gunship can be found here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jun 2006)

Alright so American standard 13....

So then we need say 5 crews at 13 pers per crew for a total of 65...which starts lowering the odds of being feasible however If we "Canadianize" it we could in theory say lower it to 10 for a total of 50, some re-roleing of Officer postions and NCM training would be necessary if we made some FE's Air weapons techs, which also provides backup FE's to the aircraft in case of incident, As well if Pilots and Nav's were re roled and re trained your talking 2 skills sets per person.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2006)

I think that this is getting way outside our Lanes.  The CF isn't large enough at this time to maintain this specialized equipment economically.  If we were in a Total War scenario, it would be more feasible, but not in our current state.  We need the Transport.  These aircraft would not be able to change their configurations without a 'total' refit, and then they would be gone for good.  

The numbers of C130's being talked about, will hardly fill the role of the numbers of C130's that being retired.  In the end we will probably have fewer Tactical Airlift assets.  I don't think the option you propose is possible.  We won't have the aircraft to do it.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jun 2006)

Well this is all in the realm of fantasy isn't it?

I mean for just a pure thought excersise lets think it out shall we, can we in thoery make this work? were only talking about 2 aircraft not a fleet, and 50 Air Force personel, I mean we havent even got into weapon systems or cost of maintaining it.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2006)

As a Fantasy, I find it quite appealing and a definite asset that we would readily use.

As Reality, I am quite sceptical that we can afford the lost of even two aircraft at this time to this role.


----------



## canuck101 (30 Jun 2006)

when we have all the new equipment that we need that will be the time for fantasy not before even with the new stuff we are still going to need more.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jun 2006)

Alright I'll play Devils Advocate in the realm or Reality.

2 Aircraft out of a fleet of 32 according to this document

http://www.jcaa.us/AA_Conference_2000/Th-13.pdf

That's hardly a drop in in operational capability for troop lift, when you think about the additional advantage of the gunship refit would add IMO. Now you take into account all the Crews we have standing idle waiting for aircraft to fly ( I haven't a statistic so I'm not sure how many CC130 crews wait for an aircraft's to fly, Air pers please advise) And you role them from troop trans to ground support gunship training and flying, and you do a continual rotation of crews through the cycle of troop trans and gunship.

Now the cost of maintenance isn't that much more expensive for the ACC130's as it would be for the regular CC130. And seeing as 15(?) CC130s are being replaced by new models it infact does't even change the maintenance hours for these aircraft, as 15 of them will need statistically less maintenance in terms of hours.

*Edit: Remember Devils Advocate..... And of course I'm not an Airforce pers so I could well be right out to luch with my estimates on somethings which is why I'm hoping some Airforce pers that haunt these boards will come over and set it all straight


----------



## Danjanou (30 Jun 2006)

Hit while you do present some arguments vis a vis the feasibility of the idea , and I’ll be honest I doubt I’m qualified to say if your figures are on or right the frig outta dere bye.

One other aspect even if it’s doable financially and physically (aircraft and aircrew available) is the political aspect. While we are making progress in shedding this misinformed fallacy that we’re just some organization of blue hated tree hugger who run around the world handing out stuffed animals and candies, we’re not completely there yet. To the great ADD suffering unwashed aka as the voting public it may be seen too aggressive as would A-10s and helicopter gun ships.

Planes, trucks and big honking ships we need and can sell to the public right now and old smiling Jack and the Birkenstock brigade really don’t have a leg to stand on opposing them. Let’s get them in the pipeline and slowly build up an attitude of spending for the military in their minds and then begin to ask for more exotic toys. Especially as has been pointed out these would be “nice to haves” not must haves.”

See I can be serious too 8)


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jun 2006)

I can accept that premise as to why it's not a complete go at this point for sure, But I would also agrue it needs to be thought prior to our older CC130's being scarped completely. Because when they are you can't bring them back for a refit, they are well and truely gone, and then you are going to loose Troops Transport in doing a refit of available aircraft,


----------



## Inch (30 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a point that I have 'pointed out' to others in the AFV Recognition lines of discusion....The USMC has a lot of its equipment predeployed aboard ship.  A Super Cobra is very small, it, besides offering a smaller head-on profile, takes up little space compared to an Apache.  As such you can fit two or three Super Cobras in the space that an Apache may take up aboard ship.
> 
> Now ask yourself;  "Would I want one Apache in support of my Operation, or two or three Super Cobras?"



George,

I've posted this before, but I would hardly say that the Super Cobra is "very small". It's actually longer than the Apache by about a foot when the rotors are turning. It's slightly lighter than the Apache at all up weight, but we're talking less than 500lbs difference between the AH-1W and the AH-64A, the AH-64D is a little over 1000 lbs heavier than the AH-1W. Rotor diameter is within 1 ft of each other. The only dimension the AH-64 is much bigger in is width of fuselage due to the larger winglets, it's 6 ft wider than the AH-1. 

The major difference when storing them is that the AH-1W has only two rotor blades vs the 4 of the AH-64, and since the Apache doesn't fold, the Cobra is easier to store. Having said that, the AH-1Z is coming online and it has 4 blades, so the difference between the two size wise will be next to nil.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jun 2006)

Shec said:
			
		

> No AC-130's, Cobras, or Stukas?
> 
> How about a Twin Otter with a C1 SMG mounted in each window?


DON'T JOKE ABOUT THAT!  I saw this old "film" on the militia from the early 70's and a Twin Otter flew just such a mission on this exercise, with the C5 GPMG firing out the side!  UGH!


----------



## GO!!! (30 Jun 2006)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> One other aspect even if it’s doable financially and physically (aircraft and aircrew available) is the political aspect.



This is the biggest obstacle, IMHO.

The Loony left  can't really complain too much about expanding and upgrading logistical capabilities. They can (and will) scream if and when we start to purchase other needed kit, like AC 130s, Leo 2s or Atk Helos. 

I predict that the high speed weapons will not start to be purchased until we get a Conservative majority government who can safely relegate the leftist opposition like the BQ and NDP to irrelevance.


----------



## Danjanou (30 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> This is the biggest obstacle, IMHO.
> 
> The Loony left  can't really complain too much about expanding and upgrading logistical capabilities. They can (and will) scream if and when we start to purchase other needed kit, like AC 130s, Leo 2s or Atk Helos.
> 
> I predict that the high speed weapons will not start to be purchased until we get a Conservative majority government who can safely relegate the leftist opposition like the BQ and NDP to irrelevance.



yup until then we're back to Plan B  excessive development and eventual procurment of the  The ATGTSCAAP (Air to Ground Teflon Soft Cuddly Animal Anti Personal) System. 8)


----------



## couchcommander (30 Jun 2006)

Rather than Stuka's... what about some OV-10's? 

They seemed (from an uninformed perspective) to be effective in their role and appreciated by the troops on the ground. They're relatively simple and cheap (even more so than a warthog), might be able to restart production domestically. That way we could hook siren's to the bottom as well.  >


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Rather than Stuka's... what about some OV-10's?
> 
> They seemed (from an uninformed perspective) to be effective in their role and appreciated by the troops on the ground. They're relatively simple and cheap (even more so than a warthog), might be able to restart production domestically. That way we could hook siren's to the bottom as well.  >



Do you know what the OV-10 is for ?

Not  a ground attack aircraft !


----------



## couchcommander (30 Jun 2006)

Hrm???

I'm pretty sure it was used for such purposes in Vietnam.


----------



## mdh (30 Jun 2006)

The Bronco - little bit of this, little bit of that....IIRC one was shot down in the GWI and its crew displayed on TV by the Iraqis...

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ov-10.htm

mdh


----------



## Loachman (30 Jun 2006)

The current Herc fleet will be retired progressively as they hit their limits while the new ones filter in. Those few that are left by the end of the replacement programme will still be needed for tpt. We would not get our money's worth out of converting those to AC status given the limited hours that would be remaining anyway - and that work would probably cost more than buying new ones.

Two would not give any real capability anyway. Figure on three minimum to give a reasonable probability of having one serviceable but not necessarily available at all times. Then you'd still have to consider the training bill, both initial and currency.

I would suggest that there are much more important bits of kit that we need before doing that - like Y-model conversion/swap with EO/IR sensor and weapons kits for the CH146 and ultimate acquisition of Z-model AH-1.

And Bell RH-70 ARH http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/military/ARH/bellARH3.cfm for me...

Trivia from http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html

"H-69
When the VH-71A designation was assigned to the Lockheed Martin US-101 (winner of the VXX (Presidential Helicopter) competition), the design numbers 69 and 70 in the H-series were skipped (H-70 has since been allocated to the Bell ARH). As has been confirmed by the VXX Program Office, the number "69" was regarded as embarrassing, because that number is also known as a synonym for a certain sexual practice. According to USAF/XPPE, H-69 will not be assigned in the future to any helicopter."


----------



## WogCpl (30 Jun 2006)

Forget AC-130's, if we are going to have heavy lift helos, then it only makes sense to buy escorts to fit the same bill. correct me if i an wrong, but we are using our hercs in a operational role and not so much a tactical one, so once we get some true tactical airlift, ie. chinooks, we will need escort for them or we will once again be relying on the US to cover our asses. AC-130's are great, but a apache or a cobra IMHO would be more effective at covering a tactical force mounted on chinooks, and providing deployed troops with a limited CAS capability.


----------



## couchcommander (30 Jun 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> The Bronco - little bit of this, little bit of that....



Indeed they have other uses, but I seem to remember them being employed in a COIN sense rather effectively. I wouldn't want to put one on total war battlefield - but loitering in support of COIN ops - pretty sure its done it effectively.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Indeed they have other uses, but I seem to remember them being employed in a COIN sense rather effectively. I wouldn't want to put one on total war battlefield - but loitering in support of COIN ops - pretty sure its done it effectively.



None the less...the OV-10, like the OV-1 before it are basicaly airborne FAC aircraft and are best used as such.  Not that it matters since they are fairly rare nowadays.  You want air support, get an air support aircraft not a light observation platform.


----------



## couchcommander (30 Jun 2006)

You'd certainly know more about them than I would, so I'll take your word for it (for now, at least, until I can get home and pull up the source...).


----------



## Loachman (30 Jun 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Rather than Stuka's... what about some OV-10's?


Sure - if you want a 40-year-old design that carries a light payload.

You want old clapped-out surplus ones or do you want to pay the big bucks to have the production lines re-started (and I bet that none of the jigs and tooling have been retained) for a dozen or so examples?

There's a good reason that most armies use attack or armed helicopters.


----------



## couchcommander (30 Jun 2006)

well a) thinking out loud and pointed to my uninformedness in the first post... no reason to get hostile here! 

but b) The (joking) suggestion was for Stuka's - cheap, simple, relatively effective. My "thinking out loud" suggestion was hey, aren't these things a *little* more modern, but still fit the bill? Yea you may need to completely restart production, but as I eluded to in the first post they are practically home built. 

In the end, they are dirt cheap and seemed to have been used effectively in that role before. aesop081 says it's a bad idea, not a good airframe for the role. Great, he'd know (apparently so would you), idea blown out of the water.


----------



## GAP (30 Jun 2006)

Shyly touching my toe to the water....I hesitate to mention that while the OV were a welcome sight in their day (because it meant all hell was going to follow), many of these roles can be now done by the wide variety of UAV's.


----------



## munky99999 (30 Jun 2006)

As far as I have been reading we are getting a total of 4(four) globetrotters. Certainly these 4 planes aren’t enough to replace the Hercules planes. So you couldn’t possibly realistically think we’ll retire the Hercules planes. From what I’ve been getting from the idea of the globetrotters are there just to supplement the Hercules for the larger jobs that need to be done that are on the outer limits of the Hercules. As for the conversion of our Hercules to a gunship; I suppose it’s possible it could be done. But really how much benefit could come from it that can’t be done with an ally (USA) or CF-18? I just don’t see the cost being efficient for the benefit.

Honestly I could see Canada move into some AWACS systems rather before any gunships, but I don’t see that happening neither.


----------



## condor888000 (30 Jun 2006)

From what I understand they are looking at 21 aircraft. 4 C-17's and 17 Herc replacements.


----------



## couchcommander (30 Jun 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Shyly touching my toe to the water....I hesitate to mention that while the OV were a welcome sight in their day (because it meant all hell was going to follow), many of these roles can be now done by the wide variety of UAV's.



Good point.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jun 2006)

Munky there are numerous threads on what we are supposedly aquiring in terms of aircraft and ships. Should you really feel the need to post on this topic perhaps you should actually pay attention to what were getting before you beak off and show how dumb people can really be when they post and don't keep up with current events.

Now the for your education only... the C17 Globemaster III is a Strategic Lift Aircraft, it hauls Supplies and troops and usually isn't used in the Tactical environ. It requires a paved Runway that is generally well maintained and is large enough for large commercial aircraft

the CC130 Hercules is a Tactical lift Aircraft used to haul supplies and troops in a tactical environment, it is a none paved runway capable aircraft used in harsh condition for tactical re sup.

That's not all, nor is it the best definition of both aircraft but it's a pretty well rounded and base one. Air Force pers feel free to add to it, but I hope this gives Munky a sense of what were talking about.


*Edit: Thank you Aesop for the porper designation.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> As far as I have been reading we are getting a total of 4(four) globetrotters. Certainly these 4 planes aren’t enough to replace the Hercules planes. So you couldn’t possibly realistically think we’ll retire the Hercules planes. From what I’ve been getting from the idea of the globetrotters are there just to supplement the Hercules for the larger jobs that need to be done that are on the outer limits of the Hercules. As for the conversion of our Hercules to a gunship; I suppose it’s possible it could be done. But really how much benefit could come from it that can’t be done with an ally (USA) or CF-18? I just don’t see the cost being efficient for the benefit.
> 
> Honestly I could see Canada move into some AWACS systems rather before any gunships, but I don’t see that happening neither.



C-17 *Globemaste*r III

At least get the name right..........


----------



## Loachman (30 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Honestly I could see Canada move into some AWACS systems rather before any gunships, but I don’t see that happening neither.


We've been involved in the NATO AWACS programme for decades.


----------



## Koenigsegg (30 Jun 2006)

What were the first two?

Globemaster III, But I know of no other Globemasters...


----------



## condor888000 (30 Jun 2006)

Here you go. First two and the current one. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globemaster


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> What were the first two?
> 
> Globemaster III, But I know of no other Globemasters...





			
				condor888000 said:
			
		

> Here you go. First two and the current one.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globemaster



Did you think i was talking out of my a$$  ?


----------



## condor888000 (30 Jun 2006)

Hell no. I'm sure you've forgotten more about aviation than I've learned. Just felt like chucking that out there in case somebody decided to try and dispute it.


----------



## Koenigsegg (30 Jun 2006)

No, I knew you were right.   ;D  (don't hurt me...)

It was just that I was not fully aware of the predecessors to the Globmaster numero III
But now that I was given the link, I know.   I remember both those planes, I just did not know that they were Globemasters, thank you for the link.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2006)

condor888000 said:
			
		

> Hell no. I'm sure you've forgotten more about aviation than I've learned. Just felt like chucking that out there in case somebody decided to try and dispute it.



My commentwas meant towards "Koenigsegg"


----------



## condor888000 (30 Jun 2006)

Alright, misread it then. My bad...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2006)

The AC-130 has lots of limitations, the USAF refuses to allow them to fly during the daylight hours for example, because of their vulnerability to SAMs, AA and enemy aircraft (although the last is a small factor these days). This is a result of an AC-130 being shot down over Ras-al Khafji during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The C-17 is complimentary to the C-130 (one is strategic and one is tactical), so arguing for one or the other is arguing apples vs oranges. As for ground attack and close air support, nothing today can beat an A-10, but unfortunately no one builds them anymore, and like the OV-10 Bronco mentioned earlier, recreating the tooling etc. would be very expensive.

Some other opinions: Bring back something like the CF-5 http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352.0.html


----------



## HItorMiss (30 Jun 2006)

a_majoor the CF-5 lacks the loiter capability that the AC130 holds, we technically have a very viable ground attack fighter in the CF-18.

I more talking about the CAS that the AC130 provides for hours, there are numerous accounts of them staying in an area and making it safe till daylight all on their own.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> and like the OV-10 Bronco mentioned earlier, recreating the tooling etc. would be very expensive.



Yes that is true.  However , my main point is that using the OV-10 for air support would be like using a circullar saw to drive a nail.......


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jul 2006)

Just so we have terms of reference for the OV-10:

(figures for the Rockwell OV-10D)

Max combat radius : 367 Km with max weapons load and* NO * loiter

Max weapons load : 1200 lbs

Can be fitted with a centerline 20mm M197 gun with 1500 rounds of ammunition but thsi can only be done if no other stores are carried


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2006)

While the CF-5 is not the best possible choice, I was thinking of its virtues of being small, light, capable of using austere airfields and reasonably cheap. If you go through that tread, you will see many alternatives were floated, although the ultimate factor for Canada is whatever is chosen needs to be available right now.

The CF-18 is indeed a capable aircraft, but I wonder about it being able to operate from an austere airfield or even a section of road. Sometimes I think the follow on and replacement for the CF-18 should be the JAS-39 Gripen from Sweden for the virtues listed above.


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Jul 2006)

And I have no doubt that the Ground Attack Fighter has it uses, same as the Attack Helicopter, but nothing in my mind has beaten the loiter power of an AC130.

Say we have 1 AC130 in theater and 6 GAF, I call in for CAS now sure that GAF fight will make it their first not even a question, and they will save our butts short term and likely keep us in the fight long enough for the AC130 to arrive but it's ordinance and loiter is limited by allot. Vs the AC130 which conceivably could loiter for hours with out refuel or re arm thus keeping us safe much much longer then the the GAF ever could. Plus as you mentioned it functions out of austere airfields much like the CF-5 and the Grippen.

In terms of bang for your buck CAS the AC130 is the way to go IMO...now bang for your buck in terms of firepower and loiter time, in terms of crew's etc it's and expensive commodity.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (1 Jul 2006)

it would be nice to have a budget and manpower to have all the tools and cool toys for forces to have wating for the radio call to action.
a gunship fat chance whether it be ac130, ah64d or any other model out there. we cannot afford the hardware let alone afford the upkeep. that is what  you have allies on the net for, provide what  you cannot provide. Canada provides the fighting man, boots on the ground, the allies provide the aircraft to move and protect the boots on the ground. 

second thought is how long would it take to train a full crew to operate and maintain a ac130 gunship?

