Author Topic: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg  (Read 11332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 962
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2018, 21:14:00 »
The Romanian deployment has a purpose for our government: pulling (or at least projecting we are) pulling our weight within NATO.

Don't forget learning how to fight against the North Korean airforce.  Seems like they still operate Mig-21's as well...

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,168
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #51 on: January 09, 2018, 00:11:46 »
We have airspace where we train which is 25nm North of the base.  To drop weapons, we go to Valcartier (75 nm).  There is no such airspace around Edmonton.  The closest is the airspace surrounding the CLAWR which is too far (130 nm) from Edmonton to be useful (fuel limited) or efficient.  You'd spend 30-40 minutes transiting for 30-40 minutes of training.  Our transit is normally litterally 5-10 minutes normally.  The flight time fraction spent training would reduce dramatically, reasulting in more hours required to train someone up to the same level.  And that's for good weather with a 2-bag jet.  Then you are in the BFM/ACM phase (single centerline fuel tank jet) and need to hold alternate fuel and you get 10 minutes of training.  Not even worth launching for.

Really? 

A 0.3 each way is not practical? 

Fack!  And I thought a tanked CT-114 was fuel-critical at V2.  I didn't realize a CF-18 was such a useless hunk of metal.   :o

 :not-again:

G2G

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,404
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2018, 00:27:21 »
Really? 

A 0.3 each way is not practical? 

Fack!  And I thought a tanked CT-114 was fuel-critical at V2.  I didn't realize a CF-18 was such a useless hunk of metal.   :o

 :not-again:

G2G

To be charitable, I think the issue is a lack of viable IFR alternates within the Edmonton-Cold Lake cooridor.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,862
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2018, 00:28:27 »
You'll do a 1.5 in a mission.  So a 0.6-0.7 for transit isn't ideal.  That's half of your time spent transiting.  Depending on the training objectives, it may not be enough to complete the sortie.

Of course, we could just cruise at maximum endurance and fly a 2.5 but then you don't achieve anything....

Flying both the Tutor and the Hornet now, the Tutor is a LOT worst.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,168
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #54 on: January 09, 2018, 00:32:37 »
To be charitable, I think the issue is a lack of viable IFR alternates within the Edmonton-Cold Lake cooridor.

As opposed to the plethora of viable IFR alternates in the YWA-YOW corridor in a 146.   ;)

#sympathymeterbroken

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,862
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2018, 00:36:15 »
To be charitable, I think the issue is a lack of viable IFR alternates within the Edmonton-Cold Lake cooridor.

Alternates in the "Cold Lake-Edmonton corridors" (or lack thereof) are irrelevant as you would still need to plan on flying to destination then to your alternate.  But of course, you knew this...

If you want to argue, at least bring up something relevant.  I am saying that from my fairly significant fighter experience, basing fighters in Edmonton isn't viable unless we get Raptors or Strike Eagles, or base a fleet of tanker to support daily operations in Edmonton.

I am happy to discuss but please bring uo facts and stop letting your hatred for me get in the way.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,168
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #56 on: January 09, 2018, 00:42:40 »
Alternates in the "Cold Lake-Edmonton corridors" (or lack thereof) are irrelevant as you would still need to plan on flying to destination then to your alternate.  But of course, you knew this...

If you want to argue, at least bring up something relevant.  I am saying that from my fairly significant fighter experience, basing fighters in Edmonton isn't viable unless we get Raptors or Strike Eagles, or base a fleet of tanker to support daily operations in Edmonton.

I am happy to discuss but please bring uo facts and stop letting your hatred for me get in the way.

So let me get this right.  Protect CANR from Alaska to Greenland you're okay.  Transit from YED to YOD and you need a large fleet of KCs?   ???

Why don't you need  fleet of KCs to get from Bagtown to Valcatraz?

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,862
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2018, 00:48:47 »
We have tankers to protect CANR.  We don't do it on our own and we don't exactly have the same mission profiles than let's say an opposed self-escort strike. But I somewhat expected you to know this.

As far as Bagtown is concerned, it's half the distance to the range and we only conduct some very limited mission profiles there (Academic Range, or Academic practice at dropping dumb weapons (and sometimes laser guided weapons).  The rest of the missions are conducted in the restricted areas North of Bagtown.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,168
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #58 on: January 09, 2018, 00:56:51 »
We have tankers to protect CANR.  We don't do it on our own and we don't exactly have the same mission profiles than let's say an opposed self-escort strike. But I somewhat expected you to know this.

So when you eventually get to your ground tour in NDHQ, don't be surprised in your first interaction with Treasury Board Secretariat, should you be so lucky to have the opportunity to see past your aircraft checklist or unit SOPs or CONPLAN, that you consider that maybe that hill you would gladly have died on to defend the YED-YOD issue was in fact a mole-hill and there were bigger issues, as far as how Government sees that capability, writ large.  But until then, enjoy living life pushing into the NW quadrant - and I mean that genuinely. :nod:

Cheers
G2G


Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,404
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #59 on: January 09, 2018, 00:58:29 »
Alternates in the "Cold Lake-Edmonton corridors" (or lack thereof) are irrelevant as you would still need to plan on flying to destination then to your alternate.  But of course, you knew this...

