Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?

[mover1]

Why does the Army need to OWN the flying assets. We are not three distinct forces we are the Canadian Forces.
I agree with CDN Aviator (saddened by the BS) and I have been in situations that he has talked about. Last minute taskings. Being on the last day of a deployment only to have it extended by two weeks. Leaving the Canada for what you expect is only for a week only to come back more than a month later. And for whom .. The Army.
Yes I support the guys on the ground.
Always have always will. But we need your support too.
By making a broad statement of the army owning the asset would mean you could get it when you wanted it is very naive. And you need to come to the understanding that sometimes there are larger pictures out there to deal with. We can't knit airplanes and we can't knit crews.  72 hours for Air assets isn't unreasonable in fact its great!  I would like to know in what context was this statement was made? Is it in response to having certain assets in an area of operations? Ie a 72 hour window to have Fast Air cover in a certain area for a CAP mission for a certain OP? 

Maybe you should be asking yourself why the army only sent 4 low ranking officers to the meeting.

By making a broad statement of the army owning the asset would mean you could get it when you wanted it is very naive.

 

[Cleared Hot]

To our brothers in blue, make no mistake we don't fault you personally, we know you want to get into the fight and do your part.  We understand you have other tasks as well, like NORAD, maritime patrol, SAR, AAR, TAC/Strat Mvmt, EW, etc.  But lets be honest our a/c are usually purchased to be multi-role because we do not have the budget/resources to always buy task built equipment.  For example the CF-18 - yes it is a great multi role a/c but only recently is it NVG capable, the Nighthawk had no LST capability, it could not program JDAMs in flight, was not ROVER capable, we don't do Low level CAS (in part) due to wear on old airframes etc.  All of these were cost saving measures because "we were never seriously going to fight a ground war again" (my quotes) so why spend the money.  In fact, the AF stopped running the FAC crse in early 2000s because, due to cutbacks, they decided they needed to (not incorrectly) concentrate on air-to-air.  The army picked up the ball and ran with it.  Now that we as a military are back in the CAS game, everyone wants back in.  In the end, if the Army bought its own a/c it would get exactly what it wanted/needed.  AH will never fly CAP, refuel a CF18 or do maritime patrol etc.  Now I understand the way things work and the Army will never be allowed to buy it's own a/c, but you can understand why it would want to.

As for the responsiveness issue, 72 hours is admittedly a pretty good ATO cycle (yes that changes based on the theatre). To my brothers in green, how many times have you really been in a TIC and not gotten air support?  That ATO that comes out 72 hours in advance has time built in for XCAS and GCAS which get pushed to whoever needs it instantly.  Your 72 hours is only if you want dedicated air and those missions are limited so they are prioritised (and not nec by the AF - apportionment, allocation blah blah),  Yes we all feel safer crossing the LD with air support, but let's be honest, how often was it not there when it was actually needed?  A/C are a pretty limited resource to have burning holes in the sky, just to have to leave when you really need it because they ran out of gas only because some ground comd didn't really understand the employment of a/c but damn it he wouldn't launch without it.  Canada desperately needs to become more "joint" so that there is a better understanding - but that is another thread.

 

[Journeyman]

Leaving the Canada for what you expect is only for a week only to come back more than a month later. And for whom .. The Army.

I'm sorry, but as a Traffic Tech whose major complaint is that you had to go on exercise for a month, when you packed for a week....you've got no dog in this fight. [/ignore]

As for the responsiveness issue, 72 hours is admittedly a pretty good ATO cycle

I agree. Really. As an airframe/"troops to task" system, it's probably as best we can get..... IF ...... flexibility and a lack of 'national caveats' will allow for maximum utilization.

Tip-toeing around that "opsec" canard however, there may hypothetically be situations where there is not enough XCAS responsiveness for the various kids playing in the regional sandbox.

 

[Zoomie]

/sigh

This BS is getting tiresome.  Like previously mentioned - we are all one happy family under the auspices of the CF. 

Army Aviation exists as much as it is ever going to - CH-146s/Hooks - they are posted on army bases, tasked to support army units and pretend that they are in the army.  What more do you want?  Do you want the fuel bill, training bill, maintenance costs and replacement costs too?  If you think the worn out LAV-3's were you biggest problem - think again.

The crunchies hold the ground, the zipperheads blast big holes in stuff, the zoomies fly over-head making everyone feel safe, the trash-haulers keep the bullets and food flowing into the country and the support structure extending all the way back to Canada keeps the boys in the FOBs alive.

Everyone has a "dog in this fight" as everyone is affected and everyone contributes. 

The army can't survive in the Arctic without AF support - it has been documented and proven.

IMO - we will never have AH's in the CF arsenal - regardless of if the Army really really wants them. 

 

[Loachman]

By making a broad statement of the army owning the asset would mean you could get it when you wanted it is very naive.

Quite the contrary. That concept is born of lengthy experience.