2 to 3 years for training, how many  millions of dollars would this eat that  could be put to better use ?
for sake of arguement 2 years to get the planes  and the crews ready for combat, if we start today. that  would be beginning of 2009 before the crew would be ready for in country operations. mandate for operations as of now is 2009, unless the government pushes to extend the troops over there for another 3 years. so the gunship crew is in place for a few months then could be sent home and wait for the order to charge again ? waste of money for equipment, training, and ammo.  

use some of the older airframes that require replacing anyways?  a lot of money for short term weapons systems?
use some of the new fleet for this gunship?  we then lose airlift because the airframe would have to be convert to gunship and not easy  to put in and take out as the need is there for cargo or guns. cannot do both jobs. 

money  would be better spent on protection equipment for our new fleet that is being ordered and built.

or we find a nice deep pocket  like Alberta or Bill Gates to pay for everything and let them maintain.

No gunships, keep the plan simple. 
just my thoughts, but would be cool to see the Maple leaft on a gunship maybe the US forces would give Canada a gift of one or 2 aircraft already converted?


----------



## couchcommander (1 Jul 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> maybe the US forces would give Canada a gift of one or 2 aircraft already converted?



That's the spirit! Moochy moochy moochy! ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Jul 2006)

"DO you have your Mooching sack Canada?"

 :-[ "Just the small one....."


----------



## toglmonster (1 Jul 2006)

How long would conversion and training take? Does anyone have a good estimate? How about converting our two 130H tankers. ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Jul 2006)

Having talked to an Air Force pers who's information defeats my own (which isn't hard when were talking Air Force stuff) It's not worth the money, energy or effort to do anything more then scrap then into pop can's. They haven't the hours left to be useful and any mre money really just throwing in into a black hole.

*Edit for spelling


----------



## GO!!! (1 Jul 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> 2 to 3 years for training, how many  millions of dollars would this eat that  could be put to better use ?
> for sake of arguement 2 years to get the planes  and the crews ready for combat, if we start today. that  would be beginning of 2009 before the crew would be ready for in country operations. mandate for operations as of now is 2009, unless the government pushes to extend the troops over there for another 3 years.* so the gunship crew is in place for a few months then could be sent home and wait for the order to charge again * ? waste of money for equipment, training, and ammo.



By this logic, why buy *any* piece of military equipment? "We'll probably only use it for one war, and then send it home again"

Afghanistan is not the last war we will fight, and if we are not prepared to make an investment into a theatre that has already consumed so many men and so much treasure, what are we willing to spend it on? If you really wanted to push it, the same amount of money that we sunk into the Leo C2 upgrade would probably buy a couple of AC 130Us, and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) those Leos never once fired a shot in anger, while the Gunships almost certainly will.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Having talked to an Air Force pers who information defeats my own (which isn;t hard when were talking Air Force stuff) It's not worth the money, energy or effort to do anything more then scrap then into pop can's. They havent the hours left to be useful and any mre money really just throwing in into a black hole.



Actually a couple would be of good use as Training Aids for Traffic Techs and Loadies in Borden and at the Parachute Center in Trenton.  Without avionics and engines they would save on construction of simulators and mockups.  

(Yes, I know, Dept of Supply and Services would like to sell them off and recoup a few pennies, then spend a small fortune hiring contractors to construct simulators or mockups.)


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (1 Jul 2006)

now using the old frames for training aids makes the most sense so far.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jul 2006)

> now using the old frames for training aids makes the most sense so far.



Already being done...or so I'm told.


----------



## Zoomie (1 Jul 2006)

Even with the introduction of new TAL aircraft - the CF will continue to fly the legacy Herc models for years to come.   NSAR duties will require that at least 16 E/H models stay in the system in order to maintain 24/7 standby. Expect this to last up until 2015.


----------



## beenthere (3 Jul 2006)

One old Herc was purchased within the past 10 years and it's fuselage was converted to a training aid for air movements personnel at 8 Wing.
The Hercs that are retiring are doing so because of some rather serious structural problems and are  E models with slightly less engine power than the newer H models. They would definitely not be suitable for further service other than as ground trainers.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> And I have no doubt that the Ground Attack Fighter has it uses, same as the Attack Helicopter, but nothing in my mind has beaten the loiter power of an AC130.
> 
> Say we have 1 AC130 in theater and 6 GAF, I call in for CAS now sure that GAF fight will make it their first not even a question, and they will save our butts short term and likely keep us in the fight long enough for the AC130 to arrive but it's ordinance and loiter is limited by allot. Vs the AC130 which conceivably could loiter for hours with out refuel or re arm thus keeping us safe much much longer then the the GAF ever could. Plus as you mentioned it functions out of austere airfields much like the CF-5 and the Grippen.
> 
> In terms of bang for your buck CAS the AC130 is the way to go IMO...now bang for your buck in terms of firepower and loiter time, in terms of crew's etc it's and expensive commodity.



So what if we have one in theatre and it's broken, or tending to a Priority One mission when you're Priority Two, or expends its ammo?

Type of airframe doesn't affect coverage much, nor does country of ownership.

And overspecialization isn't good.

Airpower is pooled. The troops on the ground, regardless of nationality, will get what's currently on tap, regardless of nationality. It'll be decided based upon priority, availability, weapon suitability etcetera. Coverage could be provided for many hours if necessary regardless of the specific airframe(s) employed. That singular AC130 may be able to hang around for ten hours or whatever, but that's irrelevant but if the last bullet's gone downrange in the first thirty minutes on station - moseying on home for a reload will take longer than you want. Fighters can remain on station for quite some time with aerial refuelling and can be replaced quickly and continually once engaged. There is a wider variety of weaponry available as well. There's also the B52 loafing around at 30,000 feet with a bellyful of GPS-guided bombs.

A10s were continually on station whenever anything significant was going on during my three Fallexes, and were fed in on fifteen-minute intervals. I've FACed A7s, Mirages, Harriers, CF5s, and probably a few other things on those and other major exs as well - whatever shows up when something is called for.

And while I've not had the benefit of a tour in Afghanistan, my guess would be that "austere" airfield is not a factor. It either operates from a defended airfield with a decent runway, reliable fuel supply, and facilities for servicing, repair, re-arming, and crew rest and feeding or it doesn't operate. "Austere" facilities for light fighters generally means a flat stretch of straight multi-lane highway free of power lines on one's own side of the FEBA in a NATO vs WP type of scenario and some method of providing the aforementioned requirements.

AC130s are neat aeroplanes, but wouldn't provide what you think/want and that sort of limited-use special capability is nowhere near the top of our priority list.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (1 Aug 2006)

Alright, we have the CP-140 Aurora. Yes they were initially used for anti-submarine warfare, but they are also able to take mk-82 bombs in their bomb bay. These bombs alone arent all that accurate, but with minor upgrades the Auroras could be fitted so the mk-82's could be laser guided. This could be very useful flying long range support for coalition troops in afghanistan because of the amount of time these planes can spend n the air at a time. If they wanted to, they would be able to take off from Aviano Italy, fly o Afghanist to do their patrols and then head back... but it would save a lot of fuel money just to take off from Kandahar or other airbases in Afghanistan.  The way i see it is, if we can do it and put it to good use, then why not, it could save the lives of coalition in need.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Aug 2006)

The Mk 82 is not a Laser Guided Bomb.   http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk82.htm

The CP-140 would not carry enough of a load to be of much value as a bomber in Afghanistan.  It could be used for surveillance (Arcturus) role to some benefit, but how much is debatable.


----------



## Navy_Blue (1 Aug 2006)

So for all the trouble it would take to stand up a sqn who is trained in bombing land based targets with the CP-140 why not just use a 
CF-18.  It costs millions of dollars just to get something like your suggesting out of the planning stages and into some sort of operational capability.  Count on a year plus to get an aircraft ready.  

We have fast air who in some cases have operational experience dropping bombs in Kosovo.  If the brass was really concerned about our ability to get air support I'm sure they would be considering sending our CF-18.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Aug 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The CP-140 would not carry enough of a load to be of much value as a bomber in Afghanistan.  It could be used for surveillance (Arcturus) role to some benefit, but how much is debatable.



We could carry enough bombs to ruin the Taliban's day.  All we have to do is put some in the bomb bay and on the wing stations.  The RNZAF does it ( i've go pictures of the bombing runs) and its been tried on ours in Greenwood ( i have the pics at work).  Also george, the CP-140A Arcturus will never see service overseas as they are being phased out and do not have the new gucci surveillance gear that the CP-140 Aurora has.  Also, how useful the surveillance capability of the CP-140 Aurora is is no longer a matter for debate, the concept was proven in the field, specificaly on EX MAPLE GUARDIAN, and the army loved it.



			
				midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> Alright, we have the CP-140 Aurora. Yes they were initially used for anti-submarine warfare, but they are also able to take mk-82 bombs in their bomb bay. These bombs alone arent all that accurate, but with minor upgrades the Auroras could be fitted so the mk-82's could be laser guided. This could be very useful flying long range support for coalition troops in afghanistan because of the amount of time these planes can spend n the air at a time. If they wanted to, they would be able to take off from Aviano Italy, fly o Afghanist to do their patrols and then head back... but it would save a lot of fuel money just to take off from Kandahar or other airbases in Afghanistan.  The way i see it is, if we can do it and put it to good use, then why not, it could save the lives of coalition in need.



 As i mentioned in my reply to George, the bomb bay isnt the only place we can mount bombs.  Fly from Aviano ?  Do you realize how far that is from Afghanistan ?  Also, the Aurora has some equipment defficiencies ( which i wont get into) which preclude going over there for now.



			
				Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> So for all the trouble it would take to stand up a sqn who is trained in bombing land based targets with the CP-140 why not just use a
> CF-18.  It costs millions of dollars just to get something like your suggesting out of the planning stages and into some sort of operational capability.  Count on a year plus to get an aircraft ready.
> 
> We have fast air who in some cases have operational experience dropping bombs in Kosovo.  If the brass was really concerned about our ability to get air support I'm sure they would be considering sending our CF-18.



We wouldnt have to stand up a new sqn, the ones we have are capable of taking on that mission.  Training would be required but i dont beleive it would take very long.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Aug 2006)

> why not just use a
> CF-18



In addition to the IRSTA capability that the CP-140 would bring along with the bomb-load it also brings loiter time.  It can "hover" over the scene for a lot longer than a CF-18, especially if launching from a nearby airfield.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Aug 2006)

How defendable is the CP-140?  ie missle counter measures, speed etc.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> How defendable is the CP-140?  ie missle counter measures, speed etc.





> Also, the Aurora has some equipment defficiencies ( which i wont get into) which preclude going over there for now.



I suspect one has to do with the other...?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (4 Aug 2006)

B1. JDAM.  Nuff said.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Aug 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> B1. JDAM.  Nuff said.



Howbout CP-140 - JDAM?

Do you really care what truck UPS uses to deliver your parcel?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Aug 2006)

The B1 can get anywhere quickly, so yes, I do care about the delivery service.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Aug 2006)

Fair enough.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Aug 2006)

AC-130 is a specialized capability.  Consider that the US Armed Forces have over ten thousand of aircraft yet only a handful of AC-130s...it is very specialized.  A similar ratio of AC-130's within the CF would actually work out to a very small fraction of one aircraft of our 341 CF aircraft (which doesn't include 36 leased Hawks and Harvard IIs).  It's also about manning and training.

Overall though, I'd say the killer is having crews flying a very specific role that can be reasonably achieved with other means available to the CF.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Aug 2006)

Just further comment on the CP-140 bomber concept.

The CP-140 can lift up to 20,000 lbs of "expendable stores" on the 10 wing hard points that aesop081 mentioned as well as its bomb bay. The bombay can carry 8 torpedoes,  8 of the wing hard points can carry 1000 lb loads each with 2 carrying 500 lb loads.  Assuming that each point was only armed with a 500 lb Mk 82 (18 x 500 lb) that would be a payload of 9000 lbs or less than half its potential payload.  That would give it the ability to deliver as much high explosive as 18 Harpoons which have warheads in the 500 lb class.

In dumb mode the CP-140 would have to overfly the target and 50 % of the rounds would land within 200 to 300 m of the target.
The round costs about $1000.

With JDAM and flying at about 25,000 ft the CP-140 could stand off up to 24 km from the target.  Or it could launch at any target within 24 km of its position.
In worst case scenario, with jamming and relying on INS (Inertial Navigation System) 50% of rounds would land within 30m of the target.
In best case, with GPS functioning 50% of rounds will land within 7-13m of the target.
The cost of the round rises to about $12,000

If the US Navy's DAMASK seeker is added at an additional cost of $1-10,000 50% of rounds will land within 3 m of the target.  

If Boeing/MBDA's Diamondback glider wings are added to the bomb to create a JDAM-ER or even, potentially, a DAMASK-ER then the stand-off distance at 25,000 feet is something like 65 km.

At the CP-140s service ceiling of 35,000 ft that would equate to a range approaching 100 km.  Again, the CP-140 could stand off from the target up to 100 km and hit within 3 m or it could hit any target within 100 km of its location at time of launch.  It could also launch against 18 separate targets in that area, simultaneously hitting each with the force of a Harpoon.

At its maximum speed of 750 km/h it can move 100 km in a matter of 8 minutes.  With a 100 km stand off range and a 100 km move that gives it the ability to put supporting rounds anywhere in a 200 km radius in under 10 minutes.

Stingers and similar man-packed SAMs have max ranges of less than 8 km and relatively small warheads.  The CP-140 is a relatively large aircraft.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cp-140/intro_e.asp
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/p-3c.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk82.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/jdam.htm
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=4902&session=dae.22198246.1154807621.RNT3RcOa9dUAADFs3K4&modele=jdc_1
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/s1/news/2000/DAMASK.htm

The CP-140, and its loiter time and IRSTA system is available, almost.  The "combat stores management system" - the computer, wiring and operator interface similar to that currently installed/being installed in the CF-18, I don't know about.


----------



## toglmonster (5 Aug 2006)

:brickwall: The war on terrorism will probably last another twenty years. Up against lightly armed enemies using gorilla tactics an AC 130 would be the prefect air support platform. Who's to say our troops won't have there stay in Afghanistan extended. Or NATO will be call on to fight terrorism in another country say Somalia and will be obligated to send troops. I think 4 t0 6 AC 130 would do us nicely.


----------



## Loachman (5 Aug 2006)

Please read through the thread to see the counterarguments.


----------



## Danjanou (5 Aug 2006)

toglmonster said:
			
		

> ... Up against lightly armed enemies using gorilla tactics...



Quick to the National Geographic library and get us some old Diane Fossey tapes and books to use as training manuals. 8)

BTW you may want to invest in proof reading and or spell check. Unless you know something about a  new Taliban weapon we don't.


----------



## Gunnerlove (7 Aug 2006)

Speaking of loiter time how long can a triple seven remain on station? Oh 45 days or so good to hear.

Best description of the Canadian military "Caviar tastes with Kraft Dinner budgets".

What people think we "need" we don't. AH-64s? AC-130s? Look at the man power requirement and the cost per hour of rotor/prop time. We can not afford them. 
Or we can overwatch/FOO with UAVs and pound arty shells and JDAMs into problem areas, kind of like we have been doing.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Aug 2006)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Speaking of loiter time how long can a triple seven remain on station? Oh 45 days or so good to hear.
> 
> Best description of the Canadian military "Caviar tastes with Kraft Dinner budgets".
> 
> ...



+1

I'll make it a joint-endorsed answer and say I fully agree with Gunnerlove.  Primacy to the "fires" solution that maximizes COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS.  If other things can help/facilitate more efficiently (not the same as effectively) fine, add those into the tool box.  From my side, I'd start with a FOO/AOP course and designate for Excaliber first, then move on to fancy direct fire capabilities on my own machine.  There is something rather intimidating about seeing a battery's-worth of 155 VT lay some smack down on the baddies.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Dale Denton (8 Aug 2006)

Instead of ac-130's we should be thinking of getting american Predetor UAV's with missiles attached. they'd be really useful in afghan., spot them, and bomb em. plus we could use them to spot fighters tryin to suprise our convoys (plus they'd look pretty cool in a recruiting add).  

P.S:  My first post


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Aug 2006)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Instead of ac-130's we should be thinking of getting american Predetor UAV's with missiles attached. they'd be really useful in afghan., spot them, and bomb em. plus we could use them to spot fighters tryin to suprise our convoys (plus they'd look pretty cool in a recruiting add).
> 
> P.S:  My first post



+1   ...a good start, LoboCanada.  

MQ-9 (Pred B) is quite the system...not so much for what it is specifically (big, RC model plane) but for the integrated suite of capabilities and effects (network-enabled ISR and direct action) that it can bring to the overall operations.

Cheers,
Duey.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (8 Aug 2006)

Hmm.

We have M777, which is wonderful and I've become a huge fan.  Once you've taken the effort to put it in place you have reliable, lethal fire support.  Then layer on your AHs and CAS.

AHs and CAS do, however, allow you to quickly influence places in your AO that are not in range of your guns.   

I would argue for AH64 and then armed Pred.  I put the AH64 first so we can escort the choppers we are going to buy, and AHs are outstanding enablers when you're fighting fairly close to your base.  A small buy of armed Pred might be cheaper and would kill two birds with one stone (ISTAR plus CAS), but it wouldn't solve the escort bit.

The Aurora with JDAM is certainly intriguing.  Has it ever been done?  What boxometery is required to make it work here? 

Retire the Snowbirds and Griffons and invest the PYs and O&M into something useful to go along with the CH-47s that are coming (AH-64s, medevac UH-60s and armed Pred).  There.  Done.  Now I'll fix the Navy.

2B

p.s. I'm just kidding about the Navy, and I'm sure the air force knows what it has to do.  I will now be serious.  In priority in terms of capability improvements- medevac, troop lift, ISR, CAS.  Please note for the first two you need AHs.  I'll let the air force pick platforms, but it had better be AH-64s (not necessarily Longbow), UH-60 and Armed Pred.  We're getting the CH-47s and we have the CF-18s.


----------



## Dale Denton (8 Aug 2006)

im not sure about the uh-60's, they're getting older/mature stage now, and i dont know why we always choose yank companies, why not Eurocopter? buy some tigers, cus they're cheaper, newer(and look cooler) and we can get some economic benefits too. If more European companies invest in Canada (and visa-vera, the less we'll have to worry about when the yanks starts to become bankrupt (they are in big debt, which will catch up with them (and hit us hard too)) soon enough. plus there's a Eurocopter facility in central Ontario (dunno wat it is). Or we could buy some russian Hinds, ya they're old, but we can ask the Poles for some help with them about desert ops (Poles use em in Iraq). i can see the need for an attack/escort chopper, but i doubt we'd ever buy them, its all about the public, i think ppl will see them being some sort of killing machines or something, and wont buy votes at all. but i cant wait to see the forces 15 yrs from now....good/ok air mobility, gd oil rep.,.....and 1 or 2 working-ish condition OLD subs. they'll probably buy some chainguns off a blackhawk and put em on a chinook.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Aug 2006)

LoboCaada,
Here is some required reading for you..extra attention to the "MSN" speak, thank you.

