# Air Force Squadrons shutting down



## Bill22108131 (14 Apr 2005)

I've been reading army.ca for a couple months now and have finally decided to register as a member.  There is a quiet move afoot in the Air Force of shutting down flying squadrons.  Ostensibly this is being done to improve efficiency, but I really wonder what will be improved.  It all pretty much flys in the face of Gen Hillier's attempts to increase and improve combat effectiveness and efficiency.  415 Maritime Patrol Sqn will shut down mid July.  This Sqn has flown since WWII and has met all of its tasks and missions with enviable success.  There will be other announcements on other wings involving more fixed wing assets.  New surplus exec positions are being moved to a warfare centre.  This will just increase the number of warriors flying desks.  In the Air Force we seem to be out of sync with reality and these times of change.  Aurora upgrades will change the face of combat support roles from surveillance aircraft to our navy and army brothers and sisters.  You will all be shocked with new capabilities just around the corner.  It strikes me as very unwise to close down a Sqn.  It saddens me.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2005)

I can't really tell if that is good or not....


----------



## Bill22108131 (15 Apr 2005)

I appreciate your honesty Infanteer.  I am probably using this means to express my disappointment.  I look foreward to other comments.


----------



## Bill22108131 (15 Apr 2005)

As I sit here I wonder why you would ponder if it was good or not.  Picture if you will, an airborne asset with 8 hours overhead time that could provide an all spectrum look 100 kms around your OP (IR, EO, EW, ground mapoping RADAR).  All vehicles, generators, and recent trenching could be passed to you via a datalink download.  Your life would become so much easier than the 3 kms you can surveille and patrol.  Each Aurora crew will equal 8 hours on station with a forward operating base (FOB) nearby.  It will take 5-6 Aurora crews to provide 24/7 over a moderate period of time.  More crews or quick rotations to cover longer.  My brother is in Kabul, RCD recce.  He knows the value of aircraft support.  TUAV is not the sole solution.


----------



## Sam69 (15 Apr 2005)

When you say that the Airforce is shutting down 415, it is important to also note that this does not imply either fewer aircraft or fewer crews. The decision was made to amalgamate 405 and 415 (the east coast Aurora operational squadrons) because there was little reason to have the extra overhead of an additional Squadron when the same ends could be achieved under a single CO. So the Airforce is not getting any smaller (in terms of aircraft and crews) because of this decision, it is just reducing the number of units by amalgamation in areas where there are two units doing exactly the same thing.

Sam


----------



## aesop081 (15 Apr 2005)

I must admit that i am somewhat saddened by the fate of 415 sqn, having just arrived there !  Being away at the present moment to 404 sqn ( until july) i will never realy have worked at my parent unit but still feel somewhat of a sense of loss.  That being said, i dont think it will change much in the end, we will have full crews for a change maybe.....

I hope we get a discount on 405 sqn patches and name tags.........i just spent good money on my 415 stuff !!

AD METAM !


----------



## Bill22108131 (15 Apr 2005)

I hope you are right Sam in that crews are not reduced.  The plan when the Squadrons on the east coast slowly reduced from 7 to 6 to 5 then finally to 4 crews was to bump back up to 5 crews in 2003.  That year has come and gone and both east coast Sqns are still at four crews.  I do not have a lot of faith that the incorporation of 415 Sqn into 405 Sqn will include a long term steady state at 8 line crews.  History would support my lack of faith.


----------



## chaos75 (15 Apr 2005)

Those arent the only squadrons getting amalgamated....wait for it.


----------



## Zoomie (15 Apr 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I hope we get a discount on 405 sqn patches and name tags.........i just spent good money on my 415 stuff !!



I was just going to say... I hope you didn't buy all your new patches yet.  Call your kit shop and try to get your nametag order changed.

