# CF-18's not being replaced???



## Gill557

I heard a rumour that said the CF-18 was not going to be replaced at the end of their service life.  The rumour went on to say that Canada had decided not to have fast air anymore, and was going to concentrate on Hercs as most of our airforce.

Anyone hear anything about this or is this rumour just another story?


----------



## McG

Source?


----------



## TheCheez

Anything you've heard so far is just speculation. So much can change in the next 15 years I dont think anyone knows for sure whats in store. We've invested in JSF but have also started using UAVs. Ive heard both rumours and like most things around here, until it happens I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## Gill557

MCG said:
			
		

> Source?



Buddy from Trenton was telling us that that's what Gen. Hilliar was saying to them.


----------



## Sam69

Your buddy is incorrect or mis-heard the CDS. To my knowledge there is no intent to not replace the CF-188 - there is currently funding planned in the SCIP for a new fighter aircraft.


----------



## Infanteer

With all the hoopla on "JSS" and "Expeditionary" footings, the JSF VTOL seems like a logical candidate.  Any word on how that is progressing?


----------



## Gill557

Infanteer said:
			
		

> With all the hoopla on "JSS" and "Expeditionary" footings, the JSF VTOL seems like a logical candidate.   Any word on how that is progressing?



I've heard they're still in the testing phase right now.  Still trying to work out all the bugs


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

A lot can happen between this CDS and the next... we are holding on our F-18 for a while.  Phase 1 of its updates is almost completed.  Phase 2 should have started by now.  I think the Typhoon should be the next fighter.  With our dispute with Denmark, we will need a 2 engine fighter, for the northern patrols.

-Mario-


----------



## JBP

> Posted by: Infanteer
> Insert Quote
> With all the hoopla on "JSS" and "Expeditionary" footings, the JSF VTOL seems like a logical candidate.  Any word on how that is progressing?



Here's a clip of some general info... This kind of thing is common in aircraft development, especially when it's a completely new jet. If you look at the development history of fighter aircraft, almost every aircraft has run behind scheduel and over estimated costs in some part of the development phase...

By the end of 2003 it appeared that the cost of developing the Joint Strike Fighter, a radar-evading jet, could increase by as much as $5 billion, to $38 billion, and the project could fall more than a year behind schedule. The increase would be mostly because of the higher-than-expected cost of developing parts of the technology and the addition of new capabilities for the fighter jet. Part of the additional cost would be to add anti-tampering technology to the plane, which would prevent foreign buyers from replicating sensitive systems. That could add $1 billion to $2 billion to the program's budget. The proposed increase would also put aside more money for unforeseen changes in design requested by the military or for development problems. The Joint Strike Fighter is expected to be the largest weapons program in Pentagon history, ultimately costing nearly $200 billion. The first fighter is expected to enter service in 2008.

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

Another very informative link: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

It looks incredibly a lot like the F/A-22 when you look at it, especially from the top. Very close design... Click here to take a look: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/jsf6.html


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> we will need a 2 engine fighter, for the northern patrols.



Is this still an issue with modern engines?




			
				R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> It looks incredibly a lot like the F/A-22 when you look at it, especially from the top. Very close design...



It's supposed to: costs were kept-down by "stealing" the stealth technology developed for the Raptor (which has a unit cost more than double that of the JSF).


----------



## JBP

> Posted by: I_am_John_Galt
> Insert Quote
> Quote from: 404SqnAVSTeach on April 12, 2005, 20:57:08
> we will need a 2 engine fighter, for the northern patrols.
> 
> Is this still an issue with modern engines?
> 
> 
> Quote from: R031 Pte Joe on April 12, 2005, 21:22:53
> It looks incredibly a lot like the F/A-22 when you look at it, especially from the top. Very close design...
> 
> It's supposed to: costs were kept-down by "stealing" the stealth technology developed for the Raptor (which has a unit cost more than double that of the JSF).



Makes sense... If your a fellow aviation enthusiest etc... Maybe you heard about how in Europe/European Union, they are using F-16 cockpit fuselage section+fly by wire systems to build a new fighter. Can't remember if it's the X-31 EFM or the Eurofighter 2000, although I think someone confirmed before the Eurofighter is a completely new airframe+jet altogether... 

Joe


----------



## Good2Golf

G-Man said:
			
		

> Buddy from Trenton was telling us that that's what Gen. Hilliar was saying to them.



I very much doubt this.  I personally asked "then L"Gen Hillier (as CLS) in December on a visit to Kingston in front of 300 Army officers about how he saw the Air Force contributing to CF operations in the future.  He mentioned four capabilities in a framework relating to his experience as COMISAF IV:


Big honking helicopters...wheels (LAV 3) can't go everywhere over the AOR,
Tactical airlift...Hercs are keeping Julien running,
Aurora...when the spot radar and other goodies come, I want them providing C4ISR, and
It would be nice to see roundels with maple leaves on six grey jets to provide me or other nations in the force with teeth.  They could fly out of Bahgram or somewhere nearby to support operations.