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

Army.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

Infantry FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html

Canadian Forces Aptitude Test - http://army.ca/forums/threads/21101/post-103977.html#msg103977

Fitness requirements at enrolment, see page 12 of this brochure:
http://www.recruiting.forces.ca/media/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Army.ca wiki pages  
 - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.


----------



## Dale Denton (8 Aug 2006)

Ouch man, i just wanted to get my point across, it has nothing to do with gramm-er jus' thought that eeder way u can stil read wat I'm sayin. You don't have to be mean about it. Just joking around about the spelling, its about 5:30, I'm surprised I'm actually able to read peoples rude shots at me, very encouraging to a new member. Relax, why is it so frustrating to read abbreviations? I'm just saying that your coming off a bit hostile. All the stuff I say in the forums is just opinion, plus, my dad's a hippie, so you can imagine that he's got an opinion on everything, so its hard trying not to be like that. Thanks for answering....all of my questions by the way. Just give me some time to get used to this.

thanks.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Aug 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31327.0.html

Because we try to maintain a level of professionalism on this website in an internet world of sub-standard.


----------



## Loachman (8 Aug 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'm sure the air force knows what it has to do.


Then you have way more faith than me, a big believer in the need for an Army Aviation Corps.


----------



## KevinB (8 Aug 2006)

I get this common thread from the TacHel guys about Army Aviation...


----------



## Journeyman (8 Aug 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> *Retire the Snowbirds*.....



And for what it's worth, every year the Chief of the Air Staff visits the up & coming Air Force majors at the Canadian Forces College and asks for suggestions on the way ahead. _Every_ year, the lead suggestion has always been "scrap the Snowbirds and invest elsewhere." Every year, the response has been, "not going to happen."


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Aug 2006)

Wait a minute.  Are you telling me that Airforce people are suggesting that the Snowbirds go the way of the Dodo?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Aug 2006)

The "working" airforce.....Griffon, Herc, Sea King drivers....almost uniformly say, "if we're short of money, let's make operations the priority." (bizarre concept, I know)

To which the CAS routinely replies, "not an option, what else can you suggest?" 

Perhaps the CAS is getting input from someone at a higher paygrade, since I've seen this from more than one CAS, so it's not _just _ some fighter guy keeping more jets around.


----------



## Gunnerlove (9 Aug 2006)

Caviar tastes = AH-64

Kraft Dinner (read reality) budget = Bell ARH 

And every new rotary pilot in the CF will be learning how to fly this airframe via Kelowna Flightcraft (can you smell the economy of scale?).

Screw the Auroras the US has the JDAMs covered.


----------



## bison33 (23 Aug 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And for what it's worth, every year the Chief of the Air Staff visits the up & coming Air Force majors at the Canadian Forces College and asks for suggestions on the way ahead. _Every_ year, the lead suggestion has always been "scrap the Snowbirds and invest elsewhere." Every year, the response has been, "not going to happen."


Then send the snowchickens to Afghanistan, let them perform all over and while the Taliban, et al ,are gawking in amazement............like shooting chickens in a coop 

As for the Herc gunship....heck, we are retiring the E models...so convert them to R/C...load 'em up with 20K plus worth of boom boom and kamikaze them into who or whatever.

 Hahahahaha.........sorry, not to be taken seriously.


----------



## geo (25 Aug 2006)

wonder if a helo gunship is the way to go OR look into something like the A10
From what I have heard of it, it is relatively low tech, can safely linger over a battlefield and capable of delivering close air support much faster than helos

Bonus is the titanium bathtub the pilots lounge in - possibly better protection than what can be built into the Helo structure.

A thought - IMHO


----------



## Loachman (25 Aug 2006)

Attack Helicopters and CAS aircraft are two different things. AHs are manoeuvre elements. They are anti-tank/anti-personnel vehicles with rotors rather than wheels or tracks. They require complete integration into a Commander's plan in order to maximize their value.

If everything followed the laws of nature and logic, our battlefield helicopters would be Army rather than a** f**ce and the distinction would not be so blurred.


----------



## geo (25 Aug 2006)

Loachman....
in the US, during GW1, the A10s were, I believe, part of the Army - not sexy enough for the Air jocks.  However, once the A10s caused mayhem and destruction galore, it suddenly became an item of interest for the Air Force.  They're still flying and are of great use................


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2006)

IIRC, all the A-10's went to the National Guard inventory. I'm also pretty sure it was the Air NG that got them, not the Army. APS, none are currently held by the Reg Force. It was a long time ago I had the discussion, but that's what I recall.


----------



## bison33 (25 Aug 2006)

geo....what recceguy said...the warthogs were never army......they are national guard toys...which is too bad. Saying that, when in combat, they(pilots and planes) are assigned to the army as an air asset. Many USAF brass want the hog scrapped (too good at it's role, doesn't fly high enough, not expensive enough...who knows)...the army should gladly take them off the hands of the USAF then. The hog was built for the USAF because they basically were competing with the army(money comes to mind) when they were looking at the cheyenne AH, which never got off the ground (round 1 to the USAF).
 Back to the topic...only time you'll see a gunship in Canada is at an airshow......


----------



## geo (25 Aug 2006)

still a nice piece of kit....


----------



## honestyrules (25 Aug 2006)

What about some Cobras variants? OK not as high tech as the Apache, but probably a lot cheaper (they have Hellfire capability too).
I can hear something like "Cobras are from the Vietnam era" or something of that nature.

Then for the A-10, am I dreaming or they have the tendency to be involved in "friendly fire" episodes? OK, it's not the aircraft that pulls the trigger...

Just my 2 cents...

Del

Edited for spelling..


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Aug 2006)

> Then for the A-10, am I dreaming or they have the tendency to be involved in "friendly fire" episodes?



Only because they currently provide the bulk of the CAS available in Afghanistan...  They're the only US fast air actually based in the country.


----------



## 28402 engineers (28 Aug 2006)

I'm new to this site, so my thoughts on this issue probably won't matter, but here's my opinion. i'm not sure that Canada has the money or the inclination to buy any hardcore AH's, like the AH-64. however, as i believe someone has already pointed out, another wise choice would be the AH-1J, or super cobra. the super cobra is lighter, faster, and cost less than the Apache, at least i think so. Plus it has hellfire capability, so that's a big bonus as a tank hunter. it can also be equipped with TOW missiles, in case the army doesn't want to go through the extra cost of buying sufficient amounts of hellfire missiles. Don't they cost like $70,000 a piece? anyway, i digress. we need something to fill the gap in the direct fire lines, since the government is probably going to retire our beloved leopard. The new MGS doesn't look like it'll cut the mustard in my opinion, so i think we should definitely buy an AH or maybe some sort of attack plane like the A-10. somebody said that the Americans would be scrapping them soon, so we should take a few off their hands. maybe 50 or more? 
anyway, this is just the opinion of a second-year army cadet from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
cheers,
2842 engineer


----------



## Armymedic (28 Aug 2006)

Through 9 pages of replies, not a single post on why Canada would need, or even use an AC130. Has any Canadian troops (conventional, not SF) even been allotted a Spectre GS for a mission in the last 2 yrs?

Lets not waste our finite resources on a wpns platform that is for a specific use. We simple do not have a need to have AC130s in our arsenal.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Through 9 pages of replies, not a single post on why Canada would need, or even use an AC130. Has any Canadian troops (conventional, not SF) even been allotted a Spectre GS for a mission in the last 2 yrs?
> 
> Lets not waste our finite resources on a wpns platform that is for a specific use. We simple do not have a need to have AC130s in our arsenal.



What exactly does an AC-130 do?  Doesn't it just deposit high energy packages on obstacles causing the obstacles to disappear?  Aren't there other means available to deliver those packages and remove the obstacles?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2006)

If we had to choose between the A10 and attack helicopters, I think I will take the A10, faster response time, bigger payload and a good loiter time.

I would certainly like Canada to look at an updated A10 aircraft if they start building one to replace the US ones.


----------



## 28402 engineers (28 Aug 2006)

yes the A-10 has a bigger payload, more powerfull and tougher than your average AH, but isn't an AH more convenient? the Ah-1J has a variant that can be based at sea. incidentally, its called the Sea Cobra. this would be a great addition to our navy, which has been using those old Sea Kings to the limit. it would take some stress off of the sea kings and probably do a better job as a anti-ship helicopter than the Sea King. plus, it could be an emergency direct fire weapon for the army. all we'd have to do is call one of our ships, request mobile direct fire support on such-and-such coordinates, and BAM! :akimbo  no more threat. and it would be a great way to support our recce troops, by falling in about a mile behind the Coyotes, just in case they need to get out in a hurry, the AHs can fly ahead and keep the enemy occupied while the recce's make a run for it. correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, please. bear in mind I'm only 14.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Aug 2006)

28402 engineers said:
			
		

> . this would be a great addition to our navy, which has been using those old Sea Kings to the limit. it would take some stress off of the sea kings and probably do a better job as a anti-ship helicopter than the Sea King.



You have no idea what a sea king does do you ?

Cbra gunship hellicopters are not capable of doing the entire spectrum of tasks assigned to the MH community........cobras can't do ASW or any complicated ASuW...

Back in your lane kid.....


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2006)

hehe... cut him some slack aviator.... he's a newbie.

All in all, the Helo platforms we currently posess are not well suited for a "gunship" role PERIOD

My choice would be the A10 "as is" because it's relatively low tech but has proven itself to be dependable while deployed in areas with limited service facilities.


----------



## Dale Denton (29 Aug 2006)

What about blackhawks? Since they're used by soo many countries, you think they might be a good idea? What of the Sea Stallion (CH-53 i think), but CASR said they weren't good in hot and dry environments....then again CASR loves Russia so i don't know. How do you people feel about CASR anyways? Is it any good, do they know what they're talking about?

anyways I'm a noob so cut me some slack too please?


----------



## toglmonster (29 Aug 2006)

When I started this thread I thought with new Hercules in the pipe line it would be a good idea to convert some of our old Hercules into AC 130 gunships, great for close air support and counter insurgency operation. The type of missions we're doing  in Afghanistan. The great thing about the AC-130 is it's 105mm howitzer, think of it as a flying tank, direct fire very accurate and there when you need it. unlike laser guided or satellite guided bombs there's no chance of over shooting your target or dropping the bomb too soon. The Paveway and other systems like it can only do so much to keep your weapons on target. However as a number of people stated the airframe's on our old He rules are just plane worn out and there was no point trying to convert then (point taken, thank you for the info). OK so buy new AC-130's Also it's true the AC 130 is a very  special bird it's only good for one thing close air support. The A-10 on the other hand is a more well rounded aircraft better armoured, good at close air support and killing armour. The A-10 flies slower then other jets but it still has had problems with laser guided we opens. You could use the A-10 in a direct fire role armed with the AGM-65 Maverick but how much does an Maverick round cost  compared with an 105 mm howitzer round. In short our troops should have there own air support and deserve the best the AC 130 is the way to go.


----------



## geo (29 Aug 2006)

part of the question / answer lies with how effective are we with the new M777 155s.  Who needs a lousy little 105 when you can reach out and touch someone with something like the engine block of a VW.

think that the AC130s are too big and too specialized - and would require their own escorts - VS something like an A10 that can stand alone in CAS or provide escort duty to Heliborne transports.

Another aircraft could be a Harrier VTOL - a bit pricier, a bit more high tech and thus harder to support in remote locations - without the big baggage train in support.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Aug 2006)

Geo

I think that those points have been covered extensively in this discussion, but young toglmonster doesn't want to listen to them.  Obviously he doesn't want to listen to the words of experience or just isn't reading the discussion from start to finish.


----------



## geo (29 Aug 2006)

yeah - you're probably right


----------



## toglmonster (29 Aug 2006)

Young, thank you best complament I've had in years. Gentlemen this is a forum to discuss ideas and yes I'm a bit obsessed with the AC-130. I think most of us have a pet weapon system (just look at the Tankers). Just wanted to make my position clear. Your right drop an M777 close to the action and shell the %@#!* out of them. Planning it's all in the planning. Guss I'll throw my hat in with the A-10 crowd now. PS just kidding Tankers.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Aug 2006)

toglmonster said:
			
		

> ...... PS just kidding Tankers.



You had better be.........unless of course you are talking about those Air Force Types.    ;D


----------



## geo (29 Aug 2006)

hehe... the big gulp in the sky 
now there's a target that needs protection.


----------



## FuzzyLogic (15 Dec 2006)

Armchair generals like myself hear a lot of chatter (and complaining) about close air support.  We know that it's a big part of the Afghan reality, but we tend to hear as much griping as we do praise from those who are there.  In a recent blog post I did about Canada's CF-18s, the discussion quickly turned to which air support is the most effective ... both in cost and results; and how much we should provide as Canadians.

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/f-18-thunder-all-6-of-them.html

So, what does deliver the most timely, accurate, and effective close air?  And, if you had your pick, what would you bring to the mission from Canada's inventory ... or better yet, what would you purchase?  ( rotary wing ... C-130 Spectre ?)  I recall that a while back even the rumor of CF-18s going to Afghanistan got the press chattering ... close air support is not only a big deal militarily, it's a big deal politically.

Educate me!


----------



## Globesmasher (15 Dec 2006)

A-10

Low, slow and packs a deadly punch.
Has plenty of loiter time and can get right down in the weeds.
Well built, strong ..... has an incredible track record in Iraq .... can still fly with most of it blown off.   ;D

Incredible machine.
Ugly as sin ....... but you don't have to be good looking to kill effectively.


----------



## RHFC_piper (15 Dec 2006)

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> A-10
> 
> Low, slow and packs a deadly punch.
> Has plenty of loiter time and can get right down in the weeds.
> ...



I Agree... The Warthog is probably the best ground support aircraft.

Needless to say, I have a profound respect for their awesome destructive power, having witnessed it very first hand.

The sound of the 30mm chain gun still gives me chills when ever I hear it.


----------



## peaches (15 Dec 2006)

Fixed wing CAS I would say the A10 & AC130 Gunship.  What CAS really comes down too is training.  A10 & AC130 units are CAS units, they do nothing else at all.  Helo gunships are CAS platforms, again they do nothing else it is theire mission.  The F18 is an awsome CAS weapon if the unit using them is a CAS dedicated unit.  USMC FA18's are tasked to provide CAS first and foremost, it is their primary mission and they are good at it.  

Our CF18 fleet could be an awsome CAS force, but CAS is not its only mission.  They have to train for air to air combat, air defence of Canada, air interdiction, CAS is only one of many missions they perform.  Jack of all trades, master of none concept.  Dedicated CAS units excell at it because they train each and every day for CAS, its their only mission.  Canada should IMO purchase at lest two full squadrons of attack helos for CAS & CAS only.


----------



## Loachman (15 Dec 2006)

RHFC_piper: Just a minor point - it's a Gatling type cannon, and not a chain gun.

Peaches: Attack helicopters do not provide Close Air Support. AH units are manoeuvre units just like any other Combat Arms Unit. They are integrated into the ground commander's plan, doctrinally. Speed, agility, and flexibility allows them to react at short notice but their full effect and benefit will not be realized if they are treated as CAS.

One of the significant factors in the A10's capability is that it is a single-role aircraft. The pilots are therefore very good at what they do. The last time that I did any FACing was in Valcatraz in 1991 and the CF18 guys were not doing particularly well. We had 425 Sqn  - an Air Defence squadron with some air-to-mud training - in the morning and they didn't hit a single thing and had very few actual drops. Targets were 4 X 8 plywood panels painted Dayglo green, which stood out quite nicely. Target description was "Green Panels". A classic quote from Lead of the last pair of Allouettes, which never confirmed having the targets visually, as they left the range was "We never saw these panels that you were talking about, but there are big green rectangles all over the place". It might have had something to do with having English as a second language, but it had us slapping our foreheads. We had 434 Squadron in the afternoon and, given that they flew CF5s in their previous incarnation, did better although they were nowhere near as good as they were in the CF5 days. The range in Valcatraz is tricky as it's surrounded by hills, which means that Two has to be pretty close to Lead in order to see the results of Lead's bomb in order to correct. Due to the lack of training, every single Number Two came over long after his Lead's bomb dust/smoke had dissipated. I was pretty sure that I recognized the voice of Lead in the last pair from my days on the Kiowa in 427 Squadron in the early to mid-eighties - one of the CF5 guys that we regularly worked with. He picked up the problem pretty quickly and had his Number Two go in first for the last few runs so that he could start his run soon enough to pick up Two's bomb - and we actually hit a couple of targets for the first time all day.

As for whom I'd least like to FAC again, that would be the French, based upon my experience with Mirages when I was in 444 Squadron in Lahr.

In short, most modern fighters are very good CAS aircraft. It's more the pilots, in accordance with the primary role that they're given and the amount of training that they get. I'd still give the A10 an edge over other machines, though, especially in the venues in which they're currently operating.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2006)

Here's an interesting tale of a Harrier, a Paveway and an AH-64 and a flock of lucky children.  The AH-64 was doing FAC at the time it seems - or perhaps was just on scene.




> Afghans survive after pilots divert laser-guided bomb at last moment
> Michael Evans, Defence Editor
> 
> Children spotted in target building
> ...



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2502228,00.html


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Dec 2006)

Spooky,

He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake...

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2460146
http://www.militaryvideos.net/videos.php?videonum=2


As I understand it from speaking to some of our US SF bretheren, the AC-130 was developed as a result of success with the C47 variant (Puff the Magic Dragon) as used in Vietnam to provide direct 'artillery-type' support to SF units operating beyond the range of the gunners. This was their private, long range airborne artillery regiment. Lots of loiter time meant that they could lurk around and blast bad guys as required over a wide area and relatively long periods of time. However, they still have to go off station eventually, don't like to operate during the day, and the bad guys can hear them come and go, so they do have their limitations.

I'm all for bigger, better, longer range and more accurate artillery (along with the good old mortars being co-located). They're always around, and if you have your act together they can be moved as required to cover most operations - as long as we have Chinook or the equivalent of course. Maybe MLRS with its 40km + range? But hey, that's just me.