If you want to argue, at least bring up something relevant.  I am saying that from my fairly significant fighter experience, basing fighters in Edmonton isn't viable unless we get Raptors or Strike Eagles, or base a fleet of tanker to support daily operations in Edmonton.

I am happy to discuss but please bring uo facts and stop letting your hatred for me get in the way.

How in the actual Fcuk do you get that I "hate you" out of that quote?

I was stating a fact- if you do a hypothetical mission plan from Edmonton to the CLAWR and the nearest viable alternative is, say, Saskatoon and your fly to destination, fly to alternate plus hold gas add up to more than you can carry onboard, you don't launch. In effect, I was supporting your position that, for a lot of reasons, YEG would not be a good fighter base.

But go ahead- keep on being that charming ambassador of good will that we have come expect from the fighter world.  ::)

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,862
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #60 on: January 09, 2018, 01:05:43 »
I am not making this my hill to die.  I could not care less for Cold Lake. I am just presenting facts as I know them and how, at the tactical/operational level, it would be have second and third order impacts that, from an uninformed person may not be obvious, but that cannot be ignored.  I don't believe it would be in the best interest of the RCAF, even if it solves some of the technician retention issues.  Moving it to Comox though (or anywhere in close proximity to suitable airspace) could work.  Edmonton?  Nope.

I only interacted in this thread because I feel I have relevant experience that could contribute to the discussion. I know there are bigger fish to fry at the Goverment level but for the CAF, I sincerely hope that fixing retention issues that have long-term impacts on our readiness is a priority.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 01:08:23 by SupersonicMax »

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,404
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #61 on: January 09, 2018, 01:16:06 »
I am not making this my hill to die.  I could not care less for Cold Lake. I am just presenting facts as I know them and how, at the tactical/operational level, it would be have second and third order impacts that, from an uninformed person may not be obvious, but that cannot be ignored.  I don't believe it would be in the best interest of the RCAF, even if it solves some of the technician retention issues.  Moving it to Comox though (or anywhere in close proximity to suitable airspace) could work.  Edmonton?  Nope.

I only interacted in this thread because I feel I have relevant experience that could contribute to the discussion. I know there are bigger fish to fry at the Goverment level but for the CAF, I sincerely hope that fixing retention issues that have long-term impacts on our readiness is a priority.

Comox could probably work again for a single Sqn. The airspace all still exists. The tough part would be dropping iron, unless you plan on specializing on throwing it into the Pacific Ocean. The closest land range is likely Ft Lewis.

The reality is that Cold Lake isn't going anywhere, soon.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 218,382
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,479
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #62 on: January 12, 2018, 12:08:57 »
As opposed to the plethora of viable IFR alternates in the YWA-YOW corridor in a 146.   ;)

Farmer's fields must have become a lot more rare since I last flew around there...

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,168
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #63 on: January 12, 2018, 14:41:38 »
Farmer's fields must have become a lot more rare since I last flew around there...

You guys used hope on the 136, I used an AFCS to stay out of the fields, 146 decent (although crappy not having the 4th axis) and then the RNP/RNAV 0.3 dream IFR machine.  ;D

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 218,382
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,479
Re: RCAF Fighter Sqn ReOrg
« Reply #64 on: January 12, 2018, 16:06:06 »
We just flew under the cloud, or stayed on the ground if ceiling or vis were too low. I never found the "lack" of IFR capability to be limiting in any way.

There was bad weather forecast along the northern edge of Lake Superior as we were preparing to depart from Wainwright after RV83 (when we exercised the CAST Composite Helicopter Squadron, which included three older Chinooks). The Chinook guys were bragging that they would beat us home as they were going IFR. They encountered icing, turned back out of it, and spent the night somewhere. We flew the shoreline and had no problem. I think that we dropped to 400 feet once or twice at one point, but vis was generally great.

Our min vis for VFR in Germany was 800 metres, and our min VFR altitude was 250 feet (any higher risked getting hit by a fighter, even though they were not supposed to be below 500 feet). Weather seldom limited us cross-country. Tactically was different, as any precip on the bubble destroyed depth perception as well as reducing vis. Even if it didn't, one would not have been able to see far enough for recce anyway.

We encountered icing conditions (murk and precip, 1C OAT, slush forming on windscreen lower edge) on my first CH146 ticket ride, over Lake Ontario on vectors to Hamilton, and then lost radio and intercom due to loud buzz caused by the early static problem, then watched our NDB needle rotate to the 090 position and lock. Not fun at all. I was not a fan of Helicopter IFR before that, and even less so afterwards. Fortunately, the buzz died out fairly soon, and we turned back. I had stated that I did not think that conditions were safe due to forecasts and actuals during the brief and we really should have stayed on the ground.