He went on to provide a bit more detail but his message was a solid balance of aerospace force to provide *responsive and effective support, first and foremost, to troops on the ground.*  I see nothing in his first few months as CDS to make me believe he's changed his mind.

Personally and professionally, I believe fast air as an example of National will/force projection will remain with us for some time to come...I know of some folks close to him who have heard that fast air will remain a capability that will continue to present an option to international operations in the future.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## yoman

I had a master warrant officer from the air force come to my cadet squadron telling us that the future of aviation will be with helicopters and that fighter jets will no longer be an important part of the air force. So he said that he doesn't believe that the CF will purchase any more fighter aircraft. It was part of his speech about the new Cyclone the CF bought. This was a couple of weeks ago, if I remember correctly he was some sort of technician.


----------



## JBP

> Posted by: yoman
> Insert Quote
> I had a master warrant officer from the air force come to my cadet squadron telling us that the future of aviation will be with helicopters and that fighter jets will no longer be an important part of the air force. So he said that he doesn't believe that the CF will purchase any more fighter aircraft. It was part of his speech about the new Cyclone the CF bought. This was a couple of weeks ago, if I remember correctly he was some sort of technician.



Strange, without fighters, you cannot gain air superiority over the battlefield, which is extremely important in a "3-D" war... I suppose if that was the case we'd have to rely on the USAF to cover us in that area... Oh wait, don't we for the most part already???  :

Our fighter jockeys are some of the cream of the crop of fighter pilots in the world. They've proved it time and again through training with various allies (NATO) and in combat... Remember when we helped bomb the sh*t out of Kosovo? Only war ever won directly by airpower alone...

There will always be some sort of "air superiority" aircraft, whether it remains a manned platform I believe is the question of the future. I think after JSF and other 5th generation aircraft like the F-22, Eurofighter 2000 etc... People won't be flying fighters...


----------



## GK .Dundas

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Strange, without fighters, you cannot gain air superiority over the battlefield, which is extremely important in a "3-D" war... I suppose if that was the case we'd have to rely on the USAF to cover us in that area... Oh wait, don't we for the most part already???   :
> 
> Our fighter jockeys are some of the cream of the crop of fighter pilots in the world. They've proved it time and again through training with various allies (NATO) and in combat... Remember when we helped bomb the **** out of Kosovo? Only war ever won directly by airpower alone...
> 
> There will always be some sort of "air superiority" aircraft, whether it remains a manned platform I believe is the question of the future. I think after JSF and other 5th generation aircraft like the F-22, Eurofighter 2000 etc... People won't be flying fighters...


 From my rather baised point of of view I would'nt object to some close air support.Having said that you cannot have one with out the other.


----------



## JBP

> From my rather baised point of of view I would'nt object to some close air support.Having said that you cannot have one with out the other.
> Posted on: Yesterday at 21:53:04
> Posted by: R031 Pte Joe




Exactly, close air support is integral to a 3D battle and any modern conflict. An attack/fighter aircraft is like a flying tank, but better. Our current CF-18's fill that role also, they're fighters and attackers. They can do both hence why we purchased them. 

Even the F-22 has a secondary attack role and can be fitted with JDAM munitions etc etc.... Close air support won't dissapear ever either.

Say for example we had excellent air defence forces, many ATADS or whatever they're called, and other surface-to-air missle defence systems. Those can all be thwarted by aircraft even though they're designed to kill them. A "wild weasel" (SAM supression/AAA)  mission by a few attack aircraft can blow up a lot of air defence installations and/or systems. We need and will always need "fast air" like fighters/attack aircraft.


----------



## daniel h.

Unmanned aircraft may be inevitable, but they would be damn expensive.


----------



## Blue Max

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> ... Remember when we helped bomb the sh*t out of Kosovo? Only war ever won directly by airpower alone...



I thought that it had been argued effectively that air power did NOT win the war in Kosovo solely, but rather in conjunction with the perceived threat of a NATO land invasion.


----------



## Sam69

Blue Max said:
			
		

> I thought that it had been argued effectively that air power did NOT win the war in Kosovo solely, but rather in conjunction with the perceived threat of a NATO land invasion.



In fact, it has also been strongly argued that  Russian diplomatic intervention helped convince the Serbs to eventually agree to NATO's demands. The initial effect of the 78 day Kosovo air war was to actually accelerate the ongoing ethnic cleansing at the time. 

The Senate has a very good report on Kosovo here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/fore-e/REP-E/rep07apr00part1-e.htm#The%20Effectiveness%20of%20the%20Air%20Campaign

Sam


----------



## JBP

Well, if you look at the Kosovo conflict from the standpoint of "action taken", not words, it was the only war that ever ended (a better way to put it?) from air strikes alone. No land invasion did happen, even if thier was a highly anticipated/percieved threat of a land invasion.

Diplomatic pressure is what really stopped it, but again, in terms of sheer action, it was airpower.


----------



## Sheerin

i know this is splitting hairs, but weren't there special operations teams on the ground in Kosovo?


----------



## JBP

> i know this is splitting hairs, but weren't there special operations teams on the ground in Kosovo?



That's more than splitting hairs! Lol...

