# A Canadian Airborne EW Capabiilty? Split from The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement



## Drallib (31 Aug 2020)

> Saab’s offering to Finland includes advanced Electronic Warfare systems, comprising of a newly developed Electronic Attack Jammer Pod and a decoy missile system.
> 
> Saab’s offering to Finland for the HX fighter procurement includes both the fighter jet Gripen E/F and the GlobalEye Airborne Early Warning and Control System.
> 
> ...



I wonder if SAAB included this in their offer to Canada. Can't see why they wouldn't.


----------



## Drallib (4 Sep 2020)

I came across this article about the EA-18G Growler and it's cabilities. Got me thinking if maybe Boeing would include it in their offering to Canada, and if so would that be included in the 88 Fighters requested or an addition. Say, 88 Block III Super Hornets and 8 Block II Growlers.

I don't think Boeing can afford to lose this competition with Canada...



> The Amazing Growler Ball 2020 Video Teases An EA-18G Cyber Attack Capability That Is Yet To Come
> 
> As our readers know very well, the “Ball” series (“Hornet Ball”, “Rhino Ball”, “Strike Fighter Ball” and “Growler Ball”) is a very well known yearly compilation of the best videos filmed during the previous 365 days by U.S. Navy pilots and WSOs (Weapons Systems Officers) of “legacy” F/A-18A-D Hornets, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets (and F-35C Joint Strike Fighters), as well as EA-18G Growlers.
> 
> ...


----------



## dimsum (4 Sep 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> I came across this article about the EA-18G Growler and it's cabilities. Got me thinking if maybe Boeing would include it in their offering to Canada, and if so would that be included in the 88 Fighters requested or an addition. Say, 88 Block III Super Hornets and 8 Block II Growlers.
> 
> I don't think Boeing can afford to lose this competition with Canada...



While the Growler is an impressive piece of kit, we would need to train up yet more fast jet pilots and EWOs.  Essentially we'd have to stand up a new capability, or at least one that's very different than what we currently have at 414 Sqn.


----------



## Drallib (4 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> While the Growler is an impressive piece of kit, we would need to train up yet more fast jet pilots and EWOs.  Essentially we'd have to stand up a new capability, or at least one that's very different than what we currently have at 414 Sqn.



Who flies the EA-18s in the USN? Are they F/A-18 Pilots that fly and the EWO in the back? Or do they have specific pilots to fly EA-18s?

The RCAF would probably have to have CF-18 pilots fly the CE-18 Growler and perhaps have ACSO's in the backseat. Of course, this would mean more recruiting, but I think with the possibility of ACSO's being a "back-seater" it would bring more appeal to the trade.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Sep 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> I came across this article about the EA-18G Growler and it's cabilities. Got me thinking if maybe Boeing would include it in their offering to Canada,



Why would they do so?

Canada articulates its requirement through the RFP.  At that point vendors are required to meet those terms.  There's no extra credit for other stuff not requested.  There's a procedural fairness requirement to not say "Well, once we read their proposal, we changed our mind and are selecting them based on something not included in our requirements."

Unless the RFP asks for it, they won't include it.


----------



## dimsum (4 Sep 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> Who flies the EA-18s in the USN? Are they F/A-18 Pilots that fly and the EWO in the back? Or do they have specific pilots to fly EA-18s?
> 
> The RCAF would probably have to have CF-18 pilots fly the CE-18 Growler and perhaps have ACSO's in the backseat. Of course, this would mean more recruiting, but I think with the possibility of ACSO's being a "back-seater" it would bring more appeal to the trade.



The Growler may be based on the SH but it's a completely different role, so the pilots would at least need some different tactics training, probably understand EW/EA a lot more than SH pilots, etc.  It's probably different enough to be considered a different qualification.

As for the EWO, it would almost certainly be an ACSO job - the USN and RAAF use their equivalents for them.  However, I don't know if the fun of the job would overcome being posted to Cold Lake.  No thanks.

