• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
586
Points
910
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

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
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:
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
586
Points
910
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

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
146
Points
610
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
SupersonicMax said:

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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
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?
 
Top