If there was, it was probably all "black ops" type stuff that isn't suppose to really be known. I wouldn't doubt it though... Regardless, it's been stated before and in many other places that the Kosovo conflict (for sake of simplicity) was the only war ever won by tactical airpower alone.

Maybe someone else knows if there was a substantial special forces group(s) there?


----------



## Infanteer

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Well, if you look at the Kosovo conflict from the standpoint of "action taken", not words, it was the only war that ever ended (a better way to put it?) from air strikes alone. No land invasion did happen, even if their was a highly anticipated/perceived threat of a land invasion.



Umm, what are you talking about?  I've got some friends in 1VP who were in Kosovo and would say that you're talking out of your hat.  Kosovo was (and still is) occupied by NATO soldiers - if thousands of troops marching into your state and setting up their own system of governance doesn't constitute an invasion, I don't know what does.



> Diplomatic pressure is what really stopped it, but again, in terms of sheer action, it was airpower.



Funny, that's not what most of the literature says.  The fact that NATO stacked troops up on the borders, ready to invade Yugoslavia, is generally regarded as the reason that Milosevic through the towel in.  The effects of the airpower against Serbian forces in the rugged and socked in Balkans was (as usual) grossly over-exaggerated.  Infact, I've seen arguments that the projection of Airpower without a credible land-based threat simply accelerated the Serbian actions against Kosovar Albanians.


----------



## Blue Max

When the Serb army left Kosovo, it was noticed that they left with most of their amour intact, and not severely decimated and left burning in the fields as the air force claimed. Apparently many more tank decoys had been destroyed than real armour.

Within this context it is hard to buy that airpower allone forced the Serbs to leave Kosovo.


----------



## JBP

> Umm, what are you talking about?  I've got some friends in 1VP who were in Kosovo and would say that you're talking out of your hat.  Kosovo was (and still is) occupied by NATO soldiers - if thousands of troops marching into your state and setting up their own system of governance doesn't constitute an invasion, I don't know what does.



Didn't that happen after Milosevic quit/surrendered though?




> I've got some friends in 1VP who were in Kosovo and would say that you're talking out of your hat.



Just say it, not hat, A$$!


----------



## Infanteer

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Didn't that happen after Milosevic quit/surrendered though?



Yes, but Milosevic wasn't bothered by the Air Campaign until NATO began building up forces on his border.   From what I understand, the physical affects of the bombing were quite minimal on military targets - once he was sure that international opinion would support a full scale invasion by NATO formations, he backed off.

A case has been made that the Air Campaign was responsible for increased pressure from the populace on Slobo's regime, but authoritarian war-criminals usually don't care about the attitudes of their citizens.   I seem to remember the bombing as having the opposite effect (like it did in Germany) of solidifying support for the regime against outside aggression.   From my experience in the Balkans, I'm willing to bet that the Serbians were more then happy to put up with having their civil infrastructure pounded to dust if it meant that they could wipe out a good chunk of the other ethnic group.

Like other air strikes/missile attacks during the century, it appears that the bombing campaign had a limited effect.   Air power (like Naval Power) is a very useful tool for strategic projection of force and for supporting the war aim but when it comes down to it the only real determinant of National Will is land power.   Machines, be it a boat or a plane, don't march into cities, bayonet the bad guy, and plant the flag; armies do.


----------



## 1feral1

G-Man said:
			
		

> I heard a rumour that said the CF-18 was not going to be replaced at the end of their service life.   The rumour went on to say that Canada had decided not to have fast air anymore, and was going to concentrate on Hercs as most of our airforce.
> 
> Anyone hear anything about this or is this rumour just another story?



Just remember what happened to New Zealand's Air Force. They don't have fast air anymore, as their US made Skyhawks are long gone. So anything is possible.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## JBP

> Like other air strikes/missile attacks during the century, it appears that the bombing campaign .  Air power (like Naval Power) is a very useful tool for strategic projection of force and for supporting the war aim but when it comes down to it the only real determinant of National Will is land power.  Machines, be it a boat or a plane, don't march into cities, bayonet the bad guy, and plant the flag; armies do.



Very interesting indeed, makes sense too. Frightening when you think that the bombing sequence actually sped up the slaughter, I suppose NATO thought they would have to send in land forces en masse so they decided a huge bombing campaign would soften things up? Less friendly casualties??? Glad it didn't happen that way, but as you stated, we've been there on the ground and we're still there...

I've heard now days it's not too bad a place to be for a tour etc? Is it relatively safe compare to Afganistan or vice versa? An old Mcpl (Acting Sgt at the time) for the PPCLI, who is now retired (rendered incapable of service due to wounds) was saying it was horrible back in the day, especially because of the ROE's in theatre and fact that the enemy knew how limited we were in regards to any use of force. Still touchy like that today?

Back on topic:
Regardless, we still need "fast air", to have any credible air power. Without it, it's as I've said, you cannot take control over the air in the battlespace, unless the enemy doesn't have any aircraft. In that case, who cares! Again, we could rely on allies for this support also, but we already rely on them for just about everything else!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Back on topic:  Regardless, we still need "fast air", to have any credible air power.