At the risk of a tangent:  ACSO is a very varied job, which is completely different depending on airframe.  That is a big part of why it's tough to explain to civilians (or even other CAF members, since it's not really about navigation anymore in most airframes) so few people actually know what they do.  It's not like Pilot or AEC, where it's a simple one-liner explanation.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> As for the EWO, it would almost certainly be an ACSO job - the USN and RAAF use their equivalents for them.  However, I don't know if the fun of the job would overcome being posted to Cold Lake.  No thanks.



For you, we'll arrange a posting to Bagotville.

No need to thank us.


----------



## Drallib (4 Sep 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why would they do so?
> 
> Canada articulates its requirement through the RFP.  At that point vendors are required to meet those terms.  There's no extra credit for other stuff not requested.  There's a procedural fairness requirement to not say "Well, once we read their proposal, we changed our mind and are selecting them based on something not included in our requirements."
> 
> Unless the RFP asks for it, they won't include it.



The requirements being to defend Canada and Canadian sovereignty and contribute to our NORAD and NATO commitments, now and in the future.

I think some EA-18s would help in this aspect.  :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The Growler may be based on the SH but it's a completely different role, so the pilots would at least need some different tactics training, probably understand EW/EA a lot more than SH pilots, etc.  It's probably different enough to be considered a different qualification.
> 
> As for the EWO, it would almost certainly be an ACSO job - the USN and RAAF use their equivalents for them.  However, I don't know if the fun of the job would overcome being posted to Cold Lake.  No thanks.
> 
> At the risk of a tangent:  ACSO is a very varied job, which is completely different depending on airframe.  That is a big part of why it's tough to explain to civilians (or even other CAF members, since it's not really about navigation anymore in most airframes) so few people actually know what they do.  It's not like Pilot or AEC, where it's a simple one-liner explanation.



True story. A Cyclone TACCO (ACSO) is a cross between airborne battle manager/tactician and a Rescue swimmer. It can make for some interesting days on the boat. My personal record in one flight was 5 complete mission retasks from surface surveillance to  pax transfer to ASW to photo run to slinging loads between ships. That is just one fleet. A CP140 ACSO, apart from sharing similar crew battle management duties and maritime doctrine, has a different job. All this to say that if we got a two seat fighter, the backseater would likely be an ACSO and there would be little cross over to the other ACSO jobs.


----------



## Drallib (4 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The Growler may be based on the SH but it's a completely different role, so the pilots would at least need some different tactics training, probably understand EW/EA a lot more than SH pilots, etc.  It's probably different enough to be considered a different qualification.



Maybe the students who don't make it through Fighter school at 410 could go over to the Growler, instead of going back to Moose Jaw to fly rotor or fixed, if the reason they weren't successful in Fighter school was for reasons specific to the Super Hornet.

All of this to say if Canada selects Boeing as the winner for the FFCP, and if boeing included EA-18s in their bid. Those are big ifs.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Sep 2020)

Canada has not articulated a requirement for the Growler.  If there is no articulated requirement, the vendor will not offer it.


----------



## Drallib (4 Sep 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Canada has not articulated a requirement for the Growler.  If there is no articulated requirement, the vendor will not offer it.



Looking at Finland's HX Competition (https://www.defmin.fi/en/administrative_branch/strategic_capability_projects/hx_fighter_program/hx_fighter_program/hx_fighter_program_timeline#47d08352) they stated, "_The request for information sent out in spring 2016 contained descriptions of fights that could occur in the operational environment of Finland's air defence_."

Could Canada have included something similar? I see also that there is a first proposal, then there would be negotiations following. Could it be possible at all that Boeing  "raise" their bid with some Growlers...?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Sep 2020)

This is all about open and fair procurement.  You can't change the standard you're evaluating the bids on midway through.  Unless there is something in the RFP asking for an EW aircraft (or EW capabilities that the Growler would meet) it can't be used as part of the decision making process - decisions can only be made based on the articulated criteria.

