Author Topic: Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?  (Read 226450 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,814
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Would actually standing up a actual RCAF training squadron with the Hawks, Harvard’s and some light attack aircraft to replace the current contractor system perhaps help with the pilot and maintainer retention? It would mean a posting with a regular schedules.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,415
Would actually standing up a actual RCAF training squadron with the Hawks, Harvard’s and some light attack aircraft to replace the current contractor system perhaps help with the pilot and maintainer retention? It would mean a posting with a regular schedules.
While I don't know the issues facing the airforce retention problem, I imagine being posted to places like cold lake doesn't help. Doing our training in house as well (with contractor help at first) will probably save cost as well. Problem is the investment to make it happen.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Would actually standing up a actual RCAF training squadron with the Hawks, Harvard’s and some light attack aircraft to replace the current contractor system perhaps help with the pilot and maintainer retention? It would mean a posting with a regular schedules.

I would say a large part of that might be where they would be posted to.  Places like Portage and Moosejaw aren't exactly on the top of people's *where do I dream of living* lists.

Ref buying a few Sqns of light attack prop airframes...they're more niche aircraft IMO, and we need multi-mission type ones because of our size and funding (or lack of it).  If we did get them, where would the $ come from...we are on a fixed income afterall.

:2c:
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline YZT580

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 488
The availability of cash is not the issue: it never really has been.  The government of the day deals in perception.  If purchasing ground attack aircraft is perceived to resolve an equipment/political issue and can be demonstrated as being consistent with the direction in which the government wants to move then it will happen.  As witness, recall the purchase of the C17s and the Leopard tanks.  Our current government has stated their desire to get back into 'peace keeping' and they have pledged resources to fulfil this goal.  Pursuing the purchase of said aircraft for support punts the issue into the next decade as they can promise as soon as we have the resources we will be there.  Both Mali and the Congo have demonstrated the requirement for light duty airborne support.  Purchasing new interim aircraft is resolved and it doesn't take money away from their favourite charities.  IMHO it is a win-win for the libs.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
So all of a sudden there's an abundance of extra YFR to go around???

I couldn't get flight suits or even t-shirst this spring and summer so far...people are not able to get PRTs issued...I won't even get into serviceability because of no spares, etc...and we have no money contraints.   :whistle:
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,415
So all of a sudden there's an abundance of extra YFR to go around???

I couldn't get flight suits or even t-shirst this spring and summer so far...people are not able to get PRTs issued...I won't even get into serviceability because of no spares, etc...and we have no money contraints.   :whistle:

CANSOFCOM needed new DEU's sorry  >:D  the airforce and the CAF is living on a fixed income less then what we need.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,773
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
It would be a whole lot cheaper to stand up a couple of squadrons of T6's  than it would be to purchase 18 interim CF18s or the like.  Don't need any new infrastructure, we already train on type, maintenance and operating costs are far lower and it would get the libs out of the corner they have painted themselves into regarding Boeing and their ongoing trade dispute and of course the never buy F35 crowd.

By cheaper, I'm assuming you are not referring to Departmental personnel costs, which on the whole would make even a very healthy capital acquisition budget look tiny in comparison.

Take a look at the Cost Factors manual and your "couple of squadrons of T6's" will set DND back a cool 1/20th of a Billion dollars in personnel costs, give or take.  You should not be surprised then, that the DM's blood pressure rises significantly when the good idea fairies are at work, especially when they "just" ask for people.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Idle thought.

If all pilots are type qualified on the CT-156/T-6/AT-6 does that mean that the pool of pilots available to provide support in permissive environments is all pilots (including rotary wing), rather than just the pilots qualified to fly the F-18/F-35?

Thus reducing the workload on the F-18 pilots.

Second idle thought.

If the CT-156/T-6/AT-6 is a primary trainer does that mean that the time necessary to convert a pilot into a "useful" asset can be reduced?

Third idle thought.

What is the impact on Reserve Pilot employment and retention?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,814
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
So all of a sudden there's an abundance of extra YFR to go around???

I couldn't get flight suits or even t-shirst this spring and summer so far...people are not able to get PRTs issued...I won't even get into serviceability because of no spares, etc...and we have no money contraints.   :whistle:

There is always money to be had, if you are the chosen ones, Who is the chosen ones depends on the government of the day, crisis dejour and political capital to be spent or gained.

Offline YZT580

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 488
Thanks Colin you said it much better than I.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
There is always money to be had, if you are the chosen ones, Who is the chosen ones depends on the government of the day, crisis dejour and political capital to be spent or gained.

I am not saying it is the fleet I am a part of.  I am saying it is across the not only the RCAF, but the CAF (the do less with more funding program).  IF you are adding multiple Sqns of aircraft, that is going to cost a few dollars.  Where are their hangers going to be, the hangers have to be heated...its more than just aircrew and maintainers and a bit of gas. 

These are niche capabilities...outside of the one-sie/twosie mission sets, what is their capability?  If you were going to do something like this, I'd expand it into the MAISR project instead of relating it to anything fighters...because fighters can do CAS.  I see this type of CAS (the little single prop bug smasher type airframe) and I think lower, slower and that makes it a target for...lots of stuff.

If the GoC isn't willing to use existing strike aircraft to drop iron on targets such as ISIS..why bother buying a lower/slower platform to do something we aren't even doing now?   ???