I expect seein 429 and 436 (Hercules TAL) to merge, along with the Cold Lake and Bag-town boys.  Like Sam said, this should be a merger (like on Survivor) and the only loss (theoretically) should be the exec. staff and excess logisitical staff.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Apr 2005)

Bill22108131 said:
			
		

> I hope you are right Sam in that crews are not reduced.   The plan when the Squadrons on the east coast slowly reduced from 7 to 6 to 5 then finally to 4 crews was to bump back up to 5 crews in 2003.   That year has come and gone and both east coast Sqns are still at four crews.   I do not have a lot of faith that the incorporation of 415 Sqn into 405 Sqn will include a long term steady state at 8 line crews.   History would support my lack of faith.



Line crews are not supposed to be reduced.  In fact, I heard a rumble about 10 crews, but I can't confirm that at all...it was a tangential statement made by someone not directly in the MP world.  This is, amongst other things, a reallocation of O-5 and some O-4 positions to offset the stand-up of the CFAWC (CF Aerospace Warfare Center) in Trenton.  The same intent for TAL/Tpt and Ftr.  Sad from a Sqn pride/history thing, but it's happened to others in the far and near past, and it may happen to more.

On another topic in this thread...



			
				Bill22108131 said:
			
		

> As I sit here I wonder why you would ponder if it was good or not.  Picture if you will, an airborne asset with 8 hours overhead time that could provide an all spectrum look 100 kms around your OP (IR, EO, EW, ground mapoping RADAR).  All vehicles, generators, and recent trenching could be passed to you via a datalink download.  Your life would become so much easier than the 3 kms you can surveille and patrol.  Each Aurora crew will equal 8 hours on station with a forward operating base (FOB) nearby.  It will take 5-6 Aurora crews to provide 24/7 over a moderate period of time.  More crews or quick rotations to cover longer.  My brother is in Kabul, RCD recce.  He knows the value of aircraft support.  TUAV is not the sole solution.



Bill, you noted you'd look forward to comments, so here goes:


One might reasonably assume CP140 would need some kind of Self-Defence Suite (SDS) to go over top or slant to a TAI.  When does SDS happen in AIMP?
Link-4, Link-11 and Link-22 don't pass imagery particularly well.  Link-16 is bandwidth limited.  CP140 could use TCDL to link with existing coallition tactical datalink download but it's not part of AIMP.  How will such download be addressed?
5-6 Aurora crews to provide 24/7 over a moderate time...more or quicker rots to cover longer periods...hmmmm...that's starting to add up fairly quickly.

For the record, I too would like to see 140 as part of the ISR bit, however, due consideration must be given to the degree that it can contribute in an effective and reasonably affordable way.  Re-badging something with a new moniker but mated with a non-encompassing/incomplete upgrade in required areas may not be the best way of doing things.  

You are exactly right that TUAV (in current CF terms, this means a system employed primarily at the Brigade-sized or formation-level) is not the sole solution.  The solution also includes unit-level (by that I mean battalion-size), sub-unit-level, and det-level UAV capability and, as an Air Force guy, I professionally believe that at least the last two (sub-unit, det) should entirely be generated and employed by the Army.  While we're at it, folks considering provision of C4ISR should also take a look at the case for equipping the relatively economical (fuel, maintenance, crewing, flexibility, responsiveness, tactical footprint) platform such as the Griffon with its existing EW suite and an improved EO/IR suite, to provide more of an "*R* + s" capability, fully supportive of an J/LFISTAR plan which would clearly include the UAV "r & *S*", all as part of the (combined) joint task force's combined recce team.  Ask your bro if he'd like to also have a section of Griffies equipped to stand overhead or look forward 20km's as terrain would permit, fully integrated into networked fires as part of the armed recce team...I can't see a Dragoon saying he'd always prefer to take the 140 orbiting at 30,000+ feet over folks who use the same TTPs and BTS and whose faces he sees in Julien on a daily basis... 

FWIW, food for thought.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## TCBF (17 Apr 2005)

"both east coast Sqns are still at four crews.  I do not have a lot of faith that the incorporation of 415 Sqn into 405 Sqn will include a long term steady state at 8 line crews. "

I am out of my element here (no pun intended), but don't the Yanks fly 24 aircraft in a Sqn?  Didn't our Canadair Sabre Sqns in 1 CAD in the Fifties have 25 aircraft?  Or is that just fighters?