Changing our minds about criteria midway through means either (a) scrapping and restarting the process or (b) being successfully sued by losing bidders for their costs and lost profits.

Neither one is particularly desirable as an outcome.


----------



## Drallib (4 Sep 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This is all about open and fair procurement.  You can't change the standard you're evaluating the bids on midway through.  Unless there is something in the RFP asking for an EW aircraft (or EW capabilities that the Growler would meet) it can't be used as part of the decision making process - decisions can only be made based on the articulated criteria.
> 
> Changing our minds about criteria midway through means either (a) scrapping and restarting the process or (b) being successfully sued by losing bidders for their costs and lost profits.
> 
> Neither one is particularly desirable as an outcome.



I was mistakenly under the impression that Finland recieved bids in early 2019, then later that year they requested revised bids, and that's when SAAB and Boeing offered the GlobalEye and Growler. But after reading more into it, I see that they were always on the table.

I wonder.. if Finland selects a fighter that were offered to Canada (Lightning II, Super Hornet, Gripen) if that would have an affect in which aircraft Canada chooses.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> I wonder.. if Finland selects a fighter that were offered to Canada (Lightning II, Super Hornet, Gripen) if that would have an affect in which aircraft Canada chooses.



No. 

Why would it?  Each country has their own very specific set of operational and support requirements.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 Sep 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Why would it?  Each country has their own very specific set of operational and support requirements.



Canada is making use of the Finlands testing/number though is it not? I thought I read somewhere that that was the case and one of the reasons we did not need to do any operational tests.

On the Electronic Attack Warfare I was under the impression that the F-35 possessed some capabilities in that area as well although maybe this is just something available to all AESA equipped aircraft?


----------



## Spencer100 (4 Sep 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> I came across this article about the EA-18G Growler and it's cabilities. Got me thinking if maybe Boeing would include it in their offering to Canada, and if so would that be included in the 88 Fighters requested or an addition. Say, 88 Block III Super Hornets and 8 Block II Growlers.
> 
> I don't think Boeing can afford to lose this competition with Canada...



Boeing's F-18 bid is a nice to have at this point for them. Boeing has bigger fish to fry.  They going to be testing The F-18 on a ski ramp for the Indian Navy.  I also believe local production too. The Indian Navy needs a carrier based aircraft soon. Funny how soldiers being killed (by sticks and stones) focuses the mind.


----------



## dimsum (4 Sep 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> All this to say that if we got a two seat fighter, the backseater would likely be an ACSO and there would be little cross over to the other ACSO jobs.



The EWO ACSO job isn't even similar to the WSO job of a USN and RAAF Super Hornet, despite it being an ACSO (their equivalent) job and flying in the same basic aircraft.  

But I digress.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The EWO ACSO job isn't even similar to the WSO job of a USN and RAAF Super Hornet, despite it being an ACSO (their equivalent) job and flying in the same basic aircraft.
> 
> But I digress.



The Growler qual is mostly academic for a qualified E/F pilot.  The front cockpit is almost identical.

For the backseaters, you’d need a different trade than ACSO.  What 402 offers has nothing to do with what the Growlers do.   If we were to get Growlers, we should send our backseaters to USN for ab-initio training  and Growler conversion.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2020)

For the significant incremental cost, the bang for a dedicated EA capability fits nowhere within Canadian Defence Policy.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Sep 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> For the significant incremental cost, the bang for a dedicated EA capability fits nowhere within Canadian Defence Policy.


Agreed.


----------



## dimsum (4 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For the backseaters, you’d need a different trade than ACSO.  What 402 offers has nothing to do with what the Growlers do.   If we were to get Growlers, we should send our backseaters to USN for ab-initio training  and Growler conversion.