There are real reasons why those nations, in particular the US, that fight wars rather more frequently than we do have Army Aviation forces, and why they have developed them to the point that they have.

Unless it belongs to you, you have very little control over either its make-up or its employment.

Both Tac Hel and its prime customer have suffered as a result of Tac Hel's usurpation by the a** f**ce.

 

[Loachman]

Do you want the fuel bill, training bill, maintenance costs and replacement costs too?

You are presuming that ownership of the assets would be separated from their operating budget.

IMO - we will never have AH's in the CF arsenal - regardless of if the Army really really wants them.

Unlikely, yes, but then just a short time ago people were saying the same thing about Chinooks and C17s as well.

 

[Journeyman]

If the Canadian Army requires CAS, we really ought to own/deploy CAS assets.

The army can't survive in the Arctic without AF support - it has been documented and proven.

WTF??

This BS is getting tiresome....... Army Aviation exists as much as it is ever going to....

"Thus is it written - thus shall it always be..." 
So if it's not 'doctrinaire' it shall not be discussed? Heaven forbid operational experience inform any force development thinking.



oh -- and my "dog in this fight" comment goes back to this ongoing peeve of mine; everyone has opinions, but informed opinions actually provide value to a discussion. I know, I know -- "stay in your lane" is a bizarre concept.......

 

[mover1]

I'm sorry, but as a Traffic Tech whose major complaint is that you had to go on exercise for a month, when you packed for a week....you've got no dog in this fight. [/ignore]

Sorry dude I was talking of my experiences as a loadmaster flying around in airplanes.  And it was it that context where to where I have left home station for a planned week.  And had to phone home to the family "that I don't know when I am coming home and no I can't tell you where I am at all I can say is that I have been re tasked" And return a month later.
I guess I should update my profile.

 

[McG]

Since we do not have AH-64s, Supercobras, Tigers, A129 Mangusta etc. to fill the actual "shooter" role, armed UAV's or Cessna Caravans packing "Hellfire" missiles or rocket pods (or machine guns firing out the side door) will have to substitute in this thought experiment.

Since we do not have these other systems either, perhaps the thought experiment should not constrain itself as such and instead endeavor instead to determine which platforms can provide us the most well-rounded & relevant system (regardless if those platforms turn out to be fixed or rotary wing, or if they are manned or unmanned).  It is conceivable that some of the desired capability described in this thread could be delivered not by aircraft but by long range precision guided munitions fired from the ground (for an illustrative concept, consider the Precision Attack Missile or Loitering Attack Missile both from Raytheon).

One of the USAF taskers insisted, "If you want air support, you MUST request it 72 hours in advance; I don't care if it's VIP travel, ISR, TICs, or a one-off requirement."

I am certain that the Air Force understands the enemy gets a vote and we may require to pull air assets into a fight at some less than predictable time.  However, while TICs cannot be predicted, it is possible to predict when they will be more likely based on planned  things like named operations, patrols to areas we always get hit, or other increases in planned activities outside the wire.  By providing this information the air taskers, they are able to assign assets to areas such that they can be more responsive at the times we are more likely to have a TIC.  If the ground forces fail to provide this information for situations with predictable increase in TIC chances, then the Air Force is forced to pull resources from other tasks or areas to cover a planning failure. They will do it, but it means that someone somewhere else on the ground is going without the coverage they should have.  

Since it is not CLS that deploys, I've amended your following:

The bottom line in most endeavours (business as well as war-fighting) -- if you require support, there are fewer snags if you own the requisite capability. If the Canadian Army CEFCOM requires CAS, we really ought to own/deploy CAS assets that we own.

The decision to deploy Canadian aircraft is higher than the CF, and this does not change if those aircraft are controlled by one ECS or another.

 

[Infanteer]

The notion of Army/CEFCOM ownership is interesting.  Aside from different coloured hats, I think the real difference is that we'd have helicopter pilots taking ATOC/AOC and possibly commanding CMBGs.  Would bringing aviation into the "Combat Support Arms" field mean big changes for career structures?

As for the comment of the CF never getting AH - these forums are full of similar pronouncments about modern MBTs, M-777 and C-17s so.....

 

[aesop081]

I think the real difference is that we'd have helicopter pilots taking ATOC/AOC 

Whats stoping us from doing that now ?

The Navy has no issues loading air force personel on their tactics courses so whats the army's problem ?

 

[McG]

... I think the real difference is that we'd have helicopter pilots taking ATOC/AOC ...

I don't know about ATOC, but pilots do get on AOC regularly.

 

[Good2Golf]

I don't know about ATOC, but pilots do get on AOC regularly.

Yup, occasional Herc and 18 guy, but at least two or three tac hel pilots on every AOC...that is the de facto TH DP2 course.