Air Power for it's own sake is one thing, and this may be a stupid question, but (costs notwithstanding) what does Arty do that Fast Air can't do better, faster and with greater precision?  It seems to me that "combined-arms" discussions generally revolve around Infantry + Armour and/or Arty (and maybe helo support).  I can see weather occasionally being an issue, but with proper planning couldn't fast air be "on station" (i.e., airborne, seconds from the battlefield) just about 24/7, with the ability to deliver PGMs immediately?

What am I missing?  (Please note, this is a legitimate question: I'm not trying to start a flame war)


----------



## a_majoor

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Air Power for it's own sake is one thing, and this may be a stupid question, but (costs notwithstanding) what does Arty do that Fast Air can't do better, faster and with greater precision?   It seems to me that "combined-arms" discussions generally revolve around Infantry + Armour and/or Arty (and maybe helo support).   I can see weather occasionally being an issue, but with proper planning couldn't fast air be "on station" (i.e., airborne, seconds from the battlefield) just about 24/7, with the ability to deliver PGMs immediately?
> 
> What am I missing?   (Please note, this is a legitimate question: I'm not trying to start a flame war)



John, airplanes don't work too well when the weather is bad, and you need the right type of airplane to get effective ground support. In the Viet-nam war, the ancient Douglas Skyraider (nicknamed "Spad" by the troops) was far more valuable for ground support than "fast movers" like the F-4, because it was slow enough to really see the target, could loiter over the battlefield for hours, not minutes, and deal out death to the bad guys with bombs, rockets and cannon fire, as opposed to a high speed bomb run.

Alas, the air forces of the world don't regard that as very sexy, and "Spad" replacements like the A-10 hasn't been in production for several decades (and the only way to get CAS in the future will be through JSF or other "fast movers").

Morters, Arty and other weapons like that provide the 24/7 firepower the troops on the ground need, with the zoomies providing invaluable services liike "deep strikes" into the enemy rear areas, or supplementing arty with PGMs, or allowing you to outrun your logistics train temporaraly (OIF).


----------



## aesop081

a_majoor said:
			
		

> John, airplanes don't work too well when the weather is bad, and you need the right type of airplane to get effective ground support. In the Viet-nam war, the ancient Douglas Skyraider (nicknamed "Spad" by the troops) was far more valuable for ground support than "fast movers" like the F-4, because it was slow enough to really see the target, could loiter over the battlefield for hours, not minutes, and deal out death to the bad guys with bombs, rockets and cannon fire, as opposed to a high speed bomb run.
> 
> Alas, the air forces of the world don't regard that as very sexy, and "Spad" replacements like the A-10 hasn't been in production for several decades (and the only way to get CAS in the future will be through JSF or other "fast movers").
> 
> Morters, Arty and other weapons like that provide the 24/7 firepower the troops on the ground need, with the zoomies providing invaluable services liike "deep strikes" into the enemy rear areas, or supplementing arty with PGMs, or allowing you to outrun your logistics train temporaraly (OIF).



Now you are contradicting yourself.  In another thread you were saying that MANPADS were negated by bombing from 10k feet and now you are talking about aircraft ( spad and warthog) that operate near the ground, in range of those same MANPADS that you were previously discounting !!! Seems to me that you have either had an epiphany or your are still operating out of your league.

You do have a point about the effects of weather on CAS.  However, you should not limit yourself to the beleif that fighters are for deep strike only.


----------



## Gill557

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Now you are contradicting yourself.   In another thread you were saying that MANPADS were negated by bombing from 10k feet and now you are talking about aircraft ( spad and warthog) that operate near the ground, in range of those same MANPADS that you were previously discounting !!! Seems to me that you have either had an epiphany or your are still operating out of your league.
> 
> You do have a point about the effects of weather on CAS.   However, you should not limit yourself to the beleif that fighters are for deep strike only.



But is it worth using a 50 Million dollar fighter/bomber to try to take out a 2 Million dollar tank.  Besides think of what it costs to train a pilot as opposed to a tank crew. I dunno the math doesn't equal out.


----------



## aesop081

G-Man said:
			
		

> But is it worth using a 50 Million dollar fighter/bomber to try to take out a 2 Million dollar tank.   Besides think of what it costs to train a pilot as opposed to a tank crew. I dunno the math doesn't equal out.



Granted but IMHO you cannot look at warfare as an economical equasion.   Lets face it, we dont have much of an artillery anymore so it will place increased importance on our tactical fighters to support the troops on the ground.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

a_majoor said:
			
		

> John, airplanes don't work too well when the weather is bad, and you need the right type of airplane to get effective ground support. In the Viet-nam war, the ancient Douglas Skyraider (nicknamed "Spad" by the troops) was far more valuable for ground support than "fast movers" like the F-4, because it was slow enough to really see the target, could loiter over the battlefield for hours, not minutes, and deal out death to the bad guys with bombs, rockets and cannon fire, as opposed to a high speed bomb run.