I'm just saying what the USN and RAAF do with their WSOs and EWOs.  I agree that 402 wouldn't really be relevant for those folks.

Maybe SKT can confirm/deny this, but I recall a Sea King TACCO telling me that very little of what 402 gives applies to MH as well.  

Again, tangent...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm just saying what the USN and RAAF do with their WSOs and EWOs.  I agree that 402 wouldn't really be relevant for those folks.
> 
> Maybe SKT can confirm/deny this, but I recall a Sea King TACCO telling me that very little of what 402 gives applies to MH as well.
> 
> Again, tangent...



Pretty much none of Nav Trg was applicable to the MH TACCO course. i could literally have gone straight there without the  year long stay in Winnipeg to absolutely no detrement.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Sep 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Pretty much none of Nav Trg was applicable to the MH TACCO course. i could literally have gone straight there without the  year long stay in Winnipeg to absolutely no detrement.



Perhaps 402 Sqn needs to re-look at what the fleets do and re-evaluate their syllabus?


----------



## DonaldMcL (4 Sep 2020)

402 still, IMHO, has it's place as it teaches the fundamentals of being aircrew. Their syllabus is being revamped to put it more in-line with the CP140 Block IV (and by extension the Cyclone) as we speak.


----------



## kev994 (4 Sep 2020)

We recently learned that they don’t teach map reading at 402 anymore. Bit of a shock for a SAR unit.


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Sep 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> We recently learned that they don’t teach map reading at 402 anymore. Bit of a shock for a SAR unit.



I just left 402...  I used maps. 🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## kev994 (5 Sep 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I just left 402...  I used maps. [emoji2373]


Rumour squashed. Interesting, we heard they didn’t do VFR navigation there now.


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Sep 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Rumour squashed. Interesting, we heard they didn%u2019t do VFR navigation there now.



Interesting.  Perhaps in the new courses?  I was there when they were transitioning from the old to the new.  Our first 4 basic flights were low level VFR radar navigation flights. Perhaps they removed it? Our tactics flights were of a similar flavour too. SAR search patterns (dropping simulated SKAD) and surveillance. 

I%u2019d be shocked if they did away with VFR navigation. It%u2019s a basic concept that we all need. However, stranger things have happened. 

Edited to add - They did eliminate the Portage portion of the course.


----------



## dimsum (5 Sep 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I%u2019d be shocked if they did away with VFR navigation. It%u2019s a basic concept that we all need. However, stranger things have happened.



While it is a basic concept, most ACSOs are in an aircraft with 2+ flight deck crew members.  *Maybe* the H-Herc has the Nav do that but otherwise the Pilots do it.  Same with fuel planning (FE or Pilot does that depending on fleet) and approach monitoring.  I'd argue that approach monitoring is probably something the folks at the back should also be backing them up with, but given the ergonomics, it's not like we have all of the instruments to do so effectively in the back anyway.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> While it is a basic concept, most ACSOs are in an aircraft with 2+ flight deck crew members.  *Maybe* the H-Herc has the Nav do that but otherwise the Pilots do it.  Same with fuel planning (FE or Pilot does that depending on fleet) and approach monitoring.  I'd argue that approach monitoring is probably something the folks at the back should also be backing them up with, but given the ergonomics, it's not like we have all of the instruments to do so effectively in the back anyway.



Egos might not support it, but if there ever was a case made for Growlers, the most reasonable COA, particularly given Dimsum’s note about pilots doing more/most flying duties, is an all-pilot manning model.  Short straw gets the back seat.


----------



## h3tacco (5 Sep 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Egos might not support it, but if there ever was a case made for Growlers, the most reasonable COA, particularly given Dimsum%u2019s note about pilots doing more/most flying duties, is an all-pilot manning model.  Short straw gets the back seat.