Fit a couple of '140 with the kit needed to do CAS, let the fighters do it, get attack helicopters and add them to the TacHel world (1 or a combo of any of those...doesn't matter)...I don't see a need or reason to have a one-of mission aircraft in an air force that isn't funded well.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 16:25:11 by Eye In The Sky »
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,172
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,660
Ref buying a few Sqns of light attack prop airframes...they're more niche aircraft IMO, and we need multi-mission type ones because of our size and funding (or lack of it).

As I've said here multiple times over quite a long time...

Niche-push has zombie-like qualities.

Our current government has stated their desire to get back into 'peace keeping' and they have pledged resources to fulfil this goal.  Pursuing the purchase of said aircraft for support punts the issue into the next decade as they can promise as soon as we have the resources we will be there.  Both Mali and the Congo have demonstrated the requirement for light duty airborne support.  Purchasing new interim aircraft is resolved and it doesn't take money away from their favourite charities.  IMHO it is a win-win for the libs.

Campaign promises casually tossed out with no expectation of a need to fulfil, and which have since tapered off into silence after much wafflement, aside, we are currently operating much closer to Russia than Mali and Congo, at this government's whim.

How much deterrent value would a slow-moving putt-putt have in that area?

How would a slow-moving putt-putt fare in that area if the situation boils over?

And, if we're buzzing around, even in slow-moving putt-putts, and dropping/firing anything, it ain't peacekeeping.

If all pilots are type qualified on the CT-156/T-6/AT-6 does that mean that the pool of pilots available to provide support in permissive environments is all pilots (including rotary wing), rather than just the pilots qualified to fly the F-18/F-35?

Thus reducing the workload on the F-18 pilots.

Thus increasing the workload on every other community.

Absent an increase in the number of Pilot positions (and techs, etcetera), who's going to get yanked out of their "pool" to flounder around in this one? I am not aware of a single CF flying community that has a large excess of potential candidates. Everybody is busy, and short of people, as it is.

In the Tac Hel case - and likely similar in other communities - a sustained op drives down general competencies in favour of op-specific competencies as it is, requiring a lengthy (one to two years) period to regain those competencies. At least we are operating the same machines, and not some completely different niche putt-putt, which would only make it worse.

If the CT-156/T-6/AT-6 is a primary trainer does that mean that the time necessary to convert a pilot into a "useful" asset can be reduced?

Training somebody - and in this case, refreshing - to fly a given machine is not difficult. Developing tactical proficiencies, including multiple-aircraft operations, takes somewhat longer.

What is the impact on Reserve Pilot employment and retention?

Unless there is a permanent unit established (with the necessary infrastructure and not-insignificant budget) at a suitable airport with a large-enough pool of ex-Regular Pilots and techs, etcetera, this is an irrelevant non-issue.

Simpler solution:

Buy the best multi-role aircraft available.

Don't waste scarce people and funds on a niche putt-putt.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,814
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
My concern is that we use up airframe hours on a expensive resource we have to few of already. Frankly I would love to go buy 10 more ASW aircraft, it seems it's not happening either. If we get around 80 fighters, then we will be doing ok there, if we don't and the project gets locked in a death grip of political infighting a lesser "peacekeeping" CAS aircraft might be the only digestible game in town for awhile. Stranger things have happened.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,172
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,660
To do that, one either has to build and maintain additional infrastructure somewhere and increase the establishment of Pilots, Techs, and other support pers, or cut something else out.

So - what are you willing to cut.

For absolutely no benefit.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
So - what are you willing to cut.

Any/every project that has to do with new ranks, DEUs, buttons, ties and socks for the next decade or two??

 :blotto:
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 172,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,631
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Any/every project that has to do with new ranks, DEUs, buttons, ties and socks for the next decade or two??

 :blotto:

Plus 5 or 6 gigantic and semi-useful HQs, ex Maple Resolve and similarly frustrating exercises, all 'morale patch' programs and mandatory briefing programs, semi-professional military sports (and PSP while you're at it) and the Snowbirds....

oh.... oh.... and the Military Colleges, just for spite ;)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,172
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,660
I'd leave the Snowbirds alone, but the rest - oh, yes.

How many of those other people are aircrew-fit Pilots, though?

We cannot train enough now, let alone even a small increase merely to support something that is not particularly useful.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,594
Evidently the USAF is studying CAS on the cheap and here is the video of the options.Who would have thought a crop duster would be in the running ?  :camo:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-air-force-reveals-powerful-041956009.html

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 108
Evidently the USAF is studying CAS on the cheap and here is the video of the options.Who would have thought a crop duster would be in the running ?  :camo:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-air-force-reveals-powerful-041956009.html

Well we know the reason behind "the on the cheap" part,don't we?

Everything is ok just to be able to "kill" the Warthogs.My belief is such that when they've decided(wich one for the USAF)they'll cancel the project,and the USAF has what it wants,"kill" the A-10's and do the CAS part with the F-35(as they wanted to do in the 1st place,btw the USAF is scrapping them fast,damaged ones, so that it isn't possible to bring them back,against the order from Congress i've heared)

Poor soldiers on the ground,they love the A-10's,the enemies "crap" in their collective pants when they hear 1 comming.And the USAF just don't care about CAS.

So here's an idea just transfer the A-10's to the Marines,they want to do CAS,and the most feared CAS plane stays. :salute:
« Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 14:05:59 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"