I meant it as more of a conceptual/future thing: specifically, I am wondering if the advances in "All-Weather Attack" aircraft and PGMs _since _Vietnam have/should give the Air Force a more tactical role ... moreover, with modern GPS guidance systems I don't think weather is half the issue it was 35 years ago (correct me if I am mistaken) ... I would think that from the position of the Infantry, there wouldn't be much better than laser guided missiles (in clearer weather anyway): basically, if you can see him, you can vaporize him.  Certainly I can still see need for mortars at the Infantry "level", but beyond those ranges/capabilities the advantage of Arty (vs. a combination of A-10s, AC-130s, F-18s, Harriers, etc.) is a little less clear (to me).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> But is it worth using a 50 Million dollar fighter/bomber to try to take out a 2 Million dollar tank.  Besides think of what it costs to train a pilot as opposed to a tank crew. I dunno the math doesn't equal out



Yes I can see the radio communications between a fighter on CAS mission and its controller.
" Are we going to get a value for our money if we take out those tanks coming at our guys on the ground"
"Negative RTB"


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Yes I can see the radio communications between a fighter on CAS mission and its controller.
> " Are we going to get a value for our money if we take out those tanks coming at our guys on the ground"
> "Negative RTB"



G-man is starting to sound like Robert McNamara.......


----------



## a_majoor

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Now you are contradicting yourself.  In another thread you were saying that MANPADS were negated by bombing from 10k feet and now you are talking about aircraft ( spad and warthog) that operate near the ground, in range of those same MANPADS that you were previously discounting !!! Seems to me that you have either had an epiphany or your are still operating out of your league.
> 
> You do have a point about the effects of weather on CAS.  However, you should not limit yourself to the beleif that fighters are for deep strike only.



Ground attack aircraft like the SPAD or A-10 are heavily armoured, and I recall pictures of A-10s returning home from missions in the Persian Gulf War looking a lot like collanders. Pilots of F-16s, F-15Es and CF-18s are not so eager to try this out, hence the bomb runs from +10K feet.

Even in this age of GPS and other wonders, cloud cover does have an adverse effect. Many missions in Kosovo were apparently scrubbed if the pilot could not visually identify his target (presumably looking at it through some sort of zoom lens), even if it was quite clear on radar, thermal or identified through GPS coordinates. In an operation with tight ROEs, this could be a real problem. FACs can solve some of these problems the same way FOOs and FMCs do for artillery weapons.

The point I was trying to make is even having a fleet of CF-18 or other "multi role" aircraft isn't always sufficient, if you want ground support you need ground support aircraft!


----------



## JBP

> I meant it as more of a conceptual/future thing: specifically, I am wondering if the advances in "All-Weather Attack" aircraft and PGMs since Vietnam have/should give the Air Force a more tactical role ... moreover, with modern GPS guidance systems I don't think weather is half the issue it was 35 years ago (correct me if I am mistaken) ... I would think that from the position of the Infantry, there wouldn't be much better than laser guided missiles (in clearer weather anyway): basically, if you can see him, you can vaporize him.  Certainly I can still see need for mortars at the Infantry "level", but beyond those ranges/capabilities the advantage of Arty (vs. a combination of A-10s, AC-130s, F-18s, Harriers, etc.) is a little less clear (to me).




Put it this way, those Arty guys and thier "big guns" are say, anywhere from 10-20K away on avg? I'm not too sure, I'm a new recruit just off BMQ. But, thier on the ground, THEY are also within striking distance of enemy infantry, armour, arty etc. Enemy aircraft also. The good thing about an airplane, is that it flies, generally cannot get taken out by anything unless it's airborn (enemy fighters) or the enemy has dedicated air defence assets (even man-portable launchers {stingers}  or RPGs for example). Also it can strike deep into enemy territory or simply take out targets that would be too risky/hard for regular ground pounders to try. Also, with an airbase say, 100K from the front lines, the plane has a "safe haven" to land at. This way your ground attack weapon isn't at as high a risk of enemy action then your basic infantry or arty guys who are nice and close and snuggly. It just creates a whole new level to come from. 

The USA has employed attack aircraft extensively in the current Iraqi theatre also, they have aircraft patrol certain areas, loaded up with bombs who wait for AWACS or other FAC (Forward Air Controllers) to alert and direct them to attack and support ground forces when needed. It happened in Falluja also, I remember watching one video (can't remember where I seen it from, link on here, TV, dunno) where a marine was mentioning it was too dangerous for his guys to go into this one booby-trapped building. What did he do? Called in close air support to bomb the place, he even gave the enemy a warning. They didn't want to leave, they died. That was his $0.02 cents...

Also, if your a boot on the ground in a operational theatre, think about how nice it would feel to know if sh*t hits the fan, you can have the support of a flying tank (example: CF-18...) that can arrive to your location within a short time (say, 10 mins even), loaded up with thousands of pounds of bombs, either "dummy" or lazer guided/TV guided munitions and blow the tard out of whatever it is you can't handle.

I hope that kind of opens the perspective up for your abit?

Joe - A new boot on the ground


----------



## 48Highlander

eh, pst, Joe.  He was asking what the advantages of artilery are, not the advantages of aircraft.