When the USAF fielded the F-4C they initially manned it with two pilots. The original USN F-4B was manned with a pilot and a Naval Flight Officer filing the Radar Intercept Officer role. The USN versions of the F-4 had no flight controls in the rear seat, much like the EA-18G, and the NFOs were not trained as pilots but as system operators. The USAF added flight controls for its dual pilot manning. Due to eventual shortages of fighter pilots in the mid-later 1960s the USAF reversed its decision and began to man its F-4s with Navigators from other fleets (B-52s, C-130s, etc). A study was conducted in 1968 evaluating the difference in combat performance between two-pilot crews and pilot-WSO/Nav crews and found there was no discern able difference in performance ("Analysis of Aircrew Performance Personnel Flying Out of Country Interdiction Missions," AWC Report #3651, April 1968". This report used to be online but I can no longer find it.

Marshall Michell's (A Vietnam F-4 Pilot) book Clashes which studies every US air-to-air engagement during the Vietnam War has a pretty comprehensive discussion/analysis on the topic. On pg 166/167 he goes into the USAF F-4 manning in detail. He explains the problems encountered by having dual pilots "...there was no chance to develop a solid long-term program to train GIBs in F-4 systems operations or in working as a team with the front seaters, because all the back seat pilots wanted was to upgrade as quickly as possible to the front seat." He later goes on to describe that once the navigators were placed as WSOs: "The WSOs were quickly accepted and were generally better trained and more proficient than the pilot back seaters." Without quoting the entire passage it also describes the problem of lower proficiency front seat pilots with high proficiency back seat pilots that led to a slew of crew coordination problems. Again these are not my thoughts but those of a F-4 pilot based on his combat experience flying tactical jets and extensive documented research. I admit that this is ~50 years dated but it still seems applicable to the current discussion. 

Likewise the idea that the RCAF's preferred solution to man two-seat EW aircraft would be dual pilots or a new trade altogether would be counter to the practice of the USAF, USN, and RAAF all of which man their  back seat fighters/tactical EW jets with aircrew from their ACSO equivalent trades (Combat System Officer (CSO) - USAF, NFO (Naval Flight Officer) - USN, Air Combat Officer (ACO) - RAAF). To put some perspective the USAF CSO trade crews traditional NAV positions on legacy C-130H as well as WSO positions on the F-15E and a whole host of other platforms in between. Likewise a USN NFO crews the TACCO position on the P-8 as well as the EWO and WSO on the SH and Growler aircraft. Much like RCAF's current ACSO streaming there is very little cross flow between the different platforms in the USAF and USN schemes. Why would the most reasonable solution be counter what existing operators already do? 

Certainly this would require changes to ab-initio training at 402 Sqn with likely some intermediate training step beyond the CT-142 and before a fleet tactical jet. Alternatively outsourcing the training to the USN would make sense particularly if it was to support a small fleet. Historically CFANS provided Air Intercept Navigators to RCAF Air Defence Command and Fighter Group for 35+ years, some of which went on to be CF188 pilots following the retirement of the CF101. I am not entirely sure why there is a feeling is that Canadian ACSOs with the appropriate selection, training and experience couldn't man a Tactical EW aircraft in the same manner as every other Western AF. This doesn't even address the cost of training a pilot to fill a crew position where there is no expectation to conduct pilot tasks on a aircraft that has been clearly demonstrated to be able to be flown single pilot. 

Though at the end of the day the discussion is purely hypothetical as stated there is no current intention/requirement to man or equip the RCAF with anything other than single seat tactical jets.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Sep 2020)

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Though at the end of the day the discussion is purely hypothetical as stated there is no current intention/requirement to man or equip the RCAF with anything other than single seat tactical jets.



:nod:

The (non-)issue of how to support such a niche capability as an EWO In a custom, dedicated-role airborne electronic attack platform such as the Growler is well beyond what sane minds should be thinking about.  Dedicated SEAD-only assets in the RCAF?  Sure, along with SSNs and SSBNs.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Sep 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> The (non-)issue of how to support such a niche capability as an EWO In a custom, dedicated-role airborne electronic attack platform such as the Growler is well beyond what sane minds should be thinking about.  Dedicated SEAD-only assets in the RCAF?  Sure, along with SSNs and SSBNs.