----------



## FuzzyLogic (15 Dec 2006)

Thanks for the excellent responses to my "pick your poison" question.  I've got a friend in the US who has been in Afghanistan twice and in Iraq once, he swears by C-130 gunships.  He claimed that not only was fire support timely and accurate, but that incredibly good "eyes in the sky" were provided.

As well, I've been following a lot of chatter from the Royal Marines on my website, and they complained bitterly about the A-10s and Harriers they worked with this summer.  They raved about helo gunships though.  What gives?

By the way, would converting our old C-130s to gunships be a valuable use of resources ... like valuable recycling?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2006)

FuzzyLogic said:
			
		

> By the way, would converting our old C-130s to gunships be a valuable use of resources ... like valuable recycling?


    :

Don't go there.

Just like when you started this topic up today and never bothered to even search if us "Army Guys" had the imagination to discuss this before, you seem to not have bothered to read all of this topic as well. 

It has been done to death.  Go back a few pages and read it.


----------



## FuzzyLogic (15 Dec 2006)

Thanks!  Will do!


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2006)

Post #1


			
				toglmonster said:
			
		

> With new Hercules soon to be on order, could some of our older models be converted into AC-130. Would a gunship be effective in a place like Afghanistan? :threat:



Post  #151


			
				FuzzyLogic said:
			
		

> By the way, would converting our old C-130s to gunships be a valuable use of resources ... like valuable recycling?





150 verses - Much like that old song "There's a hole in my bucket...."   ;D  No offense Fuzzy.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The "working" airforce.....Griffon, Herc, Sea King drivers....almost uniformly say, "if we're short of money, let's make operations the priority." (bizarre concept, I know)
> 
> To which the CAS routinely replies, "not an option, what else can you suggest?"
> 
> Perhaps the CAS is getting input from someone at a higher paygrade, since I've seen this from more than one CAS, so it's not _just _ some fighter guy keeping more jets around.





  As I recall the normal scenario is, calls for save a buck and disband the Snowbirds answered by, politically it is great PR to fly over Canadian communities plus recruiting benefit. 
   I'm sure you remember the last great crisis, the Tutors are to old,  resulted in this :

"Even if the Snowbirds survive the budget cuts, they'll still be flying obsolete aircraft for the next several years. In December 2002, Col. Dave Burt, the officer in charge of buying new aircraft for the Canadian Forces, said he's in no hurry to replace the Tutors and said they'll be able to fly safely until 2020."   
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/snowbirds.html


And getting back to Hercs how about this video:   http://tinyurl.com/y4ljk3


----------



## FuzzyLogic (15 Dec 2006)

:-[ The reason I asked, was because I was told by a friend in the US forces who has relied on C-130s to stay alive in Afghanistan that his first choice after 2 tours would be the C-130.  As for me, all I can do is listen to the folks who have more knowledge disagree on the issue, my own knowledge is too lacking to add much.  But, as a civilian I know that politicians consider bang for the buck as much as what will do best ... it's unfortunate, but a reality.  That's where my c-130 question came from, from a bang for your buck perspective.  

If I had my way of course, a much larger tax portion would be going to the Canadian Forces,  ... when I read comparisons of equipment etc. across all of NATO, the CF doesn't measure up very good equipment wise in some areas.  I know it has nothing to do with quality of people, but equipment and resources are a big part I'm sure.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2006)

No harm in asking Fuzzylogic.

It's not a bad thought but as has been pointed out in this thread the C-130s we have are pretty long in the tooth and from what I can gather, based on following other threads on other aircraft, flying "low and slow" (close to the ground, in thick and dusty air) is likely to be hard on the aircraft in any event.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Dec 2006)

The CC-130s we are retiring are time-expired......let it go !!

Even when they are turned into pop cans...they will make very tired pop cans.....


----------



## geo (15 Dec 2006)

The burnt out, worn out & tired CC130s will be good for training aids & razor blades by the time all the new kit (130Js & C17s) gets fully delivered.\

Time to move on


----------



## FuzzyLogic (15 Dec 2006)

So ... if I may paraphrase ... the CC-130's, which are by the way the oldest ones flying... would make great scrap for natives in Borneo to cut up and pound into trinkets for sale to tourists like you and me ... or better yet, to make beer cans to put beverage in for tourists like you and me.


----------



## Globesmasher (16 Dec 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> The CC-130s we are retiring are time-expired......let it go !!



Yup - let them go.
Trust me - don't waste any more of your time daydreaming about our old CC-130s being re-tooled into the CC-AC-130 Spectre.

The fleet has imploded already.
We've retired 5 E models already, leaving 27 in total, and we can barely keep our head above water trying to maintain the SAR lines of tasking and to also keep the Afghan Op LOTs going as well.

Also, latest briefs from CAS and also Comdr 1 Cdn Air Div - NO, I say again, NO more money will be put into new kit or capability in this fleet.  They will just try to keep the 9 remaining H models alove for as long as possible.  All the E's should be gone by fall 2009 .... just worn out, time expired, bent, twisted and rusted out.

Day dream about doing CAS with something else .... even if it seems unreal.
You'll never see a CF CC-AC-130 (E, an H or even a J) ..... I'll bet a dollar or two on that.

But the Spectre is very cool.
I toured through one up at Karshi Kanabad back in 2003.
It's unbelievable the amount of weapons and ammo they have shoe-horned into the back of that thing.  :threat:
I would love to fly one of those ......


----------



## karl28 (16 Dec 2006)

I hope that when they finally retire the old CC-130 that they will put at least one of them in the  museum at 8-wing Trenton  as a static display  be a nice addition considering how many years  they have flew out of Trenton .


----------



## FuzzyLogic (16 Dec 2006)

This may be slightly off topic, but the lead story this morning on my site is about CC-130s in Afghanistan:

http://www.mediaright.ca


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

The whole idea about AC130's for Canada is not a bad one.  In a perfect world we could buy 4 or 5 AC130u's, & assign them to 427 Special Ops Sqn to work with the Blackhawks &/or Chinooks that would (should in a perfect world)  also be assigned to 427 sqn.  Before you know it we'd have a real spec ops sqn  

The truth is there is no imagination or willingness at higher levels to do such a thing....


----------



## GO!!! (16 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> The whole idea about AC130's for Canada is not a bad one.  In a perfect world we could buy 4 or 5 AC130u's, & assign them to 427 Special Ops Sqn to work with the Blackhawks &/or Chinooks that would (should in a perfect world)  also be assigned to 427 sqn.  Before you know it we'd have a real spec ops sqn
> 
> The truth is there is no imagination or willingness at higher levels to do such a thing....



Yes, we could consolidate every rotary wing asset in Canada in one place, and they would only ever work with one unit, and they would get all the training and kit and money....

Because we all know the *only* people who will* ever * need a helo extraction/insertion or a fire mission from an AC-130 work hand in hand with 427.

The rest of the scum can make do with Griffons, MLVWs and 60mm.

Thank god there is not willingness to do it!


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

GO!!

As a former AWCAS guy very famil with CAS & air support to the army I would NEVER suggest anything that dumb.  They UASF spec ops guy are the ones that use the AC130, they are not assigned to every division/brigade etc, they have attack helos & A10s.

No we should not consolidate our helos in one place for a selected few, thats crap, totally.  Our Air Force needs serious overhaulling, starting with more people, not nessacerraly more equip, just the right equip.

Right now the CF has 85 Griffons according to the AF website, would not 85 Blackhawks do a better job.  What abot 30 Apaches & 55 Chinooks, just thinking out loud here.

We need to re-align the AF to better support army ops, we need to start somewhere.


----------



## geo (16 Dec 2006)

Replace those apaches with Cobras like the USMC continue to use.  Lot less technical and can operate out of harsher environments.  If I remember, Apaches has a big problem in Iraq GW1 and 2 with the rotors being sandblasted down to their composite fibres.


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

I agree, Cobra's would most likely be better.  Would be easier to swallow politically as Bell Helos make Griffons, could also make Cobras for us.  Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg overhauls USMC Cobra engines I believe.  Cobra would also be easier to deploy, lighter, can easily fit in C130 and C17, sling it under a Chinook

My whole point is that the Air Force needs to better support army ops.  It is not the Air Force troops fault, we don't buy the equip, if we did it would not be as it is.  I have no doubt the crews would love new combat equip.  The Griffon is not a military helo, proof, non are in A-Stan evern doing medeveac, WHY??

We originally purchased 100 Griffons to replace 68 Kiowas, 50 Hueys, & 8 Chinooks, 126 helos total.  Instead of 100 Griffons why not 20 Chinooks, 50 Blackhawks & 40 Cobra/Apache. 

Go to an airshow with CF Cobras, Blackhawks & Chinooks, there will be young folks who want to join and fly/fix them.  Awsome equip is strong a recruiting tool.


----------



## geo (16 Dec 2006)

The airforce hasn't really been in a war fighting business for an awful long time.
After the CF18 project wound down, the gov't was more interested in maintaining transport capabilities.... not their fault.... though those air element CDS' shoulda / coulda spoken up a little bit more 

IMHO


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

GEO,

Could not agree with you more.  I joined the AF in 1988, was in Lahr Germany first tour, it sorta felt like a combat AF.  Did not feel like an AF warrior again until I did my exchange with UASF in Oklahoma.  It all comes down to a mindset that is missing in our AF.  WE ARE A COMBAT AIR ARM.  Not too many AF people I have met think that way, I may have just met the wrong folks.

I did my C7 & NBCW training last month, listened to whining about "guns aren't my job" crap, & NBCW is someone elses problem.  "We are Air Force, we don't go to war" was another quote. Frankly, it made me sad that these people actually felt that way.  I told them a few stories about AWACS & war (although diff that ground combat, was a diff kind combat), about what happens if the base in God knows where you on is infiltrated or overrun.  Another comment, "why do I have to do a PT test, I have never had to chase a radar scope yet".  You should hear some of the b%^tching about CADPAT.

It all comes down to a mindset that most of our AF is missing BIGTIME!!  I talk with fighter pilots every day, they have the warrior mindset, but I have not heard it much from others in the AF.

As an AF officer, all my crew here in NB are C7 qual'd like it or not, I even managed to 9mm qual most.  They all do NBCW, land nav etc..  I can only do my part with what I have.

A small AF can be effective & lethal in combat, with the right mindset, which leads to the right attitude which leads to buying the right equip which leads on to using it properly.


----------



## geo (16 Dec 2006)

With Canada involved, like it or not, in a shootin war, the Army has certainly been forced to react and ramp up / brush up on old combat skills from before we were peacekeepers.  The Airforce, to date, has been employed as bus drivers (with only minor exceptions).  How do you develop a combat mindset when you are only doing long hauls.  Little by little, the Hercs are being used for Tactical airdrops, FAC teams are going out with the troops, looking at deploying "eye in the sky" technology AND the Chinooks for close "in your face" combat troop support.... yeah - think the AF will be shaping up sometime soon.

Chimo!


----------



## peaches (16 Dec 2006)

It will sadly be slow, hopfully those of my generation will change things when we become GOCs.  I canot give any guarentees, all I can do is my part in my corner of the AF.  When your flying a Chinook, that will help the mindset, when your supporting F18 ops in A-Stan that will help the mindset, when you deployed in ops with allies like the US, UK or Aussies, that will help the mindset.  Exchange with the USAF AWACS certainly re-aligned mine.  I have no doubt the herc folks in A-Stan have the mindset.  I will slowly filter down.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> .  The Airforce, to date, has been employed as bus drivers



The air force's combat power, which it had plenty of at one point, was decimated by successive governments who had bigger priorities. Even in the current environment, the government is allowing parts of the air force's fleet to rott...hard to keep a combat mindset this way.


----------



## geo (17 Dec 2006)

Cdnaviator...
Hey.... don't get me wrong - I figured that out for myself.  The army wasn't treated much better for as long as you.  Fortunately for us, our work is more manpower than anything else and didn't require quite as much $$$ to get us back into shape.

Lookin forward to being looked after by an agressively postured /angry bird 

CHIMO!


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2006)

Peaches,

You're not alone, the RAF had to create a whole 'army type' unit to guard their airfields - the RAF Regiment. And I can attest to the fact that the much vaunted RAF Harreirs need a kick in the a** when it comes to helpg out the 'green jobs'. As usual, the RNAS is much better.

At least in Canada we've stopped calling it 'Air Command'. The Air Force needs leaders like you! You've got the right attitude. Keep slogging away.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2006)

Peaches
If one day a Canadian Helo crashes in enemy territory and one of the guys you trained is able to fight back with the C7 you made them practice with, then it will be all worthwhile. I made my guys dig a lot in training, later one of them told me quietly that he was happy he knew how to dig a good trench when things got hot on a tour overseas.


----------



## GK .Dundas (17 Dec 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Peaches
> If one day a Canadian Helo crashes in enemy territory and one of the guys you trained is able to fight back with the C7 you made them practice with, then it will be all worthwhile. I made my guys dig a lot in training, later one of them told me quietly that he was happy he knew how to dig a good trench when things got hot on a tour overseas.


 Somebody once made the comment that once you're down behind enemy lines ,weather you like it or not you've just joined the infantry. And If you don't starting thinking that way you will a very short if exciting future


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2006)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Somebody once made the comment that once you're down behind enemy lines ,weather you like it or not *you've just joined the infantry*. And If you don't starting thinking that way you will a very short if exciting future



Although i understand the meaning, i dont think the analogy is quite fitting.  Unlike an infantryman, a downed aircrew should be evading the enemy, not close with and destroy. Being able to use various weapons and protect yourself is indeed vital, i feel the same as peaches does, but its should be gear towards self-defense and evasive action.  The ultimate objective for a downed aircrew is to get him/herself into a postion where CSAR can do a recovery.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Peaches
> If one day a Canadian Helo crashes in enemy territory and one of the guys you trained is able to fight back with the C7 you made them practice with, then it will be all worthwhile. I made my guys dig a lot in training, later one of them told me quietly that he was happy he knew how to dig a good trench when things got hot on a tour overseas.



C8 thanks, CQB variant with 10" barrel and EOTech sight for daylight and NVG-compatible reflexive shooting ....along with my BHP and Tomahawk.  ;D

Not all airmen/airwomen/aviators are base/runway-bound folks...some are currently developing "shoot, move, communicate" skillsets...far more interactive with anticipated employment scenarios than just waiting for CSAR to arrive.  At the very least, downed aircrew must be transparent (burden-wise) to friendlies...the prefereable situation/mind-set would be to link-up with FF and shape how the recovery would unfold.  While I wouldn't say we automatically become infantry (because there is a huge skill-set and competentcy associated with being an infanteer) we would become a "soldier" (which some of us consider ourselves as, anyways.) 

BTW, Air Command does still exist, as does Land Forces Command and Maritime Command.  The Strat/Op-level Commands (CanadaCOM, CEFCOM, CANSOFCOM and CANOSCOM) do not replace the environmental commands.

G2G


----------



## Loachman (18 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Replace those apaches with Cobras like the USMC continue to use.  Lot less technical and can operate out of harsher environments.  If I remember, Apaches has a big problem in Iraq GW1 and 2 with the rotors being sandblasted down to their composite fibres.



The Griffon has plastic blades as well, although the leading edge is metal. Not that that means anything - the titanium leading edges of our Kiowas in 444 Squadron had been turned into cheese graters by the chemical and particulate pollution in the Rhine Valley.

The Zulu model Cobra's rotor blades are also composite, doubtlessly with a titanium leading edge as well as the rotor system is very similar to the Griffon's.

I would be rather skeptical of any claim that the desert environment would be kinder to one helicopter type rather than another. Dust and sand wears rotor blades and compressor and turbine blades, damages windscreens in a variety of ways, and accumulates throughout the fuselage, adding weight.


----------



## Loachman (18 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> I agree, Cobra's would most likely be better.  Would be easier to swallow politically as Bell Helos make Griffons, could also make Cobras for us.



"Another quality Bell product" is usually said dripping with sarcasm. Having somewhere around 5000 hours on Bell products, I have sort of of a love-hate thing going. Boeing made/makes stuff for us, too, which will include Chinook, so why would/should a Bell product be more attractive politically?

And everybody subcontracts anyway, so it probably doesn't make much difference from the Canadian industrial viewpoint.



> Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg overhauls USMC Cobra engines I believe.



That is unlikely to be a factor.



> Cobra would also be easier to deploy, lighter, can easily fit in C130



Hah!! My guess is that you've never seen that done. Neither have I, but I have seen Twin Hueys put into Hercs in 1983. It wasn't "easy", requiring the removal of the main rotor and mast, with re-assembly and test-flying on the other side - requiring cranes and specialized tools plus a day or two to carry out. They barely fitted into the Hercs (scant inches of clearance inevery direction), and one out of three was damaged and required a couple of months to fix.



> and C17,



Between AH1Z and AH64, there's probably not a lot of difference. Being designed for shipborne ops, Cobra's blades fold relatively easily. What Apache's are like, I admittedly do not know. We can fold the blades on Griffon, but it's not something that one would want to do everyday.



> sling it under a Chinook



Not if you want a reasonable chance of ever flying it again.



> My whole point is that the Air Force needs to better support army ops.  It is not the Air Force troops fault, we don't buy the equip, if we did it would not be as it is.  I have no doubt the crews would love new combat equip.  The Griffon is not a military helo, proof, non are in A-Stan evern doing medeveac, WHY??



What needs to happen is for Tac Hel to move back into the Army, from whence it came and where it rightfully, naturally, and logically belongs. And equipment procurement needs to be done logically and honestly, based upon military requirements and not political whim and arbitrary money caps - which is how we got Griffon. As for Griffon in Afghanistan, is there a need for more casevac hels there? Supporting any CF tac hel operation there is going to be a huge problem anyway, given the disruption that the TUAV operation is going to have throughout our little community. We are pulling pilots and techs and a few other support types off of helicopters for TUAV mission planning and maintenance. We do not have enough bodies to support both ops in theatre. True, Griffon is a civilian helicopter painted green, but the Twin Huey, which was the military version, is not being operated there either to the best of my knowledge. There are not many helicopters, military or civilian, that will work well at those temperatures and altitudes. There is a reason that Chinook is in such great demand. Black Hawk is the premier utility helicopter, but are they used for anything more than casevac in Afghanistan?



> We originally purchased 100 Griffons to replace 68 Kiowas, 50 Hueys, & 8 Chinooks, 126 helos total.



We started out with 75 Kiowas, and all three fleets had sustained losses over the years.