----------



## aesop081

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Ground attack aircraft like the SPAD or A-10 are heavily armoured, and I recall pictures of A-10s returning home from missions in the Persian Gulf War looking a lot like collanders. Pilots of F-16s, F-15Es and CF-18s are not so eager to try this out, hence the bomb runs from +10K feet.
> 
> Even in this age of GPS and other wonders, cloud cover does have an adverse effect. Many missions in Kosovo were apparently scrubbed if the pilot could not visually identify his target (presumably looking at it through some sort of zoom lens), even if it was quite clear on radar, thermal or identified through GPS coordinates. In an operation with tight ROEs, this could be a real problem. FACs can solve some of these problems the same way FOOs and FMCs do for artillery weapons.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is even having a fleet of CF-18 or other "multi role" aircraft isn't always sufficient, if you want ground support you need ground support aircraft!



Why do you feel the CF-18 is inadequate in the ground support role ?   I dont think that the Cf's financial future includes sufficient amounts of money to have a fleet of single-mission CAS aircraft.   The F-15E and F-16 are quite well equiped to operated   at very low altitude ( i.e. LANTIRN : Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting IR for Night) and their pilots are quite proficient at this mission profile. The fact that they were bombing at 10k feet has more to do with political reluctance to take casualty than any tactical soundness.   The IDF experience in the 1973 Yom Kipour war is a prime example of why modern air defences have force the air war at extremly low altitude.   The primary function of AAA and MANPADS is to force fighters to fly above their range and thus into SAM range ( such as SA-2/3/6....etc...) and the revers as well, SAMs force fighters to avoid them by flying lower and into the AAA/MANPADS envelope.   So basicaly   what you have is a lose/lose situation for an attacking air foce.   The A-10 has a remarkable survivability on the battlefield but is hampered in its mission by its lack of sophistication.   This has been, to a certain extent , rectified in recent years by updates and mods but the plane has its limitations (   combat radius of 402 km......maximum speed of 381 kts, restricted to VMC due to lack of radar) vice the performance of , say, the F-15E ( combat radius of over 2000 km.....radar for all weather attack, LANTIRN pod).   The fact that the CF-18 is not built as a dedicated CAS aircraft is in itself not that big a deal.   The USMC made very effective use of the A-6 intruder in viet-nam as a CAS machine ( the airplane was designed for all-weather strike not CAS).   You should also not discount the survivability of the F-18/F-15 types.   many of them have survived severe battle damage in the first gulf war and other types of similar aircraft have performed very well in other conflicts ( 1967 6-day war, 1973 yom kipor war, Falklands.....) and did not have the benefit of titanium armour that the A-10 has.


----------



## a_majoor

Maybe I need to get a SPAD of my own, the fire is getting pretty hot!

Low level ground attack is, IMO, best done by armoured ground attack aircraft. British Tornados using all the Gucci kit designed to attack heavily defended Soviet airfields (including special penetration aids, decoys, chaff, flares and specially designed munitions that could be released during low altitude/high speed passes)  discovered this was terribly dangerous even against a fairly second rate enemy like the Iraqi army ca 1991, hence the move to high altitude bombing by most airforces (including the CAF) in conflicts since that time. For whatever reason, the high altitude SAMs havn't made much of an impact, even though Iraq and Serbia had this type of weapon as well.

I have no doubt it is possible to do low level attacks with CF-18s (and I have seen this myself in Wainwright), but watching the evolution of air tactics in the last decade and an half makes me wonder...perhaps what is really happening is low level air attack is moving from a possibility to a probability (i.e. "sure we can, but we think this way is better..."). Maybe sometime in the future UACVs will be either cheap enough or rugged enough to become the 21rst century version of the A-10 or SPAD, but in the mid term, it looks like bomb runs from +10K will be the order of the day.


----------



## Gill557

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Yes I can see the radio communications between a fighter on CAS mission and its controller.
> " Are we going to get a value for our money if we take out those tanks coming at our guys on the ground"
> "Negative RTB"



Well considering most armoured units have AAA vehicles/SAMS why don't we use the fighter/bombers for what they were designed for.  Like strike missions behind the enemy's lines and strikes on his/her lines of communication.  Leave the CAS to armed choppers and dedicated CAS aircraft.  The A-10s and the Su-27 can take a pounding from AAA guns, h*ll the A-10 can even take a SAM hit and survive.  Try doing that with one of those F-16's.  A few rounds into one of those with send it crashing to the ground, so its gotta stay up high, out of the AAA zone, which then leaves it vulnerable to SAMs.   I don't believe it can be easy to hit a moving target with a Laser Guided Bomb.  I also do not discount the idea that High performance fighters have good survivability, I am just of the opinion that it is better to save them to hit things that the ground troops cannot hit.