It would require the RCAF to first actually recruit enough people, and second expand by about 1/4 to increase the number of pilots, ground crew etc... to support a nieche fleet like the Growler.

We are too small for a lot of a capabilities we have, let alone the ones we want. The army alone barely can do tanks or arty. Given articles I've read about shortages of pilots and ground crew,I can only imagine the RCAF is struggling like the rest of us.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Sep 2020)

With the advent of more sensors and semi-autonomous aircraft as "wingman" I wonder if pilot overload will become an issue again?


----------



## dimsum (5 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given articles I've read about shortages of pilots and ground crew,I can only imagine the RCAF is struggling like the rest of us.



At the risk of over-generalizing, yes.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> With the advent of more sensors and semi-autonomous aircraft as "wingman" I wonder if pilot overload will become an issue again?



Oh, I bet it will.  Ironically, the networked environment will allow more people to be the peanut gallery and inject their opinion on how the mission should be going.  If the CAOC and the General(s) can see near-real-time, it would take a *lot* of self-control for them (or more likely a staffer in between) to say "shift the camera over here - the Comd wants to see something."  

The overload will partially be dealing with external things like that.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Oh, I bet it will.  Ironically, the networked environment will allow more people to be the peanut gallery and inject their opinion on how the mission should be going.  If the CAOC and the General(s) can see near-real-time, it would take a *lot* of self-control for them (or more likely a staffer in between) to say "shift the camera over here - the Comd wants to see something."
> 
> The overload will partially be dealing with external things like that.


For whatever it is worth, and it is only relevant as an example of senior commanders inserting their oars, the advent of the command and control helicopters carrying "9erTAC" in Vietnam was not necessarily a good thing. It led to senior officers, who could see how operations were unfolding, trying to control the ground battle by micromanaging platoons and companies on the ground. In some cases, a tier of C&C birds appeared with battalion, brigade, division, and so on commanders each trying to run the battle. I'm not making this up. It was widely reported in the media and any number of American officers would discuss the issue, usually in very profane terms.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Sep 2020)

We have seen this to some extent during Op IMPACT where everything was controlled (even during mission execution) by the CAOC.  It was pretty disappointing to see and experience, especially coming out of Op MOBILE where mission command was effectively employed.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We have seen this to some extent during Op IMPACT where everything was controlled (even during mission execution) by the CAOC.  It was pretty disappointing to see and experience, especially coming out of Op MOBILE where mission command was effectively employed.



What would in your experience be an over arching reason for this? Lack of proper training? Ego?


----------



## Ostrozac (5 Sep 2020)

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Historically CFANS provided Air Intercept Navigators to RCAF Air Defence Command and Fighter Group for 35+ years, some of which went on to be CF188 pilots following the retirement of the CF101.


The Navigators on the CF-101 didn’t just navigate, they also operated the fire control system which controlled, and launched, the Voodoo’s nuclear weapons. If we were capable of training Air Navs to operate nuclear weapons from fast jets, we are certainly able to train ACSO to serve in EW fast jets.

The question is, will we? The Australians have long sought to maintain an ability to conduct a limited regional air campaign independently. They didn’t have dedicated EW aircraft during the F-111 days, but they assess they need them now, probably because their neighbours have also upped their game. But we aren’t Australia. An airborne EW platform won’t be in the fighter replacement project. But if not fighter, would an EW capability be possible within the JUSTAS/RPAS UAV or the eventual MMA/CP-140 replacement?


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> What would in your experience be an over arching reason for this? Lack of proper training? Ego?



Technology.  More details of the battlefield was available live at the CAOC.  It became frustrating.  Americans would often be fed up and bring their aircraft to conduct our attacks because it took sometimes so long to get through the Canadian channels.