> Instead of 100 Griffons why not 20 Chinooks, 50 Blackhawks & 40 Cobra/Apache.



Aside from minor adjustments to your numbers for tactical, training, and attrition calculations - politics and money.



> Go to an airshow with CF Cobras, Blackhawks & Chinooks, there will be young folks who want to join and fly/fix them.  Awsome equip is strong a recruiting tool.



Now there's a solid basis for acquisition.

And it reminds me too much of a Ray Henault quote from the late eighties - but that's another rant.


----------



## Loachman (18 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Fortunately for us, our work is more manpower than anything else and didn't require quite as much $$$ to get us back into shape.



Unfortunately, ours is both manpower and equipment. There is a shortage of aircrew and groundcrew both, and it will take years to train enough to recover - and that doesn't account for the experience shortcomings either. True, the raw numbers are lower than yours, but it's still a huge problem.


----------



## peaches (19 Dec 2006)

Loachman,

Firstly I have seen plenty of helos disassembled and loaded onto airlifters.  I spend time in Tinker AFB OK on AWACS, saw that happen plenty of times there.  C17, C5, C130's would come in and load up Apaches, Chinooks, Blackhawks & support equip from OK NG, as well I have seen Cobras loaded up as well.  If you can send an armoured division to the other side of planet earth, you can send helos.  The Americans sent the whole 101st to Irag, twice, I think we could send a tac hel sqn, or flight.  In future we could perhaps even operate them of the new JSS ships.  Time will tell.

Another point, if we were to aquire Aphaches for example, why should we train the pilots here in GTown.  Singapore sends their Apache pilots to train with the Arizona NG, their Chinook pilots to Ft Worth to train with TX NG.  Ft Rucker, set up, a Canadian contingent there (just like Altus AFB OK for C17 training) to train Chinook crews & support pers.  I believe the US Army tarins it's Apache crews with the 21st Cav in Ft Hood these days, set up a training program there.  The Dutch & Brits send their pilots to train in the US, why not us.  Whom better to learn army avaiation tactis from than the US Army or USMC if we bought Corbras.

Twin Heuys in A-tan, the USMC is using them for convoy escort & various utility duties.  There is a good documentry (you may have seen it) on The Military Channel called Task Force Red Dog about a USMC reserve unit flying Cobras & UN1N's in A-Stan.  As for Chinooks slinging Cobra, just joking  However, I Vietnam the H47 was used extensivly to recovery downed helos, flying tow truck

I am not saying purchase items to look good at an airshow.  People go to them to see & touch aircraft they normally never encounter.  When I was with 400 Sqn in Downsview I attended several airshows in the area, trento, Hamilton, London.  People often would come up to us sitting by our OH58 and ask, where's the Canadian Apaches, where are the Canadian Blackhawks etc...  If we have the right kit for the job, use it properly, and showcase it to the Canadian public at airshows we gain support.  When a young man sees an Apache at an airshow and says "cool, I would love to fly that" and it has a CAF roundel on it, just might get him to the recruiting booth.

As for eating up bodies with TUAV, I understand fully.  Perhaps the answer for now is having others in the AF help with there ops, AESOPS, AEC, ANAV types.  Do we still have Air Observers like we did in Lahr when I was there, I am not sure.

I am only proposing that we get a vision of what AF we want, an end state, and build towards it.  I fully understand we cannot to it this very minute.  It is great to talk with people who are passonate about the AF as I am...........


----------



## aesop081 (19 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> I am only proposing that we get a vision of what AF we want, an end state, and build towards it.  I fully understand we cannot to it this very minute.  It is great to talk with people who are passonate about the AF as I am...........



I absolutely agree with you there.  We need strategic direction and the budget to go with it but we have the people with the rigth motivation to make great things happen.  The AF of earlier days was a force to recon with and it can be that way again. I spent 11 years in the army and i think i brought with me the drive to get the mission done, i too am very passionate about being in the AF.........

CHIMO

PER ARDUA AD ASTRA


----------



## peaches (19 Dec 2006)

cndaviator,

Hi, any luck contacting SIDECAR yet  I was talking with some of your east coast comerades yesturday.  Cannot wait til we get the link 16 hooked up here.

Yes we do need a strategic vision in the AF in a big way.  Identify our roles and tasks, buy the RIGHT equip for the job, in adequette numbers.  I think the AF needs to look at everything, top to bottom. 

Fighters, we need them for continental air defence, and to support CF ops overseas, ie CAS & BAI.  Buy a fighter type to replace the F18 that can perform these missions.  I believe we are headed in the F35 direction, which will be a good buy.  We need about 120 minimum I would say, an AD sqn east & west, 2 sqns of 24, an AEF sqn east & west, another 48, plus a training sqn (410 OTS).  Perhaps we could even re-look at how we do our training, why not send our pilots to the USA for F35 training.  Why not get together with some other F35 customers, Austarlia, UK, Dutch etc and set up a join F35 JSF training unit here in Canada along side NFTP.  Just a thought. 

Tac Hel, again set up a full wing in eastern and western Canada, each with an attack/TUAV sqn & transport sqn, plus a Spec ops sqn co-located with JTF2 & CSOR.

Have a maritime wing east & west, H92 sqn & CP140 (in future P8) sqns, but buy a few more.  Would be nice to get 4 or 5 737 wedgetail AWACS also.  Also, perhaps establish Maritime FOL (like fighter FOLs) in the north, Fro Bay, Inuvick, Yellowknife, as I believe the high north will become a big AOR in our AF future. 

Transport, I think we are going to fix that prob here soon, new hercs & C17's, awsome.

I have detailed my vu=ision before on here.  It is just my vision.  I have looked at what the Aussies have done, what the Dutch and some other countries have done.  There are models to look at, and adapt for our needs.  I think that the artic will become a big player for the CF in years to come.


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2006)

> from: peaches on Yesterday at 23:28:39
> Firstly I have seen plenty of helos disassembled and loaded onto airlifters.  I spend time in Tinker AFB OK on AWACS, saw that happen plenty of times there.  C17, C5, C130's would come in and load up Apaches, Chinooks, Blackhawks & support equip from OK NG, as well I have seen Cobras loaded up as well.  If you can send an armoured division to the other side of planet earth, you can send helos.  The Americans sent the whole 101st to Irag, twice, I think we could send a tac hel sqn, or flight.  In future we could perhaps even operate them of the new JSS ships.  Time will tell.



We have rarely moved helicopters by air. We used to fly Kiowas to Norway and back, either three with tailbooms removed or two with them on, in a Herc. I went to Norway twice in 1983 that way. On the second trip, we went with three Twins as well - with one of those getting banged up by the MAMS crew in Trenton while they were cramming it in. 400 Squadron moved a Griffon to Alert last summer that way as well - building it back up outside was apparently not particularly pleasant. 10 TAG moved nine Twins to the Sinai in or about 1985 as well, but they went in a single C5A with all personnel and other kit. All of the hels that went to Norway for Brave Lion in 1985 went by ship, though, as air movement was not practical for the numbers involved. My specific comment was in regard to your comment about "easily fitting into a C130". While a Cobra's width can be reduced to improve side clearance compared to a Twin Huey/Griffon (and there isn't much at all in their case), it's still long and tall and requires partial dismantling/re-assembly and test flying, and risks damage in the whole lengthy process. It becomes a vastly simpler undertaking with C17. We need to get out of the Herc-transportability-criterion mindset for every piece of kit that we consider buying. With C17, air transportability ceases to be a significant factor in choosing either AH64 or AH1Z over the other. With the size, condition, and tasking level of our Herc fleet we're not sending any part of a Tac Hel Squadron anywhere that way, and what the Yanks do is irrelevant to us - they've got much more to play with.. With C17, yes, it becomes feasible. As for the ship, yes, albeit slowly, and we've done that once already.



> Another point, if we were to aquire Aphaches for example, why should we train the pilots here in GTown.  Singapore sends their Apache pilots to train with the Arizona NG, their Chinook pilots to Ft Worth to train with TX NG.  Ft Rucker, set up, a Canadian contingent there (just like Altus AFB OK for C17 training) to train Chinook crews & support pers.  I believe the US Army tarins it's Apache crews with the 21st Cav in Ft Hood these days, set up a training program there.  The Dutch & Brits send their pilots to train in the US, why not us.  Whom better to learn army avaiation tactis from than the US Army or USMC if we bought Corbras.



Some combination of that may be feasible, and will have to be done initially anyway. The first Griffon guys got their conversion training done in Dallas-Fort Worth as part of the contract. We do not operate exactly the same way as the Americans do, and we train differently. Having seen the products of both systems, I prefer ours. We could have the US train all of our Infantry guys in Fort Benning, too, but I don't think that you'd find too many Canadian Infanteers who'd think too highly of that.



> Twin Heuys in A-tan, the USMC is using them for convoy escort & various utility duties.



Thanks. I wasn't aware. That sounds rather benign, though - I bet that they're in roles that do not require carrying much weight or operating in mountainous regions. We could use Griffon for casevac, but the cabin configuration is less than ideal and I don't think that this would be a significant contribution to the overall effort anyway. Addition of a decent sensor package would allow for a viable role, and would be better than TUAV for recce and surveillance although more labour-intensive.



> As for Chinooks slinging Cobra, just joking  However, I Vietnam the H47 was used extensivly to recovery downed helos, flying tow truck



Good about the joke - and I did see the smiley things. The Yanks lost a very slightly damaged Black Hawk in Grenada when a Marine CH53 pilot pickled it, and the first Griffon that we wrote off died in a plunge from a Skycrane into a Labrador fjord. If it's already smashed up or shot to bits, fine, but like I said don't plan on ever flying it again if you elect to move it that way.



> I am not saying purchase items to look good at an airshow.



I know, I know - but the last CDS did when he was "running" the CFLH (Kiowa replacement) programme.



> When I was with 400 Sqn in Downsview



When was that? I was posted in in 1992.



> As for eating up bodies with TUAV, I understand fully.  Perhaps the answer for now is having others in the AF help with there ops, AESOPS, AEC, ANAV types.  Do we still have Air Observers like we did in Lahr when I was there, I am not sure.



The pilots are there, as I understand, for mission planning and although I've never worked with AESOPs and Navs etcetera, I don't see how they'd help out. It's not just any pilot, either, it's Tac Hel pilots as we have some knowledge (although it may vary widely) of how the Army operates. The Tech bill is just as much of a problem too, as stripping them from maintenance flights and packing them off to the UAV mob in Afghanistan leaves the Squadrons unable to operate all of their aircraft anyway. Being as everybody's short of techs, bringing them in from other communities hurts them. Plus in a small group, we'd rather have most, if not all, personnel coming from one unit as we know each other.

The Observers disappeared when we lost the Kiowa. There has been a half-hearted push for Mission Specialists on the Griffon, but without a recce package there is no need. There would be no need if the recce package was anything other than a bolt-on with no proper aircraft mods and our pilots were properly trained and motivated either. Observers and Mission Specialists are more of an indicator that we are not mature as a community and that the a** f**ce methods are failures; after forty-three years of Tac Hel, we still need to bring in outside help to run our ranges, explain ground tactics to driver-officers, etcetera.



> I am only proposing that we get a vision of what AF we want, an end state, and build towards it.  I fully understand we cannot to it this very minute.  It is great to talk with people who are passonate about the AF as I am...........



My "passion" as it relates to the a** f**ce is purely of the negative variety, as the a** f**ce's handling of Tac Hel has been a clusterfork. Battlefield aviation is an Army function. That aside, yes, some logic and thought needs to be put into what we need to do and what we need in order to do it with. We used to have doctrine (based upon combat-proven US doctrine) that laid that out nicely, but it got chucked and/or watered down/made politically correct after Griffon arrived.

Basically, it said that at Brigade level, there was a continual need for light hels for reconnaissance and fire direction (Air OP, FAC, and AH co-ord) and an occasional need for utility and attack. The latter became continual at Div level, and an occasional need for transport came in there. That became continual at Corps level. The Brigade LOH squadron had 16 Kiowas, and, in the case of a Brigade Group, four utility hels for air ambulance. The Div wing had another LOH squadron for itself, plus an Attack squadron based upon a US Army Attack Battalion (21 AH1F at the time, plus a couple of UH60 and OH58), and a Utility squadron of 24 Twin Hueys.

These were all perfectly valid organizations, and we could tailor them for specific ops like Norway (CAST Composite Hel Squadron) as needed.

In my perfect world, we'd have one mech brigade, one wheeled brigade, and one airmobile brigade. Each would have a squadron of RH70 for the ARMED recce/fire direction role. The latter would have a utility squadron, an attack squadron, and a transport flight as well. A second each attack and utility squadron, fourth recce/fire direction squadron, and transport flight would provide the Div-level assets. That would total about 64 RH70, 48 UH60/UH1Y, 30-42 AH64/AH1Z, and 16 CH47 plus possibly a couple of extra utility and recce machines in the AH squadrons. Some additional examples of each would be required in the OTUs (Operational Training Units) and to cover attrition. A TUAV organization may have a place in there somewhere as well. All personnel in this structure would be Army, and would have at least DP1 Infantry for NCMs and whatever Phase 2 Infantry is now called for officers before doing any tech or aircrew training. There would also be NCO pilots.

In my more perfect world, there'd be more than three regular brigades, and the reserve brigades would be bigger and trained and equipped to a higher level, and provided with their own aviation resources...


----------



## aesop081 (19 Dec 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I've never worked with AESOPs ........ I don't see how they'd help out.



Looking at things from above with EO/IR is part of what we do for a living.  Wether this is done from a manned aircraft or from a UAV is irrelevant IMHO.  AESOPs will operate the sensors with larger UAVs for Continental surveillance and such, why not with TUAV ?


----------



## peaches (19 Dec 2006)

Loachman,

your perfect world sounds nice.  I came to 400 Sqn Downsview in 1992 as well.  I worked in the tower, "Griffon 14C take off your discreation, wind xyz...."

I am in North Bay now, doing AD with another ex 400 sqn CRS TECH on my crew.  as for the training in the US, I was just an idea.  If we combined our training with allies, could reduce costs.  Thinking along the NFTP lines, however I have heard neg things about it.

As far as deploying overseas with helos, yes we have to get out of the C130 mindset....


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Looking at things from above with EO/IR is part of what we do for a living.  Wether this is done from a manned aircraft or from a UAV is irrelevant IMHO.  AESOPs will operate the sensors with larger UAVs for Continental surveillance and such, why not with TUAV ?


We on the Tac Hel side are not operating the UAVs or sensors. Others do that. What their trades are I do not know. We are there to plan missions (as these things operate in the same airspace as other aircraft, artillery rounds etcetera) and service/maintain the UAVs.


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> your perfect world sounds nice.



That's what makes it perfect.



> I came to 400 Sqn Downsview in 1992 as well.  I worked in the tower, "Griffon 14C take off your discreation, wind xyz...."



Ahhh, yes - solo students...



> as for the training in the US, I was just an idea.  If we combined our training with allies, could reduce costs.  Thinking along the NFTP lines, however I have heard neg things about it.



It certainly has merits, but we'd still have to reprogramme everybody before turning them loose. We do not operate like Americans, although we can operate with them. Their Army is different in many ways, and we, after all, exist to support our own Army and need to understand it rather than theirs.

We had a US Army National Guard Warrant Officer Single Slug driver come to us in Downsview. Reprogramming him was both entertaining and frustrating. The biggest challenge was getting him to think. It wasn't that he was stupid, but that he'd only ever been trained and required to be the co-driver on one machine out of a large gaggle following each other. He was pretty good at flipping switches and steering and all, but never had to plan anything or take responsibility. We like our people to be able to do that early on, in order to get the maximum benefit out of them.


----------



## peaches (19 Dec 2006)

Why has the TUAV mission been soley placed on the Tac Hel community, is it mainly as you stated to deconclict between arty, an air assets, and thats Tac Hels area of expertice???  Have other flying communities sent pilots into the UAV world, fighter pilots for example.  I have delt with incorperating them into ATOs & liaising with ATC about UAV issues.


----------



## arctic_front (19 Dec 2006)

Hi , first post, new to this site, but a regular reader of it.

I'm a civy Aircraft mechanic, helo...currently working on Hueys.  I have read this post with a bit of amusement whenever the Griffon is mentioned as a serious militay helicopter.  At best, on a really good day, the most you could expect from a Griffon is a very expensive taxi cab for a general.  This helicopter is too heavy, under-powered, lacks any kind of effective armament, and is a really big, easy target for a cheap shoulder launch missle.  It ain't exactly very stealthy either.  I work on the civy versions, mind you, and they don't have much in the way of guns either, but they probably weigh a thousand pounds lighter, and even THAT is a thousand pounds lighter than the UH1-H or in my world, the Bell 205.  

There is a role for a Griffon, no doubt...but the battlefield is not one of them.  I think they should be dfispersed liberally around the country for any and all purposes and used like the ANG uses them in the U.S...as a general purpose flying jeep.  They are all but useless for much more than that.  Have any of you fly-boys noticed the glut of the Bell 412 in the 'for sale' ads in the aviation trader?  Nobody wants them, they just plain suck.  Even Bell Helicopter Textron figured it out....they are trying to get everybody with a 205 or UH1-H to bring it back to them for a total restoration and engine up-grade....cheaper, and you'll have a zero-time helicopter that can actually lift something other than it's own bulk off the ground on a warm day.  

I Applaud you Guy's grit and fortitude and thank every member of the CAF for making me, just a wanna-be soldier, very very proud of you all!  I tried to join back when I was a young lad in the early 80's, but there were no openings.  I wish I could be there with you now.  I work with a couple ex-mil pilots now that some of you might remember, one a helo driver, one an instructor on the tutor...both really great pilots, and great people to work with.....

the Helo guy's nickname was 'Sticky'  ( he is chief pilot where I work now) so if you have any good embarrasing stories about him, I'd love to hear them...lol......just kidding guy's.....lol.

I guess my original point here was that Canada needs a number of different helio's for the sole purpose of supporting our guys on the ground when there is some shooting going on.  It has to pack a real punch, and be able to loiter.  The cobra seems to fit our needs much better than the AH64.....( btw, work with a gal, yes a gal, that just mustered out of the U.S. Army....an Apachie mechanic....go figure, eh?..). The Cobra is simple, reliable, and probably a lot cheaper.  We also need some UH-60's or whatever varient that is top-notch these days too.  Of course the Chinook is a given.  Hell, we have a Mi-26 operation in Canada now too, so why not a couple of those for the really big jobs?  The basic point is, the numbers of each type is less important than the need for the right machine for what we need...not just a one-size-fits-all-but doesn't do squat in reality, type machine, AKA, the Griffon.