Now this leaves a question, do you want to send a high performance jet into do CAS, a job it is really not designed to do, and risk both pilot and weapons load being destroyed by ground fire before it can do any good(granted this is a chance in war anyway), or do you send a dedicated CAS aircraft, which has better armour.  Personally if its my ass I'd like something to loiter around waiting for a target or in case someone walks into a sh*tstorm.  Again this is something that the A-10's were designed for, they had something like an hour to an hour and a half of loitering time over the battlefield in Desert Storm 1.  The F-16 and less then half of that, so they're in an out.
Now I am not saying I wouldn't want anything and everything that could carry a bomb/missile to come and save my ass if I'm about to be overrun, but I'd rather a pilot have a chance at personal survival as well as accomplishing the mission. Otherwise we won't have many pilots left to come and save us the next time.

Another thing about CAS in the past. CAS fighters were developed solely for that purpose during WW2, the British Typhoon is one example, the German Stuka is another as it was both a mobile artillery during the Blitzkrieg and later carried anti-tank cannons slung beneath the aircraft in the campaign in Russia.  This didn't mean that other aircraft like the P-51s, Spitfires, or Me-109s didn't do CAS, but most of it was left to the dedicated aircraft.


And to who ever claimed I was acting like Robert McNamara...
1) I am a soldier, not a politician 
2) I do not believe a war can be won from an office thousands of kilometers for the battle zone 
3) Unfortunately war is a game of numbers.  Who's got more... Who lost more... Losses to kill ratio... etc.
      Examples:  During Battle of Britain the Kill/Loss ratio of planes was in the daily paper, granted these were probably exagerated for morale purposes
                     Vietnam: They infamous body counts
                     Any war: A general looks at how many troops he lost, compared to how many his troops killed or ar suspected of killing/wounding

Well I've said my piece.  Let the comments begin  ;D


----------



## JBP

Well, I don't think we'd have to worry too much about the issue of CAS anyway. Except for the fact that we'll have the CF-18 until about 2021...... Let's hope we don't need them! HAr har! Just kidding, back when the F-18 and the F-16 were squaring off against eachother to be chosen (they were both then the YF-18 and YF-16) as the low cost/small airframe multirole combat aircraft, the F-16 was first chosen by the USAF, shortly after the F-18 was chosen by the USN as an attack aircraft. It can do CAS, sure it can't take as many hits as an A-10, but again, the A-10 was designed during the cold war to be a pure tank/armour killer.

The CF-18 can do CAS, the USN has used it for strike missions, as have we in training and in Kosovo. 

When/if we do buy the Joint Strike Fighter, I imagine we'd buy the VSTOL version, which makes it perfect for CAS also. This would mean it can run from rough runways (roads or fields) and stay up close to the battlefield. Again, we won't be attaining any new aircraft until about 2020 or so though...

This snippet is from the CF Airforce website about the future of the CF-18:


> Collectively, the abovementioned initiatives will ensure that Canada has a state-of-the-art CF-18 fighter force that remains effective and operationally credible until the 2017-20 timeframe.



Link:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/future_e.asp


So, it would appear that after that we'll need a new airframe/aircraft. We've already invested in the development of the JSF. That's probably what we'll buy. We certainly couldn't afford F-22's, even 15-20 yrs later. This new aircraft, designated the F-35, was designed for air-to-ground role primarily.

Another good link:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm

Joe


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting perspective on air support: at the SG05 planning meeting we were told planned CF-18 participation has been scrubed since the Air Force would not bring them below 5000 ft. I suppose one thing against high altitude bomb runs during training is the lack of "LCF" for the young troops (watching dogfights and low level air attacks in Wainwright was pretty cool, even if you suspected in "real life" you would be watching from inside the fireball...).

I was a bit dissapointed they seemed wrapped around the "airshow" aspect of things, and to my knowledge no one seems to have suggested the CF-18s come with 500lb bombs to drop in the fire boxes.....


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Just to throw in my 2 cents on CAS etc, the blurring of the lines (no more close, deep and rear) may mean that all air support is "close", even if it is delivered from high altitude above AAA range.  If we are operating in the sandbox somewhere against the modern enemy then I think that it is preferable to have airpower with precision weapons available than having to fly in artillery to support each mission.  Put a B52 or some other plane up top with JDAM and guys on the ground with the right equipment and training to employ them.  If it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill two bad guys then so be it.  Let the bean counters do the cyphering.  Aerial firepower alone cannot win, but if combined with good ISTAR and ground manouevre it can certainly be a key part of victory.

2B


----------



## Cloud Cover

Just looking at the CDA's new distribution titled "Understanding the Crisis in Canadian Security and Defence", I see that Howie Marsh shows the Air Force complement of Cf-18's to be at 34 for FY 2006. The table at page 29 shows this stat:

Aircraft Type  Cost Per Flying Hour   Annual FH Per Year    Quantity                                Fleet Cost (millions)
c130             $15,000                   656                          31 (reduce to 13 by 2006)      $305 
c150             $10,000                   900                          5                                          $45
cf-18             $33,000                   156                          80 (reduce to 34 in 2006)       $412
cp140           $ 30,000                   463                         16                                         $222
ch124           $16,000                    338                         29                                         $157
ch146           $6,700                      264                         92 (reduce to 78)                   $137
ch149           $10,500                    393                         15                                         $61.9
dash8            $7,800                     684                          5                                          $27
ct133             $9,300                     131                         6                                          $ 7
ct114             $4,900                     146                         8                                          $6

Total                                                                          285 (195 2006)                      1380

Other than a pretty pathetic tally for an air force belonging to a NATO and G-7/8 country, my real surprise is the Cf-18 total. Is this an error or is there something unaccounted for?