----------



## CBH99 (6 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Technology.  More details of the battlefield was available live at the CAOC.  It became frustrating.  Americans would often be fed up and bring their aircraft to conduct our attacks because it took sometimes so long to get through the Canadian channels.




That's embarrassing for the COAC, that other countries would rather just 'get on with it' than wait for them to finally get around to it.

What, in your opinion, would be a good solution or two for us to employ?  (You are the only person I know that has direct and extremely relevant experience from the fighter jet world.  I imagine everybody here really likes hearing your input on such matters)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Technology.  More details of the battlefield was available live at the CAOC.  It became frustrating.  Americans would often be fed up and bring their aircraft to conduct our attacks because it took sometimes so long to get through the Canadian channels.



I'll also add 'accountability' to the equation.  Commanders (RCHs) authorizing effects wanted to 'see with their own eye'...

There was at times, complete unwillingness to trust the assessment of the tactical (ONSTA) "commander".  If you went "offline", you might as well of went OFFSTA... :2c:


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Sep 2020)

Don't forget the LEGADs  ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Sep 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll also add 'accountability' to the equation.  Commanders (RCHs) authorizing effects wanted to 'see with their own eye'...
> 
> There was at times, complete unwillingness to trust the assessment of the tactical (ONSTA) "commander".  If you went "offline", you might as well of went OFFSTA... :2c:



Nope.  We didn’t always need RCH approval to employ weapons in Libya.  We were given a sandbox to play into and we followed ROEs and guidelines. I employed several weapons (as a young Captain back then) without telling anybody until I checked out with the Airborne C2.  Pure and simple.  It should have been even easier in Iraq given we were working with JTACs for pretty most of our missions.

FWIw, it is called a RCH and not a GCH for a reason, although we changed it to TEA...


----------



## kev994 (6 Sep 2020)

Flying the UAV in Afghanistan the video feed went everywhere, and everyone thought they saw something. Conversation often went something like this:
HQ: “Go back to that hot spot”
Me: “You mean the dog”
HQ: “ack”
Me: “Ack it’s a dog or ack you want me to go back to the dog?” (Ack was sometimes used as yes for some reason).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Nope.



Nope to...accountability?  To rephrase it more specifically...accountability WRT acceptable levels of CD during IMPACT.  From the perspective of both the Coalition and GoI...I'm thinking of specific info briefed to LRP crews at the ISRD.  Trying to paraphrase that info effectively...appears I'm not succeeding.



> We didn’t always need RCH approval to employ weapons in Libya.  We were given a sandbox to play into and we followed ROEs and guidelines. I employed several weapons (as a young Captain back then) without telling anybody until I checked out with the Airborne C2.  Pure and simple.  It should have been even easier in Iraq given we were working with JTACs for pretty most of our missions.



That supports my point, actually (maybe I worded that point poorly...).  

At the end of my 3rd time thru, we were DS to the ITCs (ISR Tactical Coordinators)...just seemed like another 'layer' to a wheel that wasn't well-rounded.   :dunno:  Went OFFSTA more than once during IMPACT with solid targets left untouched (e.g. - MBTs).  The "one hand behind your back" stuff on OIR was...baffling and frustrating.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Flying the UAV in Afghanistan the video feed went everywhere, and everyone thought they saw something. Conversation often went something like this:
> HQ: “Go back to that hot spot”
> Me: “You mean the dog”
> HQ: “ack”
> Me: “Ack it’s a dog or ack you want me to go back to the dog?” (Ack was sometimes used as yes for some reason).



We called it _The Long Screwdriver_.  Maybe a thread split from the EW specific topic?


----------



## AirDet (7 Dec 2021)

dimsum said:


> While the Growler is an impressive piece of kit, we would need to train up yet more fast jet pilots and EWOs.  Essentially we'd have to stand up a new capability, or at least one that's very different than what we currently have at 414 Sqn.