A couple dozen cobras, same for the blackhawks.....then sell off half the Griffons and buy a couple Mi-26's and a couple of dozen CH-47's.......I guess I better go to the Air force page to blather on about combat fixed-wing choices too.....

Thanks for humouring me guys.....I am one damn proud, Tim Horton-drinking Canadian these days.....All thanks to the awesome job you are doing in Afghanistan and elsewhere....Cheers


----------



## peaches (19 Dec 2006)

I wasn't a solo student, I was ATC.  Worked across the feild in the tower. 

On the training issue, I admit I never considered the crew quality issue.  I know the US Army trains and operates diff than us.  I was thinking more along the lines of haveing them teach us how to fly the helos, land, take off, navigate, shoot weapons, and repair them, the basics, then we could employb them as we see fit.  Here's a question, ref the training of their pilots, is it because they are mostly WO pilots, and only the officers, platoon/company commanders really run the show??

Down at Tinker we had G coy 149th Avn OK NG, Chinook guys, hung out in the club with some, the officers were very different folks from the WOs.


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2006)

Not too many of us that have much to do with the Griffon are under any illusions about its lacks.

I often state that it is an excellent battlefield VIP aircraft. The big problem is that we now have fewer battlefield VIPs since a previous government decided that we had too many generals and made brigade commanders Colonels.

That we are the biggest fleet operator of Bell 412s in the whole wide world is rather telling as well.

We once had a programme to put a very nice electro-optical (day video camera plus thermal imager and laser designator) package on some to give them a reconnaissance capability which would, while being less than ideal, have given them a useful function.

As for choice between AH1Z and AH64, that needs to be decided in detail rather than personal preference - there are many factors to consider. I'd be rather happy with either. If we put our Griffons through the UH1Y upgrade (which would more likely end up, in reality, as a trade-in), then AH1Z would make more sense due to the commonality.

We have plenty of female techs - no novelty there.

I would not be interested in Mi 26 at all.


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> I wasn't a solo student, I was ATC.  Worked across the feild in the tower.
> 
> On the training issue, I admit I never considered the crew quality issue.  I know the US Army trains and operates diff than us.  I was thinking more along the lines of haveing them teach us how to fly the helos, land, take off, navigate, shoot weapons, and repair them, the basics, then we could employb them as we see fit.  Here's a question, ref the training of their pilots, is it because they are mostly WO pilots, and only the officers, platoon/company commanders really run the show??
> 
> Down at Tinker we had G coy 149th Avn OK NG, Chinook guys, hung out in the club with some, the officers were very different folks from the WOs.



Why aren't you all in bed? Why aren't I?

I didn't mean you - the "C" suffix on the callsign for 400 Sqn in the Downsview days indicated a solo student. 14 would have been his instructor.

The conversion to type for techs and aircrew would obviously initially have to be conducted by somebody that is familiar with those aspects, and there is much to be learned from their tactics until we build up the experience to adapt them to our needs. After that, we are better off training our own even if it did cost a little more (which it shouldn't really).

You are correct regarding their pilots. Officer pilots do officer things. Warrant Officers in the US Army are technical ranks. I believe that they are only found in Aviation now. They are uncommissioned officers rather than non-commissioned officers - they go to the officers' club but do not get a salute or command troops. The more experienced ones are generally very good, as they get more flying than officers at unit level and seldom get ground jobs. Mentality varies with aircraft type, as it does elsewhere as well, including here to a lesser degree - think carnivore and herbivore.

As for the UAV mission, it was given to 1 Wing because we exist to support the Army. In that regard, it makes sense. We are more familiar with and better motivated towards that than any other flying community. Spreading it out, or raking up individuals from across the fighter, transport, training, SAR, and maritime communities and smushing them together would just be a disaster for many reasons. Initially, the job went to 408 Squadron during the Kabul days and was envisioned to last no more than that mission. Now that it's continuing until at least 2009, it has to be rotated around a bit to provide relief to them. The alternative would be to form a UAV unit, but it would have to be pretty big to avoid multiple tours for all members.

Any pilot would understand basic airspace matters, but not the ground tactical aspect. That's our job. Any tech could be trained to service and maintain these, but ours have a bit more familiarity with living in the field. It is better, as I have said, giving the mission to formed units rather than ad hoc ones, too, as people know and (hopefully) trust each other.

I wouldn't function terribly well operating UAVs for the Navy either, as I have no clue how the Navy operates.

Besides, I don't want anybody stealing my spot. I'd rather be flying there, but this looks like this is going to be my only ticket over, ever.


----------



## peaches (19 Dec 2006)

Loachman,

I was in YZD same time as you, I was a cpl at the time in ATC.  I remember 1 very hard core Loach pilot there, he was in Germany too.  If you are who I think, I belive I was your driver during a Pet ex in Bonachare back then.  

I am not in bed because I am on the mid shift here in YYB AD sector.  The Flight Comdr will not be too happy if I go to sleep, although I am bored.

I know your point ref the US Army piolts, the WOs seemed a little more laid back, the officers were OK too though, NG guys.  Their unit deployed with the 45th Brigade OK NG to A-Stan when I was down there, saw all there equip get taken aprat and loaded on C17's & C5's.  Another guard unit loaded their AH64's & UH60's same week, was a site to see.  Don't know if you have, but if you every get a chance to see that documentry on The Military Channel, Task Force Red Dog, about USMC reserve Cobra/Heuy guys from NO & Atlanta, good show.  They deployed with 6 Snakes & 3 UH1N's to support 82dn ABN in 2003.  They UH1N's were inserting LURP teams, medevac, convoy escort and anything else they could be tasked for, Cobra even airlifted SOF team on ammo bay doors (even had saftey belts), its a good show.........


----------



## peaches (19 Dec 2006)

Well the long midnight shift is over, democracy is safe for another night, I am off on Xmas leave, HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU ALL.....


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2006)

Arctic-front, thanks for the supportive words!  For the most part, your view of the Griffon is pretty fair if I were going to go out tomorrow and select a battlefield helicopter...i.e. if wouldn't be first on my list.  That said, I think it has gotten a bad rap because a lot of people (both the air force and the Army) put unreasonable expectiations on it; to wit: the famous 10 TAG [tacical air group, previous embodiment of today's 1 Wing tactical aviation organization] PowerPoint slide showing three fleets (Chinook, Huey, Kiowa) being "transformed" into a single type, the Griffon.  There are things I like about the Griffon (it DOES have noticeably more power than a Twin, PT6T-3D @ 1350cshp to the tranny vice PT6T-3B's 1135, a decent 3-axis AFCS, etc...) and there are things I don't like (precipitation-static on radios, stupid long time to refuel above 1600lbs gas due to tiny interconnect standpipes, etc...)  There are some it does better than a Huey, and some things it doesn't do as well.  Guys are giving accolades to the US aviation operators (US Army, USMC) so here's a question for folks...what is the aircraft that the US Government, through the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, uses to conduct domestic counter-terrorism ops and hostage rescue?  Hmmm....if your answer is something other than a Bell 412EP, think again...just some food for thought.  Yes, I would like to fly the Chinook...again...I've waited a long time keeping the faith that someone would see the error of our previous ways.  That doesn't mean, however, that we have the luxury of throwing the baby out with the bathwater vis a vis the Griffon.  Loachman brought up the excellent point about the community's plans to put an electro-optical reconnaissance surveillance and target acquisition (ERSTA) pod on the Griffon to improve the battlefield functionality of the aircraft.  It was going along rather well until internal air force and Army politics killed failed to support it at a criticaul juncture.  Pecking order of "Army aviation" within the air force was a major contributing factor. The M-134 7.62 miniguns could be mounted on the Griffon exactly as they were on the Marine Twin Hueys in Afghanistan.  Less manufacturing tolerances, the weapon hardpoints on the Griffon are exactly the same as the UH-1N.  There are a lot of misconceptions out there about the Griffon and lots of war stories out there about what a piece of crap it is, but I think 95% of the people you hear talking about it were prejudged against the machine and use that as the justification not to deploy the Griffon to theatre.  FWIW, I would return to Afghanistan and fly the Griffon tomorrow without any reservations whatsoever.  There are other reasons it is not deployed than its performance characteristics.

p.s.  please pass on a howdy to Sticky-Bill from the tall gangly guy that looks like Jim Carey, he'll know who it is.  

G2G


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> I was in YZD same time as you, I was a cpl at the time in ATC.  I remember 1 very hard core Loach pilot there, he was in Germany too.  If you are who I think, I belive I was your driver during a Pet ex in Bonachare back then.


That couldn't be anybody other than me, then. Small world, eh? Thanks for the compliment. Would that have been the 1993 summer ex? I was sort of mentor/DS/umpire/pain-in-the-neck for 411 Sqn then. That's the only specific ex in Bonnechere that I can remember in my 400 Sqn days, because I had reather a good time, but there might have been others - I was there so many times with 427 Squadron as well and they all sort of blur together.


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I think it has gotten a bad rap because a lot of people (both the air force and the Army) put unreasonable expectiations on it



Well, it was bought on lies - like "It's an off-the-shelf purchase, so it WILL work" and "It's an off-the-shelf purchase so we don't need no steenkin' user trial" and "It will save money" and...



> a decent 3-axis AFCS,



The fourth axis would have been even more decent.



> stupid long time to refuel above 1600lbs gas due to tiny interconnect standpipes, etc...



One of my fantasies is to get the Texas-dwelling-************ who is so proud of his design up here for a winter (before global warming gets any better) so that he can fuel up his baby out on the ramp a few times.



> what is the aircraft that the US Government, through the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, uses to conduct domestic counter-terrorism ops and hostage rescue?  Hmmm....if your answer is something other than a Bell 412EP, think again



But I bet that those guys are a bit lighter than the average Infantryman, there aren't eight of them on board, and they're not carrying enough fuel for multiple lifts to get a company in with only four machines, and rotorwash from a wingman during an all-up-weight departure from a dusty confined area isn't a factor for their overly-sensitive torque-sensing system.



> That doesn't mean, however, that we have the luxury of throwing the baby out with the bathwater vis a vis the Griffon.



No. Much as I despise it, we have a requirement for utility helicopters. It would be perfectly fine after the Yankee-model upgrade. The cabin would still be smaller than a Black Hawk, but it would have excellent lift capability and still be much cheaper. Even in its present form, it has some use, but is still severely limited.



> There are a lot of misconceptions out there about the Griffon and lots of war stories out there about what a piece of crap it is, but I think 95% of the people you hear talking about it were prejudged against the machine



I will freely admit to being prejudiced against it from the second that I heard about the choice - but that was based upon doctrinal concerns. I predicted that we would be getting excellent suntans on major exercises because there wouldn't be enough work for 24 of these things in a brigade. I didn't realize it's other shortcomings until they began to be delivered. I could not believe some of the problems. I once asked one of our senior techs (a WO) how a civ operator could buy one of these and expect to make a profit.



> FWIW, I would return to Afghanistan and fly the Griffon tomorrow without any reservations whatsoever.



Depending upon the role given to it, and the kit provided. I'd rather do that than plan missions for fat model aeroplanes.



> the tall gangly guy that looks like Jim Carey, he'll know who it is



I KNEW that you reminded me of somebody. Now please hurry up and get finished so that you don't hold up my refresher in January...


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ...
> I KNEW that you reminded me of somebody. Now please hurry up and get finished so that you don't hold up my refresher in January...



 I'm working on it.... 

LM, talking with the senior engineer down in ft.Worth about this little beasty, its genesis was pretty much making a smoother 212 with about another 20 or 30 kts for the guys at PHI to fly out to the rigs in the Gulf with... :

G2G


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> LM, talking with the senior engineer down in ft.Worth about this little beasty, its genesis was pretty much making a smoother 212 with about another 20 or 30 kts for the guys at PHI to fly out to the rigs in the Gulf with... :



Too cheap to use decently-sized pipes.


----------



## Sf2 (19 Dec 2006)

EDIT

Best discussed over a beer instead of on the interweb.


----------



## Garry (19 Dec 2006)

Iraq and Aghanistan modern war?

Sure, for the four days it took to complete the mission.

We're now an "occupying force". 

Low grade conflicts are made for the A-10, AC-130, etc- places where we have air superiority. I'm not sure if we'll ever see another real WWII style conflict (hope to heck we don't) .

I can guarantee you that all of the tools available to the modern commander are NOT being used in today's conflicts.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## geo (20 Dec 2006)

If those tools were designed to fight a conventional war against an army of troops in uniform, good chance that no, they are not... but, doctrine & tactics designed to deal with an insurgency are as pertinent today as they were back then ............
Brits... Malaysia,  Palestine
US......Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos
Rus..... Chechnya, Afghanistan.


----------



## Garry (25 Dec 2006)

This is not the direction I wanted to go, and I don't want to hijack this thread- but out of the wars you just talked about, iirc none of them were won- Iraq and Afghanistan wars were won...and now the uprising, counter-insurgency, Syrian, Iranian, and Pakistani-sponsored attacks- whatever you want to call them- are on.

Never forgetting that the battle doesn't be huge to forever the affect the guys that fought it, but our guys are in a terrible position. Has to be easier when the enemy is behind a line and wears a uniform- as least you know who to attack, and who to leave alone.....

And maybe even tougher on the average civvy in both Iraq and A'Stan- they either suport the buggers that are fighting their own war on their turf, or fight for their country- and which side is "right"?? The foreign guys who are different but nice, or the guys that are harsh but at least look and talk like them..

God Bless our guys for doing what they can to keep the Terrorists busy and away from my family.

Good hunting guys.

..and God Bless them again for helping those folk on the other side of the world.

PS- Merry Christmas!


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2006)

Thinking back to history, the British used air power to police Iraq and various other parts of the Empire in the 1920's and 30's. Since they were operating in a permissive environment against ground targets, flying around in fabric biplanes wasn't a disadvantage at all.

The use of air power in a tactical role has always required the combination of loiter time, protection and firepower or weapons load. Fast air hasn't been very good in a tactical role since the pilot simply dosn't have the time to see the target, set up the engagement and so on. On the other hand, the airplane needs fighter like performance for protection and also to keep the enemy from being able to predict patterns (the AC-130 is restricted from flying during the daylight hours because it is so vulnerable to ground fire). WWII era fighter planes seem to have reached that "sweet spot", and even as late as the Viet Nam war the venerable "Skyraider" (Nicknamed the SPAD by the troops) was one of the best and most popular CAS platforms available. Certainly the troops could apprieciate an airplane where the pilot could see both them and the target, as opposed to (say) an F-105 "Thud" screaming overhead at 500mph releasing its ordinance.

Since Skyraiders arn't available anymore, some modern equivalent needs to be looked at. I would think that a primary trainer has most of the characteristics we are looking for (the A-37 "Dragonfly" was such a beast in the Viet Nam war), at least in terms of a fixed wing CAS platform. Since it should already be in service as the primary trainer, issues like logistics and support would be lessened, and indeed they would be cheaper since there would be a bulk buy of airframes.


----------



## rampage800 (28 Dec 2006)

To play Devils Advocate on that Vietnam era a/c didn't have the pods they do today (LANTIRN, SNIPER, etc) or JDAMs and relied solely on talk-ons. Most of the a/c can do what they need to from 20 000+ ft with exception to some a/c which like to operate out of the weeds and are primarily designed to do so, Warthogs come to mind.
In the situation you describe with the F-105  ripping over like that, well that sounds like a Low Level run to me, meaning High Threat from En AD and it is still utilized (to a lesser degree) but the old Skyraider would be totally useless in that situation (unless you wanted some work for the CSAR guys). Once again if the plane can do the same job way high up and 10NM back why risk the a/c ?
The problem with slow is they are exactly that, slow, and have a greater chance of getting shot up/down which is exactly why Spectres only work at night. I don't know where you draw the line between the 2 but I'm just chucking that out there.
Anyhow..........


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2006)

There are so many factors in play this topic can be spun in almost any direction. If you are just looking to plant ordinance on target, we could launch an ICBM (at one extreme), and there are plans to do just that with US Trident SLBM's packing conventional warheads..... 

B-52's or other bombers can send PGM's on targets from great hights and distances, but this seems to be a bit of a waste of a resource to use this as CAS. If we *just* want airborn firepower, I suppose you could make a case for fitting an M-777 to the Goodyear blimp.....

One thing which seems to be required based on this thread is that the A/C is also able to escort transport aircraft or helicopters, which does speak to an attack helicopter or ground attack aircraft. Although an A-10 is "the" plane to have, production ceased many years ago, so we might look for more BAe Hawks for fixed wing CAS, and an inexpensive scout/attack helicopter (MD-500?) for helicopter support. Like everything else, we should be looking for the most versatile solution possible within our limited resources.


----------



## geo (29 Dec 2006)

Most versatile solution for CAS?
Has to be, when required, low & slow while providing protection to the crew
Fast enough to deliver needed resources right this instant
Ability to linger over an active battlefield

Planes?  A10, Harrier.... Predator drone?

Helicopter?   Cobra / SuperCobra as presently used by USMC - less technical & gee-whiz than the Apache.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Dec 2006)

B-52's, Cloud Station or Nuclear Zeppelins are fine for delivering ordnance as A_Majoor says, but he does hit a key point.  For *CLOSE* air support, there are some requirements:
It must be highly responsive to the ground element.  As stated, there must be an ability to linger and to communicate, in real time, with the FAC.
It must be able to identify the target with the Mk I Eyeball.  There is no sense in programming a 10 figure grid reference into the thing, as by the time those buttons are pushed, the target may very well move out of harm's way.  
From this ability to identify with the Mk I Eyeball, it must be able to slow down enough to see the target.  It must also be low enough to see the target.
From this slow and low flying, it means that it is probably susceptible to ground small arms fire.  Therefore, it must be heavily protected, at least around the cockpit.

To my army mind, there are some planes in service, and retired, that fit this bill.  A-10 Thunderbolt.  Apache Longbow.  AH-1 Cobra.  Heck, even the Ju-87 Divebomber, the so-called Stuka of WW II fame.

*Disclaimer:  "Stuka" is an acronym for "Sturzkampfflugzeug", or Dive bomber.  The Ju-87 certainly was the most famous (or infamous) due to its high pitched wailing siren as it dived (an attack on the moral plane as it delivered its physical plane weaponry).   Why dive bomb?  Given the technology available at the time, dive bombing was one way to ensure accuracy.