----------



## aesop081

you can take the ct-133s out of that as well as the total number of ct-142s is 4 not 5.  I seriously doubt the accuracy of the number of CF-18s left in 2006.  The fighter upgrade program is being carried out on 80 aircraft, 48 of the being assigned to the operational squadrons and the remaining 32 supporting the training and maintenance system.  The auditor general has already slammed the government for the small number of jets being upgraded, calling it inadequated for the country's defense needs.

You can also count the CT-114s to be gone sooner rather than later.  The list also leaves out the 3 CP-140A arcturus, the CC-115 buffalo and CC-138 twin Otter.

Like you said however....pretty sad


----------



## Inch

Where'd you get those numbers Whiskey? I'm with aesop, there must be an error in the CF18 totals as well as the CT114. Last time I counted there were 9 Snowbirds and 2 team coordinators for a min of 11 CT114's still in service. The CF website says there's 22 in service.


----------



## aesop081

Inch said:
			
		

> Where'd you get those numbers Whiskey? I'm with aesop, there must be an error in the CF18 totals as well as the CT114. Last time I counted there were 9 Snowbirds and 2 team coordinators for a min of 11 CT114's still in service. The CF website says there's 22 in service.



I got my numbers and CF-18 info from JDW.........i trust them alot more than i ever will the CDA

Edit : the list posted also neglects to mention the Hawk and Harvard II aircraft.  ( before anybody jumps all over me i know they are leased but they still support AF operations so IMHO they count.  Besides i'm sure that the Hungarian AF, who just leased Grippens for 10 years from Sweeden counts leased aircraft on thei OOB)


----------



## Cloud Cover

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Just looking at the CDA's new distribution titled "Understanding the Crisis in Canadian Security and Defence",  I see that Howie Marsh shows the Air Force complement of Cf-18's to be at 34 for FY 2006. The table at page 29 shows this stat:



Has to be an error on his part, or he is not stating something else, for example the rest of the aircraft are off the line for upgrade. But then, so are some of the CP 140's.

The copyright date of the booklet is March 2005. Got it in the mail today. Usual doom and gloom stuff, but the cf18 figure and the c130 figure caught my eye.

LOL, in another part the booklet says we have 4 Oberon SSK. I'm sure Col. Marsh {ret'd} will clear this up sooner rather than later. 

Cheers guys,
Whiskey.


----------



## Inch

Apparently I should learn to read!  :-[

Oberons eh? I though we got rid of those a few years ago.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Oberons eh? I though we got rid of those a few years ago.



They were still in Halifax last week along with two IREs!


----------



## Inch

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> They were still in Halifax last week along with two IREs!



Yeah, they're sitting over at the Dockyard Annex, but I thought they were paid off and waiting to be disposed of.


----------



## mover1

Very interesting threat and good debate on this one no Far of topic at any time, however I would like to clarify a few points, It's not the 30 million dollar airplane but the 5000 dollar bomb that takes out the 2 million dollar tank, and you need fast air and fighters to keep that other guy with fast air and fighters away from you, and as for the numbers, I of the Aircraft, I think they are way off the mark. His number of F-18 totals must be the number of upgraded C models we will have by then. The F-18 modernisation programme is a slow and methodical process and when I left 441 Sqn they were just getting into starting the upgrading and they were going to be off line for about a year and a half.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ummm...those numbers are a bit off.  The CF188 Incremental Modernization Program (based on the USN's ECP583) was orginally going to upgrade 96 aircraft but was subequently reduced to 80 aircraft at the last IMP Senior Review Board.  Once all 80 aircraft of up to spec (including new APG-73 radars, a host of avionics and data-link upgrades and some updates to the DEWS - def EW suite), their ELE (est. life expectancy) will be around 2020.  I old flying buddy of mine is moving into Bombardier in Mirabel this summer to conduct final acceptance flight test on the modded birds.  Should be interesting to see how the upgrades pan out in future tasks for the Hornet...should bring interoperability back in line with other C/D-E/F models.

I don't know what the deal is on Howie's 13 Hercs.... ??? 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## mover1

:boring: I have hercs on my board, there are three on the tarmac and none of them are working so I think the herc number just reflects the sevicability rate for the whole fleet at any one time.


----------



## Good2Golf

mover1 said:
			
		

> :boring: I have hercs on my board, there are three on the tarmac and none of them are working so I think the herc number just reflects the sevicability rate for the whole fleet at any one time.




Ahhhh....what was the SK number again?  ;D


----------



## Inch

Duey said:
			
		

> Ahhhh....what was the SK number again?   ;D



I'll you you right now, there's no F*ing way there's 29 serviceable Sea Kings!


----------