Tom


----------



## onewingwonder (17 Apr 2005)

Story was on CBC friday night. Spokesman said nothing was confirmed as of yet. However, the loss of 2 crews and aircraft was mentioned as a serious possibility in the new 415/405.


----------



## Bert (17 Apr 2005)

Likely as usual, the air force and the whole CF is in flux.  For the air force, the "super-base" 
amalgamation, changes to the deployabilty of units, changes to the supply chain, and
the creation of the rapid reaction forces, will affect the nature and number of the squadrons.


----------



## Bill22108131 (23 Apr 2005)

Well, to no one's great surprise, the official announcements are finally made.  





			
				Duey said:
			
		

> Bill, you noted you'd look forward to comments, so here goes:
> 
> 
> One might reasonably assume CP140 would need some kind of Self-Defence Suite (SDS) to go over top or slant to a TAI.   When does SDS happen in AIMP?
> ...



Duey, just a couple responses to your points:

To my knowledge, although planned, SDS is in the last part of AIMP (currently unfunded Block IV). This potentially won't be carried out 'til after 2013.  Future events may reprioritze SDS fitment.

Other countries using MPA as overland surveillance platforms are carrying spec ops liaison officers working at a special fit datalink station.  We could adopt the same measures working with the required technology.

Working within an MPA or LRP (long range patrol) surveillance coalition, we could surmount our crew shortages, but that would be a policy decision and not affected by our needs or wants.  

On another point, given the near term flux of all our roles and perhaps capabilities, the next few years will be full of exciting challenges for some and disadisappointments others.  I am interested to see if the political will to effect real change will stay the course.  To the Squadrons on the chopping block, you will be missed and hopefully your memories will be honoured for decades to come.

Bill


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Apr 2005)

Thanks Bill, good stuff to think about.

On the overall thread, recent announcements by CAS confirms that 415 will be amalgamated into 405 Sqn Greendwood, 433 TFS into 425 TFS in Bagotville, and 429 into 436 in Trenton.  The 3 LCol and about 8-10 Maj positions will go to the newly formed CFAWC (CF Air Warfare Center) which will be in Trenton with a small detachment in Ottawa.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081 (23 Apr 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Thanks Bill, good stuff to think about.
> 
> On the overall thread, recent announcements by CAS confirms that 415 will be amalgamated into 405 Sqn Greendwood, 433 TFS into 425 TFS in Bagotville, and 429 into 436 in Trenton.   The 3 LCol and about 8-10 Maj positions will go to the newly formed CFAWC (CF Air Warfare Center) which will be in Trenton with a small detachment in Ottawa.
> 
> ...



We received a wing-wide e-mail announcing all the changes on friday ( i think).  The CO of 415 had announced it to the sqn the week before.

One question though: what is this new CFAWC supposed to be ?


----------



## Inch (23 Apr 2005)

It's supposed to be the long overdue counterpart to the Maritime Warfare Centre and the Land Force Doctrine and Training System.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Apr 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> It's supposed to be the long overdue counterpart to the Maritime Warfare Centre and the Land Force Doctrine and Training System.



Thanks...figured it was something like that but i was not sure.


----------



## TheCheez (25 Apr 2005)

It's been in the news already so no harm in letting y'all know too. The two fighter squadrons in Bagot will become one this summer. When we were briefed they mentioned some more squadrons which would be coming together but I haven't seen anything official yet.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Apr 2005)

TheCheez said:
			
		

> It's been in the news already so no harm in letting y'all know too. The two fighter squadrons in Bagot will become one this summer. When we were briefed they mentioned some more squadrons which would be coming together but I haven't seen anything official yet.



I guess you didnt read the rest of this thread where the bagotville merger was already mentioned hey !!


----------



## TheCheez (25 Apr 2005)

Bah, I read the thread just didn't catch it at the bottom there.


----------