----------



## geo (29 Dec 2006)

If you're going to resurect the Stuka then I would suggest that something like the Typhoon of same said era is an even better fit.  Single seater AND heavily armoured for pilot protection.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2006)

The WWII Hs 129 packed a 75mm cannon from a PzKW MK IV, so there is plenty of competition for "most airborn firepower" (A B-25 Mitchell with a 75mm cannon and 4 X .50 HMG's in the nose should be pretty close to the top of the list, although there was also an improbable ME-262 jet fighter conversion with a PAK 50 anti tank gun stuck in the nose.....)

Moving into the thinking "outside the box" territory, we might look at a "compound aircraft" similar in concept to the AH-56 Cheyenne, which is considerably faster than a conventional helicopter, giving the pilot the ability to dash to targets or attack like a fixed wing aircraft if conditions allow. I also stumbled across another "out of the box" design for a very manoeuvrable fixed wing design. If the design is scaled up and a turboprop engine is substituted for power, this might be a STOL close support contender. http://www.esotec.co.nz/hb/HTML/HomePage2_F.html


----------



## rz350 (29 Dec 2006)

How about the Su-25KM. Its an Su-25 with Israeli made avionics that are NATO compatible. I suggest it since the A-10 seems to be the preferred CAS plane, and the Su-25 is closest thing that is still in serial production.


----------



## 28402 engineers (29 Dec 2006)

has anyone ever considered the Eurpcopter Tiger HAP ? or maybe even the Aussie version ARH? what about that Italian AH, the A129? 
even the South African Rooivalk might be good. it all depends on how much money the government is willing to spend. In my opinion, it will take some kind of disaster like a Leo being destroyed from above, or (when/if we buy them) a Chinook gets blown out of the air, then the government will spring for an AH or Attack plane of some sort.

my 2 cents

regards,
Matt


----------



## rampage800 (30 Dec 2006)

> B-52's or other bombers can send PGM's on targets from great heights and distances, but this seems to be a bit of a waste of a resource to use this as CAS. If we just want airborn firepower, I suppose you could make a case for fitting an M-777 to the Goodyear blimp.....



But that is exactly what CAS is ; CAS is air action against hostile tgts which are in close proximity to Fr forces and which require the detailed integration of each air msn with the fire and movement of those forces.

If we're talking escorts and stuff like that, well that's a whole other issue, I don't have an issue with our need for AH or even A-10s but seeing how they don't make them anymore.........A-10s that is
As for HS's remarks about seeing the tgt, yea I agree totally(even though the pilot doesn't have to, ie. Type 2 controls)but he can see the tgt through his pod as opposed to coming right down low to see him,why would you not use your optics and technology on board, they obviously use it at night when the old Mk 1 eyeball isn't working so well, all's I'm saying is they don't put all these stand off distances on different munitions so the pilot can come down nice and low to see whats going on. Sure theres going to be times when he has no choice ie High Threat, Bent Pod, etc, etc. The other point brought up about the tgt moving, well that just depends what the a/c checks in with, maybe hes only got JDAMs, then maybe you set up a trigger point, maybe he's carrying GBU-12s then you can use your LTM, it just depends on the situation.......Anyhow I'm not trying to get in a war of words here and I admittingly haven't read the whole 15 pages of this topic but seeing how I didn't think a 777 on a blimp would work I decided to add a little more here.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2006)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> But that is exactly what CAS is ; CAS is air action against hostile tgts which are in close proximity to Fr forces and which require the detailed integration of each air msn with the fire and movement of those forces.



And ultimately isn't that what Close Support of any type is?  The ability to engage hostile targets in close proximity to Fr forces?  Regardless of platform?  It seems to me it isn't the platform, nor the means of delivery,  but the size of the explosion and the speed with which the support can be delivered once a call from the Fr force has been received.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2006)

Not sure if already mentioned, how does the hawk trainer rate as a ground attack aircraft?


----------



## hoist-monkey (1 Jan 2007)

Do we own the hawks?
I thought they were on lease for training NATO pilots.

They are a sexy little plane though.

The Red Arrows use them and the look like they handle like a little sports car.


----------



## Inch (1 Jan 2007)

hoist-monkey said:
			
		

> Do we own the hawks?
> I thought they were on lease for training NATO pilots.
> 
> They are a sexy little plane though.
> ...



We do not own them. Bombardier owns them and uses them for NFTC in Moose Jaw and Cold Lake.

I have my doubts about it as ground attack, it's small and wouldn't carry much in the way of ordnance. It doesn't even have a gun fitted.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jan 2007)

The Hawk is designed to carry a small weapons load both to train pilots and for smaller air forces to use as attack aircraft. We use the Hawk 100 series, but there are later versions with improved performance capable of better performance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Hawk



> General characteristics
> Crew: 2: student, instructor
> Length: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in)
> Wingspan: 9.94 m (32 ft 7 in)
> ...


----------



## GK .Dundas (1 Jan 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> We do not own them. Bombardier owns them and uses them for NFTC in Moose Jaw and Cold Lake.
> 
> I have my doubts about it as ground attack, it's small and wouldn't carry much in the way of ordnance. It doesn't even have a gun fitted.


 I suspect you'd like the Hawk 100 it was dedicated CAS bird used by both Indonesia and Malaysia ....I think ......... I'm working from memory here so please be gentle  ???


----------



## Inch (2 Jan 2007)

Perhaps a newer version would do the trick, like a Hawk 200, but it's still sticks out to me as a trainer and not a combat aircraft. That's just my opinion though, I am a rotorhead so I'm more partial to attack helicopters.

By the way, we have Hawk 115's.
http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp


----------



## Loachman (2 Jan 2007)

The last dedicated CAS aircraft that we had was the CF5. Like Hawk, it was also used as a fighter lead-in trainer as well.

It was described as "an excellent aircraft for bombing the end of one's own runway".

Like many "cheapo" aircraft, what it carried was a compromise between enough fuel to get where it needed to go and enough weaponry to do a useful job once it got there.

Hawk and similar aircraft would suffer likewise.

The CF5 was, payload/fuel limitations (and lack of all-weather and night capability) aside, a nifty little jet and the guys did phenomenal work, though. The latter was due to their dedication, specialization, and more frequent role-specific training. As an airborne FAC in my Kiowa, I usually got several opportunities annually to do live runs with them, and loads more dry. They were very good to work with and had a high success rate even in the days where every single run was a talk-through and nothing was guided - no laser designater or GPS at all, just map, protractor, compass on the instrument panel, radio, and smarts.

Today, due to technology and permissive environment, almost anything can drop precision ordnance from a safe altitude and expect an accurate hit. The bigger it is, the more weaponry and fuel it can carry.

Modern combat aircraft can refuel in flight, too, whereas training aircraft cannot. You'd also need more pilots to place as much ordnance on target or hang around as long in aircraft with less endurance and there's a world-wide shortage of those.

Infantrymen could carry far more .22LR than 5.56mm and the .22LR bullet launcher would be significantly cheaper than a C7/C8. A Lee-Enfield No. 4 would be effective at longer ranges and be simpler to maintain in harsh environments. Ludicrous, yes - but the same arguments that are being proposed for aircraft here.

And if it wouldn't be effective against the Chinese Army when Cold War II begins, then I'm even more disinterested.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2007)

I seem to remember that the USMC used the F-18 in the CAS role. I have no first hand knowledge of how well it did, but the umpires said that they did a pretty good job at wiping us from the face of the earth every once in awhile. Needless to say, we got better at hiding from their aircraft and FACs in a hurry.

Can anyone tell me what is different about their aircraft and training to allow them to perform in the CAS role (apart from every pilot and aircrew going through Boot Camp, of course)?


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2007)

It might be me but, I have a problem with "fast movers" for CAS.
Low & slow + linger time over objectives is not in the CF18 (or F18) dictionary - no matter how well intentioned the pilot / crew might be.


----------



## rampage800 (2 Jan 2007)

Daftandbarmy

The reason the Marines are better at CAS with their Hornets is because they do it alot more, everything in the USMC revolves around supporting their guys on the ground. That's not to say that they don't do air to air or air interdiction but they spend alot more trg in the CAS role than we do. It should also be noted that the Marines could have probably had any a/c they wanted for this task and they still picked the Hornet, interesting huh ? They do still use AV-8s as well but not too sure for how much longer.
As for our guys(AF), well they are really starting to get on board with the CAS thing, before it maybe wasn't "sexy" enough and they didn't dedicate too many hours to it, now, they are utilizing all trg opportunities to get up to speed and really are not too bad at all.
One other side note that should be brought up to is that CAS a/c don't usually just loiter over the AO waiting for something to shoot up, they usually work out of a "stack", so when the FAC/JTAC does call them up they might be 10NM back, who do you want then, the slow guy or the guy with 2 GE's strapped on,anyhow food for thought.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2007)

I wonder if their decision to pick the Hornet was not more based on the fact that they would require a plane that could be "Carrier Based"?


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder if their decision to pick the Hornet was not more based on the fact that they would require a plane that could be "Carrier Based"?



The USMC has a long history of using the same aircraft as the Navy ( A-6, F-4, F-8, etc....) and the Hornet, IMHO represented a good choice for them.  The combination of the AV-8 and F/A-18 offered the USMC a flexible CAS capability. The Marines by nature of course required something that could be carrier-based.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> The USMC has a long history of using the same aircraft as the Navy ( A-6, F-4, F-8, etc....) and the Hornet, IMHO represented a good choice for them.  The combination of the AV-8 and F/A-18 offered the USMC a flexible CAS capability. The Marines by nature of course required something that could be carrier-based.



Along those lines, was the Hornet not choosen to replace the Navy's Tom Cats?


----------



## Inch (2 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Along those lines, was the Hornet not choosen to replace the Navy's Tom Cats?



Not quite, until the Super Hornets came online, there was still a Sqn of Tomcats on the carriers for air superiority, while the Hornets replaced mainly the A6 and A7 as well as a Sqn or two of Tomcats.


----------



## Loachman (3 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> It might be me but, I have a problem with "fast movers" for CAS.
> Low & slow + linger time over objectives is not in the CF18 (or F18) dictionary - no matter how well intentioned the pilot / crew might be.


What is important is that the right weapon strikes the right target at the right time. That does not require "Low & slow + linger time over objectives", and while those things may work in Afghanistan today, they may not work there in the future or in other conflicts yet to come.

One does not have to hang around low over one's target area to be able to strike it quickly, while drawing attention - and, should somebody start supplying Mr Taliban with modern MANPADS in quantity, something even less desireable.

Fighter/attack aircraft can remain aloft far beyond one fuel load thanks to aerial refuelling, and can react quickly and effectively from some distance away due to their speed. There is no need to be low to strike a target accurately, unless a gun is required. They are also more flexible in their employment than A10 is - although forced specialization has its benefits, mainly in crew skill and interest.

The equivalent in land capability to what you want is having your artillery located in with the infantry, 19th-century style, rather than somewhere in depth and able to shoot for 30-40 km in any direction as modern technology now permits.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2007)

We used to have our artillery co-located. It was called the mortar platoon. 

But I have to agree with Loachman. I don't care if there's a Brylcreemed wonder doing barrel rolls over my head or not. I just want them to blast the bad guys as and when required. I seem to remember that the USMC F18s that greased us on a semi-regular basis (albeit only on exercise) were never seen or heard by us. Rather unsporting, but effective nonetheless.

Now, just what will it take to get our F18s up to the same standard as those used by Uncle Sam's Misguided Children? I assume we'll need some new ammo natures, a few more expensive cockpit gizmos, and a few new courses in some cushy places like Hawaii (where the US practises CAS) for our pilots.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jan 2007)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> and a few new courses in some cushy places like Hawaii (where the US practises CAS) for our pilots.



Try places like Twenty-nine Palms, California.....where the USMC puts its forces through their paces for pre-deployement certification.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2007)

Excellent. Great golfing and even better rock climbing nearby at Joshua Tree. 

Do we practise CAS there now with our F18s?


----------



## GK .Dundas (3 Jan 2007)

[

The equivalent in land capability to what you want is having your artillery located in with the infantry, 19th-century style, rather than somewhere in depth and able to shoot for 30-40 km in any direction as modern technology now permits.
[/quote]Perhaps what we need is a return the proposed pre/early WW II Cannon Company. What killed it will be quite familiar to us. A preexisting  shortage of personnel within the infantry Battalions.
 I suspect we might also have a bit of trouble finding 3.7 " Infantry Guns as well


----------



## GO!!! (3 Jan 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What is important is that the right weapon strikes the right target at the right time. That does not require "Low & slow + linger time over objectives", and while those things may work in Afghanistan today, they may not work there in the future or in other conflicts yet to come.


Precisely. - and that time and place is when and where the troops on the ground tell you, if we are speaking of CAS.

The mission right now requires loiter time to acquire objectives and sometimes use multiple wpns on them, a bird that is only on station for 15 mins prior to calling BINGO is not all that useful, especially when it takes you 10 mins to talk him onto a tgt.


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2007)

I think we are all singing the same song.

One thing apparent is that, for umpteen years, the CF has not spent a whole olt of time practicing CAS with the zoomies.  End result, neither had much experience at it when our mission to Kandahar started.  Is that shortcoming being adressed?.... yup... about time.


----------



## peaches (3 Jan 2007)

I am an air weapons controller, I can assure you that CAS is a major priority.  The prob here has nothing to do with CAS not being sexy, or zoomies not interested in supporting the army.  It is about very, very limited resources being used for way too many tasks.  

We only have 80 F18s in 3 sqns, 1 training sqn in Cold Lake, and 2 ops sqns, 1 in "The Lake" the other in Bagtown.  The role of the training sqn with their 24 or so jets is to train new F18 pilots, they do not hold NORAD alert, they do not deploy to support overseas ops, they train pilots.  The two ops or "Gun Squadrons" with approx 24 jets each (48 total for operations at home & abroad) are required to provide NORAD alert fighters, conduct air to air training, BAI (battlefield Air Interdiction) training, CAS training, and any other task thrown their way.  Keep in mind that if a fighter sqn "owns" 24 jets, not all of those jets are avail each day.  Some are on NORAD alert, some in depot maint (long term maint), some are in sqn maint.  Pilots are also in short supply.  One day they hold NORAD alert, the next day they fly a CAS training sortie, the next day a 2 vs 2 air to air training mission, back on NORAD alert again,  on & on.........

The USMC F18s are primarily tasked with CAS.  It is their main mission, as are their Harrier pilots. USAF A10s are dedicated CAS units, they do nothing else.

Back 25 years ago we had Voodoos for NORAD, that's all they did, F5s for CAS, that's all they did, and F104s for CAS & BAI, that's all they did.  They were very good at 1 or 2 main mission types, they did not have to cover the entire spectrum of fighter ops.

My opinion, we do not have nearly enough fighters.  In the short term we have to make do, NORAD & CAS are the priorities today, train for them.  In the future we need to expand our fighter force to more than 80 jets.  Have dedicated Air Defence sqns, on for both eastern & western Canada, and have dedicated CAS/BAI sqns to support army ops, IMHO.


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2007)

+1 Peaches


----------



## peaches (3 Jan 2007)

Speak of the devil, I have a CAS sotrie from Bagtown taking off soon, got to run..........


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2007)

Hmmm.... do we have any CF18s in mothballs?
I thought we bought more than a 100


----------



## Inch (3 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... do we have any CF18s in mothballs?
> I thought we bought more than a 100



We do, but only 80 were upgraded.


----------



## karl28 (3 Jan 2007)

Just a simple question and I am be no means an expert on this topic. Why cant they have one squadron for NORAD and one for Cas wouldn't  that make easy for training  or would it end up being  to difficult for deployment  because one squadron doesn't no the others job ?


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2007)

Inch... if we have the extra airframes, wouldn't this be the time to look at puting them thru the upgrade process - or is it a case that the planes with the most hours are up on blocks?


----------



## peaches (3 Jan 2007)

One sqn for NORAD and 1 for CAS does not work because of the Canadian land mass.  Fighters in Cold Lake cover western Canada, and the Bagtown fighters provide Air Defence for eastern Canada.  1 NORAD sqn could not cover all of Canada, including the arctic.  I can assure you there is not enough jets for the NORAD task let alone adding CAS, BAI etc....  Canada is the planets second largest land mass after Russia, we need more than 80 fighter to defend it, without taking into account CAS/BAI etc... 80 don't cut it!!!

We had 66 Voodoos for NORAD (with the aid of USAF Voodoos & F106s in the day), we had 200 F104s (all in Germany except the training sqn), and Canada bought 189 F5s but only used 95.  We replaced all these fighters with 138 Hornets.  We are now down to 80 upgraded CF18s, great jet, more capability but as one CF18 pilots put it to me, "It's still and 1982 Corvette with a kick ass stereo".  There are some F18's in mothballs, but they are there for a reason, they are for the most part time expired jets, too old, too bent to be worth upgrading.

In my perfect world I would have 5 sqns, 1 training sqn with 24 jets, a NORAD sqn east & west with 24 jets each, and 2 CAS/BAI sqns, 24 jets each to support army ops, total 120 fighters.  This is a minimum, AETE would need a few, and you always need some attrition/war reserve spares.  The Aussies currently have 75 F18's and 27 F111 bombers, which they plan to replace with 100 JSF, we only are looking at buying 80 JSF.  We need more.....


----------



## Loachman (3 Jan 2007)

And we need more of a lot more, too.

The shopping list is long for everybody.

Recruiting and training personnel - and that's just to competent user level - is going to cost more and take years.

And more years to get people up to the command and supervisory level.

It will take far longer to get back up to where we should be than it did to fall so far.


----------



## Inch (3 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Inch... if we have the extra airframes, wouldn't this be the time to look at puting them thru the upgrade process - or is it a case that the planes with the most hours are up on blocks?



I can't remember all the details and why it was decided the way it was, but the contract for the upgrade was only for 80 jets. The others may be too bent or whatever as peaches has stated.


----------



## karl28 (3 Jan 2007)

peaches  thanks for the answer  by the sounds of it I guess we need allot more almost double by the sounds of it .  Here is hoping that  Gov of the near Future can help with that


----------



## peaches (3 Jan 2007)

Loachman,

Happy New Year, yes we need more of just about everything.  Not sure the whole combining of the YOD/YBG sqns was a good idea, in YBG 425 generally held NORAD alert with 433 doing the expeditionary stuff, same split in YOD with 416 & 441.  Might have been a good idea to split up the many tasks, divide & conquour.  Should have left it alone.


----------



## karl28 (3 Jan 2007)

Inch  wasn't it the Liberals  that decided that  the Airforce had to ground planes to keep cost down a few years back ?