Just so folks don't get thinking that the Army would look after TH any better than the AF, even though Air Command stood up in 1975, the Army provided capital and O&M funding for tac avn assets up until 1993 -- it was an inter-CC transfer of funds deal, from CC2 (the 'Army') to CC3 (the 'Air Force') to procure or support helicopters.  Seems innocent enough statement.  Now look at some interesting timelines -- when did Chinook (the 'C' model) retire from service?  1991.  Hmmm...there are those who have seen the 1990 letter in which LGen Foster stated that he had no option but not to support upgrade of Canadian Chinooks to the D-model.  Hint:  LGen Foster was not an Air Force officer...

G2G

 

[Journeyman]

Hmmm...there are those who have seen the 1990 letter in which LGen Foster stated that he had no option but not to support upgrade of Canadian Chinooks to the D-model.  Hint:  LGen Foster was not an Air Force officer...

Oh, come on G2G.....apples and oranges. We both know that the 1990's CF budget, driven by the Berlin Wall collapse, was a whole different world. As you noted, Kent Foster had "no option." His budgeteers were trying desperately to maintain a Division HQ, in addition to four Brigades, and could only hope that the fighter pilot-dominated Air Force would keep the airframe in the ORBAT.

Trust me, history doesn't repeat itself (it seldom even rhymes    )

Clausewitz clearly mentioned "friction" and "fog of war." He obviously died before he could write the chapter on "rice bowls." I can only hope that today's actual operational scenario (dare I say "war-fighting") may cause some serious reflection amongst the tribal elders in both the army and the airforce.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Journeyman-

I call BS on your call of BS  (and no returnsees?).

LGen Foster did have a choice- he could have have crap-canned the Div HQ, or part of a Bde to save the Hooks.  He chose not to.  I too remember those days- they were, in many ways, small minded and Regimentally focused days.  No one gave a rat's butt about anything out side their own corps or Regiment.  No one wearing OG107 in those days gave much thought to Tac Avn- it was either there or it wasn't- preferably there if you wanted to do con para or helo rappelling.  This does not, BTW, let the Air Force off of the hook for either Chinook or Bell 412 fiascos (yeah- I know, Marcel Masse) in the early 1990s- they were too busy trying to save unsalvageable CF-18 squadrons to care about an air frame the Army did not want to pay for.

Trust me- if the Army was to ever get stuck with the full cost of aviation assets again- its current equipment issues with Navstar trucks, LSVWs and LAV-3 resets would look like child's play.

BTW- good to see you back on these means- I missed your posts.

 

[Journeyman]

I too remember those days- they were, in many ways, small minded and Regimentally focused days.

You're not looking for an argument, are you?     I agree.

My point was, those days sucked...for various reasons. But 'G2G' citing those days (immediate post-cold war environment) to justify negative opinions on Army CAS options now, is a bogus strawman. [Remember, CAS IS the topic here] And I have enough faith in him to believe that he knows that already.

Although you left the flock for the lighter blue side ( ), and 'G2G' has a credible muddy blue heritage, the bottom line is there's an increasing number of troops with multiple operational deployments (dare I say "warfighting") who are less than enthused with air support.

Should we not talk about it?



(For what it's worth, I've also had variations of this discusion with one of you zoomie guys.....some 'Angus' guy, something or other     )

 

[Good2Golf]

JM, I'm not saying the fighter-centric AF shed any tears when the Chinook was retired, but the fact of the matter is that FMC was funding tac aviation and chose to cut the capability.  Sure, wall down, 'peace dividend' for all to profit from...no doubt KF felt he had no real choice in the matter and the rather flaccid protestations from AIRCOM didn't help the situation.  Perhaps it is semantics, but FMC rolled on aviation without much of a pause, notwithstanding AIRCOM's long-established disdain for tac hel. 

My point is that it took two to tango back then, the Army shed no more tears for the Hook than did the Air Force.  I just think Loachman gets all misty-eyed and thinks that things would be so much better if the green choppers were stewarded by those wearing green...not so sure that would be the case.

Zwei mere centen.
G2G

p.s.  Next time you flop up to Bytown, the beer's on me -- I have a message to pass to you from LTG Thurman... :cheers:

 

[Journeyman]

I have a message to pass to you from LTG Thurman... :cheers:

Damn, wasn't I just being pedantic about keeping discussions on topic?!!!   




Edit: Remainder of message, plus add'l details, cut to PMs -- sorry for being off-topic

 

[aesop081]

(For what it's worth, I've also had variations of this discusion with one of you zoomie guys.....some 'Angus' guy, something or other     )

.........

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Journeyman,

I guess my point is that, I don't share the optimism that both you and Loachman seem have that things would be better CAS-wise if CLS owned all his aviation resources.  Come budget crunch time (and there is always a budget crunch, because in Canada, there is never and will never be enough money for the CF), I can pretty much guarantee that when choosing to fund helo Squadrons or infantry battalions...well, no contest. I've seen too much tribalism in the CF in my 24 years too believe anymore that an Infantry (or Armoured or Artillery) General Officer would sell his corps down the river to preserve something as "weird" as helos.  War experience from Afghanistan or not...