402 is where our ACSOs are trained and while they offer basic EW they wouldn't be able to train to the Growler standard without Growlers and a complete revamp.


----------



## AirDet (7 Dec 2021)

This entire thread has really been rendered useless with the anouncement that Boeing is out of the competition.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Dec 2021)

AirDet said:


> This entire thread has really been rendered useless with the anouncement that Boeing is out of the competition.


Not necessarily, Saab says it's working on a WW Gripen, if we end up buying the Gripen, an EW version may be in the cards.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2021)

AirDet said:


> This entire thread has really been rendered useless with the anouncement that Boeing is out of the competition.


I wouldn't rule out either the Saab EW capability, more the EW capability of the F-35's AN/APG-81 AESA radar/jammer and AN/ASQ-239 EW management system (and that doesn't include the OE/IR-based DAS and EOTS).   Much will be automated or integrated into pilot-managed activity, so the classic "EWO in the back" (like in the Growler now) may not be how EW is done in the future.


----------



## dimsum (7 Dec 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> so the classic "EWO in the back" (like in the Growler now) may not be how EW is done in the future.


Another Nav role replaced by technology.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2021)

Meet HAL, the new ACSO…


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Dec 2021)

I thought this replaced Navs!


----------



## armrdsoul77 (7 Dec 2021)

Astromech droids aren't being used yet?


----------



## dimsum (7 Dec 2021)

armrdsoul77 said:


> Astromech droids aren't being used yet?


Those are FEs, and the attitudes are about the same.




SupersonicMax said:


> I thought this replaced Navs!
> 
> View attachment 67542


That's why I think "TACCO", or Tactical Coordinator, makes more sense these days.  The Herc and Buff folks may do some actual navigating, but that's pretty much it.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Dec 2021)

I used to work for a retired Air Nav.  Pointing out that he was replaced by about a quarter of my cell phone did not help my performance appraisals.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Dec 2021)

On the other hand, a single seater without an EWO means no adult supervision for the pilot...


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2021)

dapaterson said:


> On the other hand, a single seater without an EWO means no *in-person* adult supervision for the pilot...


There, problem fixed...adult supervision via data-link...real-time from HQ...


----------



## dapaterson (7 Dec 2021)

The HQ is likely other pilots, so still no adults.


----------



## dimsum (7 Dec 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The HQ is likely other pilots, so still no adults.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The HQ is likely other pilots, so still no adults.


KMPG-supplied supervision consultants...


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Dec 2021)

If we want in on the EW game, and pick the Gripen, then we need to buy in up front and help with development and testing.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Dec 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> If we want in on the EW game, and pick the Gripen, then we need to buy in up front and help with development and testing.


Cuz that has worked for us since…when?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Dec 2021)

dimsum said:


> Those are FEs, and the attitudes are about the same.



So.  Accurate!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Dec 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> If we want in on the EW game, and pick the Gripen, then we need to buy in up front and help with development and testing.



I think we need to be a little more specific than “EW”.  Do you mean EA (Electronic Attack)?  EW has various aspects;  EA, EP (Protection), etc.  

Fun fact;  I think anyone can take the Basic EW course thru Barker College - very interesting subject (alittle biased as a sensor op who operates ESM systems).


----------



## dimsum (8 Dec 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I think we need to be a little more specific than “EW”.  Do you mean EA (Electronic Attack)?  EW has various aspects;  EA, EP (Protection), etc.
> 
> Fun fact;  I think anyone can take the Basic EW course thru Barker College - very interesting subject (alittle biased as a sensor op who operates ESM systems).


Yes, and the Basic Space Operations Course as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Dec 2021)

dimsum said:


> Yes, and the Basic Space Operations Course as well.



Basic EW was a necessary one;  Basic Space was likely one of the more informative and interesting ones I’ve taken.  Math with letters n stuff!!  It's exactly what NASOs are built for!!


----------