----------



## peaches (3 Jan 2007)

The 40 or so jets not upgraded are refereed to in Air Force speak as "Legacy Jets".  There was talk about keeping some around for the NORAD job, holding Air Defence alert.  This fell by the wayside as most NORAD assets are rather state of the art, improved data links, secure comms, SATCOMM capabilities.  You can't be dicken around when your tgt may be a hijacked civil airliner, you gotta get it right!!  Data link capability is the future.  The legacy jets for the most part are spent, used for spares & ground training aids, gate guardians etc....  There was a plan to sell them to the Czech rep, however they opted for Gripens instead.

When a fighter goes up on a training mission, a 2 vs 2 air to air for example, there is allot of twisting and turning, G force, causes wear & tear fast.  Fighters are only good for so many hours, then they need depot maint (long term).  You can only do depot maint so many times before she's done, museum time.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2007)

Peaches,

Thanks for the great info. Nice to know we have the aircraft and pilots/ aircrew that can do the job, just not enough of them. Can we vote you in as 'defence minister for life' next time round?


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2007)

(rant on)

We don't have enough Planes, Tanks / AFVs & Ships to do the job that the Gov't expects of us.  The Gov't has dictated that the CF will grow by umpteen thousand troops in the near term.... but they have not provided the basic equipment that these troops will require once they have been enrolled... which means that we will be losing the troops that we desperately need........... never ending story huh?!

(rant off)


----------



## peaches (3 Jan 2007)

Would love to be DM, be lots of changes!!  

GEO is 1000% right, you can recruit 10 million new troops, if you don't have enough equip it's meaningless.  New tanks and more, new and more IFV, helos, fighters.  In a few more years the Navy frigates will need major upgrades & replacments.  Having a military is no diff than owning a home or car, you need to do maint and replace and upgrade as time goes by.  One of our biggest probs is not that there's no money, it is the process how we buy items.  Too much political crap.

Buy 120 Leo2s and create a real tank regt.  We don't need 50 tanks regts, but one fully equipped one we could use.  we don't need 1000 JSF fighters, but we could use 120.  Do we need 500 Apaches, no, but 50 would work.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2007)

Decided to stick this one here although the B2 is a Strategic Asset.  

The US Air Force is upgrading the B2 to increase its bomb load from 16 500 pdrs to 80.  Coupled with JDAM-ER and Link-16 that means that one aircraft on one pass could target 80 targets within a 100 km radius of its release point and land the bombs within 3m of their targets.  Alternatively it can stooge around for a LONG time and supply a lot of CAS to troops on the ground.

The CAS isn't so much about the platform as the weapon system - specifically 500 lb bombs, JDAM, Diamond Back Wings and Link-16.  None of those are beyond the capabilities of either the CF-18 or the CP-140.



> Air Force Not Being Stealthy About Upgrading B-2
> 
> 
> (Source: US Air Force; issued Jan. 2, 2007)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2007)

Although the term has been kicking around for several years, planners are thinking more about effects-based operations (EBO) than the traditional platform-centric thinking.  Yes, there will always have to be a platform to deliver ordnance, but more consideration is being given to what effects commanders want (including temporal and spatial factors).  Kirkhill's reference to tweaking a strategic bomber (B-2) to improve delivery of tactically-optimized ordnance is a good example.  It will be interesting to see how the Government's upcoming capability statement regarding the military positions the various operational requirements and how specifically air support is considered in support of contemporary operations.

G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jan 2007)

Personally I think the problem has a lot to do with trying to build a "wonder airplane" to be all things to all people. This approach is just to costly nowdays and no one wants to risk their expensive planes to a SAM, Manpad or ZSU-23.

For these brush wars you could use a converted airliner as a bombtruck.


----------



## Danjanou (3 Jan 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> For these brush wars you could use a converted airliner as a bombtruck.




Been done in the Falklands War 1982 by the Argentine Airforce using a C-130 as an improvised bomber ???

“….but on June 2 an Argentine C-130 made a similar attack on a British oil tanker within the 200-mile zone, causing little damage…”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925468-6,00.html

Also here:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/ArgentineAirc.htm#c130

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/air-war.htm


----------



## Inch (3 Jan 2007)

karl28 said:
			
		

> Inch  wasn't it the Liberals  that decided that  the Airforce had to ground planes to keep cost down a few years back ?



I don't recall off hand, I'm pretty sure Yearly Flying Rates have be reduced across the board, I know they have in MH,  but I'm not sure where that came from, ie the CF or the Government.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2007)

For "effects" you are able to separate the platform from the weapon, and a B-52 can carry a vast quantity of any sort of PGM you care to name. I think (not based on actually delivering or receiving any CAS mind you) that concentrating your stores in a single heavyweight platform is probably not the ideal solution, since any event which grounds you platform or forces it to leave it's station will leave the troops in the lurch. There is also a consideration of flight time, how long does it take a glide bomb or whatever to get from the aircraft to the target if you are utilizing the tremendous cross range these weapons are capable of?

The other consideration is there has to be a certain amount of "platform centricity" based on what type of effects you want to achieve. Just like the Argentinian C-130 was not very effective as a bomber, I doubt there is any feasable way to make a B-1B into a close support gunship. Mind you, if you use the platform properly, you get pretty amazing effects; an Argentinian AC-130 would have swept the waters around the Falklands clean of any unescorted merchant or supply ship.

From what I am seeing here, knowledgable people are voting for putting the smarts in the weapons and systems, so the trend for CAS and air support in general will be to treat the platforms as "bomb trucks" and use the power of sensors, networks and smart bombs to supply the effects, with a few special platforms for effects that can't be delivered by bomb or missile.


----------



## peaches (4 Jan 2007)

Using strat bombers in the CAS role is actually not a bad idea.  USAF B52 & B1s can carry an enourmous load of JDAMs, as well USN have been using their P3 Orions for this task.  These platforms are big, carry allot and have a long loiter time, which means they do not require as many supporting tankers as fighter bombers.  The air war is complex, troops on ground need CAS, CAS jets need fuel, tankers must refuel them constantly to keep them in the area.  Fighter bombers like F18, F16, A10 have limited onboard fuel, they need gas to RTB, therefore their time on station is shorter.  Even with


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2007)

Arthur, good comments.  I suppose I think of CAS as just that...support.  I consider armed aviation to be an integral manoeuvre element, and integrated into the battlespace differently than CAS.  It is much more of a intimate supporting "shooter" that is expected to understand more of the Comd's ground tac plan than the more target-centric view of a CAS provider delivering ordnance where a JTAC is telling him/her to.

G2G


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2007)

peaches said:
			
		

> Using strat bombers in the CAS role is actually not a bad idea.  USAF B52 & B1s can carry an enourmous load of JDAMs, as well USN have been using their P3 Orions for this task.  These platforms are big, carry allot and have a long loiter time, which means they do not require as many supporting tankers as fighter bombers.  The air war is complex, troops on ground need CAS, CAS jets need fuel, tankers must refuel them constantly to keep them in the area.  Fighter bombers like F18, F16, A10 have limited onboard fuel, they need gas to RTB, therefore their time on station is shorter.  Even with


Who knows, maybe Dan DALE Brown had it right, proposing modified B52s.  Creating aerial battleships as a platform for all the gee whiz munitions now available to the Airforce.


----------



## GAP (4 Jan 2007)

Didn't Dale Brown write a book emphasizing just that?


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2007)

Yup,  Like Geo noted, many thought he was just ranting about keeping an old girl flying....who'd a thunk?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2007)

My next question then is: if the effect is what is required and the launch platform is immaterial what is wrong with using good, solid ground as a launch platform?

Aircraft deliver effects over very long distances.  That is their competitive advantage over artillery.  They are faster than the Navy and they can approach the target more closely.

However they are very expensive and hard to maintain.  They are better off operated from bases distant to the enemy otherwise they are put at risk, require a lot of resources dedicated to defence and don't get the best of maintenance.  If they are operated from distant bases then they waste mechanical hours, crew hours and fuel getting to and from the job-site. As well there is a time delay in getting from the base to the target - an unacceptable delay to engaged troops on the ground.  To keep the reaction time down the aircraft needs to loiter in the area - burning more gas, crew-hours, airframe and engine time.  All too often to zero effect.  How many sorties are returning with full or partial bomb loads?  Patrick Stewart on CBC last night was talking about how this past year there had been 2000 air sorties this year against those poor, defenceless Taliban and they had dropped the shocking total of 1000 missiles and bombs.

It seems to me that aircraft are a great means to surge "effects" forward over long distances and in early entry scenarios but once you get to the stage where you are doing more flying than delivering then there needs to be another look given to the use of aircraft as bomb-trucks.  This is different to arming reconnaissance aircraft (similar to arming LAVs doing reconnaissance to take advantage of fleeting targets).

I think that once a secure land base has been established in an area of operations, it has been determined that there is more time spent waiting for fire-missions than actually conducting fire missions and that the missions generally are not calling for massive expenditures of ammunition, then ground based artillery makes more sense than air-delivered artillery.

It used to be that the difference between artillery and air support was that artillery delivered support in small packages over extended periods, while the air force delivered support in large packages, over a short period of time.  In addition the artillery was more timely in delivering support but its range was more limited. 

Now it appears that the weapons of choice for the Air Force are Hellfires (fired from Predators, Apaches and Harriers) with 20lb warheads, as well as 250lb Small Diameter Bombs and 500lb JDAMs.  Their precision means that they can land within 1-3 meters of the aim point.  This is possible because of electronics.  The electronics, which are fragile, are possible because the aircraft, built to carry pilots gently, treated the electronics equally gently.  The guns of the artillery and electronics, until very recently, were not as compatible.   Excalibur still demonstrates the difficulty.

If the requirement is for the delivery of 2 or 3 20lb warheads and a couple of SDBs on a daily basis, likely even less frequently than that, with the occasional need for a timely 500 lb load then there are other ways of doing that.  

The NETFires PAM, launched from a vertical silo or 15 missiles, carries much the same warhead as a Hellfire.  With its 40 km range and a speed similar to TOW then it would be on target in about 2.5 mins of the fire call.  And there would be 14 more immediately ready to launch or available to salvo.

The GMRLS fired either from the MRLS or HIMARs, or conceivably a permanent ground mount, is roughly equivalent in effect to the 250 lb SDB and as accurate.   It is fired from a silo/cell of 6 missiles and can reach any target within 70 km of its launch point.

The Big Brother of the GMRLS is the ATACMS-QRU - equivalent to the 500 lb JDAM.  It has a range of 270 km.

Because of their relatively soft launch then the electronics compatible with air delivered bombs are compatible with these missiles.  That results in the same accuracy.  The fact that they lack pilots means that they can accelerate more quickly and cover ground faster than an aircraft. They aren't bothered by weather at the launch site.  They don't burn gas, crew and parts while they are waiting to be launched.  They can be housed within the defensive perimeters of existing bases.

This article presents a good summary of these arguments.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5606016_ITM

The point I am making is the one G2G alluded to.  It seems to me that launch platform has got very little to do with support.  It has got everything to do with what you want the delivered package to accomplish and how quickly you can get the package to its destination.

PS Dale Brown's B52 generally seemed be travelling long distances to strike a particular target with massive precision fire power and then rapidly retire.  I don't recall them stooging around the skies for an indeterminate period of time.


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill,

In Dale Brown's yarn, his EB52 Megafortresses do linger, flying cover - frequently staging out of places like Diego Garcia with 1 on the ground and 1 in the air 24/7 with midair refueling.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2007)

Thanks Geo - I must have missed that one ;D


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2007)

you gotta catch up on your holliday reading.... several books have been written with that theme 

Have a Happy NY

CHIMO!


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Arthur, good comments.  I suppose I think of CAS as just that...support.  I consider armed aviation to be an integral manoeuvre element, and integrated into the battlespace differently than CAS.  It is much more of a intimate supporting "shooter" that is expected to understand more of the Comd's ground tac plan than the more target-centric view of a CAS provider delivering ordnance where a JTAC is telling him/her to.
> 
> G2G



Well as much as I love to take credit for things, I'm fairly old fashioned at heart, and still see CAS in terms of having a platform right on station (similar to a LAV III one bound behind supporting with a 25mm chain gun) rather than a bomb truck at some indeterminate altitude releasing goodness on call. I really think the Americans were in the right direction with the "Air Cavalry", where the aircraft were integral and integrated as part of the unit.

Kirkhill shows that effects don't have to come from an aircraft, and perhaps the best way to provide tactical "effects" is with advanced artillery techniques. Aircraft come in for surge, long range shaping of the battlespace and perhaps when a breakthrough brings line of sight energy weapons to the battlefield. (Of course your CAS will be in the form of a modified 747.......)


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2007)

So CAS is to Arty as Armed Aviation is to Cavalry?  The helicopter as a lightly armoured (unarmoured) high speed, all-terrain LAV?   CAS and Arty remove obstacles?  Armed Aviation and Cavalry manoeuver around obstacles?


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jan 2007)

Rhodesia's Fire Force is a good example of how well integrated and coordinated air/ground units can be very effective in counter-insurgency operations, even with relatively antiquated equipment. 

http://members.tripod.com/selousscouts/fireforce_operations.htm


----------



## geo (5 Jan 2007)

daft&barmy
your link provides pictures that are particularly "all white" which leads me to believe that these are snapshots that go back some 30 years... so the equipment was prolly not all that antiquated at that time.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jan 2007)

Yes, this stuff is from the mid-70s (God, is it already 30 years ago already? Sheesh, I AM OLD)

Talking to guys I know who had 'been there, done that' I think the RLI was always pretty well racially integrated. It was always a tradition in the Rhodesian Army, dating back the the time of WW2 and before. The C47s and the Alouette helicopters they used were pretty old even in the mid-70s. They even used 25 pounders for artillery I believe. 

For me, it's a good lesson in how, with the right leadership, communications networks and support, you can do a great job in an air/ land cooperation during COIN ops even with humble gear.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jan 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> Kirkhill shows that effects don't have to come from an aircraft, and perhaps the best way to provide tactical "effects" is with advanced artillery techniques. Aircraft come in for surge, long range shaping of the battlespace and perhaps *when a breakthrough brings line of sight energy weapons to the battlefield. (Of course your CAS will be in the form of a modified 747......*.)



Arthur, I can't find the link right now, but I read that future generations of the AC-130 could have a directed energy weapon system on board...

G2G


----------



## Danjanou (8 Jan 2007)

Actually Daft, while the Rhodesian security forces (Army, Police and other elements) were only about 20% White with the balance being Black, Mixed Race and Asian IRRC, the Rhodesian Light Infantry were an all “European” (to use the official term) Unit, as were the Grey Scouts, The SAS, and The Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment. The 3 Bns  Rhodesian African Rifles were all Black as were several independent company groups ( railway security companies etc) and only the various combat support units and of course the Selous Scouts were really integrated if memory serves me and yeah it’s coming up on 30 years.

You are right about  their equipment though. It was pretty antiquated by then NATO standards due to the UN Embargoes and shortages of hard currency (the embargo worked both ways and it was hard to ship resources out of the country too). Alouette IIIs were the mainstay of their troop delivery force (with some WW2 vintage C-47s/DC-3s) including a CAS and C&C Alouette with a 20mm.cannon.

For close air support they also had a limited supply of some 12 Hawker Hunter fighter-bombers, and a few older de Haviland Vampire fighter-bombers and, English Electric Canberra bombers as well as some converted civy light aircraft

Although 30 years old the campaign is worth studying as a it was militarily ( if not politically) successful and rather innovative.

More info here

http://www.rhodesia.nl/


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (9 Jan 2007)

I think in this thread we are primarily talking about fire support when we are taking about "air support."  I see fire support as all systems that deliver firepower in support of troops in contact.  I include mortars, artillery, naval gunfire, attack helicopters and aircraft.  I also see these various systems as complementary and they all bring different things to the table.  I would not advise replacing artillery with B1s, but that being said B1s can sometimes provide support to troops that artillery cannot at that time (perhaps a platoon is out of range of the guns).  I would never willingly give up M777 support, but having that 2,000lb hammer up there makes a great finishing move.

The counter-insurgency battle will usually place different demands on aircraft than "symetrical" operations and this can lead to some platforms conducting missions that the designers did not anticipate.  It can also be a bit more permissive in terms of what aircraft can operate.  Turning to technology, with the right people and equipment on the ground, JDAMs seem to have changed the rules somewhat with regards to what platforms constitute "close air support."  A B1 can deliver a munition on a specific target in support of a platoon commander's battle.  A-10s, Harriers and AH-64s bring other things to the table.  All have pluses and minuses. 

For Canada, its a difficult proposition in terms of priorities.  The airforce has other concerns such as the defence of Canada.  I think we should focus on getting the assets that see the most use and are the hardest to "transfer" in theatre.  At the risk of joing the ranks of some rather infamous posters here, I figure we should focus on getting some AH-64s for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to enable transport and casevac capabilties.  We are currently beholden to allies for many enablers, and it would be good to have a little more ownership of the stuff you need day to day.  If you are in a TIC then you may well become the priority for the whole theatre and will get the high-speed stuff like B1s coming to help.  Assumption, however, is the mother of disaster...After that, I'd try and get some armed UAVs.  

You can't always get want you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jan 2007)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Actually Daft, while the Rhodesian security forces (Army, Police and other elements) were only about 20% White with the balance being Black, Mixed Race and Asian IRRC, the Rhodesian Light Infantry were an all “European” (to use the official term) Unit, as were the Grey Scouts, The SAS, and The Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment. The 3 Bns  Rhodesian African Rifles were all Black as were several independent company groups ( railway security companies etc) and only the various combat support units and of course the Selous Scouts were really integrated if memory serves me and yeah it’s coming up on 30 years.
> 
> You are right about  their equipment though. It was pretty antiquated by then NATO standards due to the UN Embargoes and shortages of hard currency (the embargo worked both ways and it was hard to ship resources out of the country too). Alouette IIIs were the mainstay of their troop delivery force (with some WW2 vintage C-47s/DC-3s) including a CAS and C&C Alouette with a 20mm.cannon.
> 
> ...



You're right! I checked with my ex-RLI sources. It was the Rhodesian African Rifles I was thinking of. They were 'mixed units' with a long tradition of being so.

As for air support for the CF, I'm in agreement with Red Five. It would make sense to focus on the 'cheaper' option first - heli-gunship support - as opposed to hoping we can get another Sqn of F/A 18s on station in the FGA role. At least that would help us interoperate with our allies at some level on the battlefield and support our own airmobile operations while providing some measure of integral air support to the PBI.


----------

