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

[daftandbarmy]

I wish that this thread would die.

Why don't you call in an airstrike? Broken Arrow!!!!!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And there are other problems with a low-capability, low-survivability, niche concept like this.

One needs:

An airfield close to a population base large enough to provide sufficient aircrew, groundcrew, and support personnel that is not too busy and has somewhere close by in which to train, even if only dry, that will not interfere with commercial traffic and scare people, cows, and horses on the ground, and has suitable infrastructure.

This is not a cheap venture, even if the aircraft is relatively cheap, and it gives us what, a pricey flying club? It does not provide any, ANY, benefit for the cost.

Our last dedicated CAS aircraft was the CF5. It did the job fairly well despite being a fast-mover armed with dumb weapons in the days prior to laser designators and GPS and fancy computers. It was limited, however, by payload, range, and endurance. Modern REAL fighters are capable of so much more.

Our biggest problem, besides a government unwilling to acquire necessary equipment in a timely fashion, is PEOPLE.

Until we can attract, train, and RETAIN enough aircrew and groundcrew, we will not be able to fly more aircraft, no matter how cheap they are. We need, therefore, to provide what people we do have with the most capability per Pilot and Tech.

A flying Iltis is not acceptable for many reasons, practical and political.

I wish that this thread would die.

Wiki claims these figures for the A-29
Range: 720 nmi (827 mi, 1,330 km)
Combat radius: 550 km (300 nmi, 342 mi) (hi-lo-hi profile, 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) of external stores)[184]
Ferry range: 1,541 nmi (1,774 mi, 2,855 km)

I wonder if having a Reserve squadron flying such might actually help retain pilots, flying one of these is likely to be quite enjoyable for a fighter pilot, particularly when it's not a full time commitment. The smaller footprint could mean the Squadron is based at or close to a big city and with say a 50/50 split of reg and reserve maintainers might mean you could also retain more ground crew.
Let's just say for argument sake you get a squadron based out of Edmonton. The "Combat Radius" allows it to fly to Wainwright, Coldlake and Suffield and return. Now that would be without weapons. Dry runs could be done at 2 bases and live fire at Cold lake likely with a fly Friday night to Cold lake, aircraft prepped Saturday, mission briefs, sortie out, expend ammunition, return to Cold lake, de-arm, service aircraft and return to Edmonton on Sunday. Maintainers get roughly a 2 weeks to a month to carry out maintenance between missions. Squadron could support exercises across Western Canada with FOO's getting experience calling in air support (Squadron could provide a small ground team to coach units in proper procedures). Start with 2 Reserve Squadrons, on in the West and one in the East, both at or near big cities.         

 

[Loch Sloy!]

I wonder if having a Reserve squadron flying such might actually help retain pilots, flying one of these is likely to be quite enjoyable for a fighter pilot, particularly when it's not a full time commitment. The smaller footprint could mean the Squadron is based at or close to a big city and with say a 50/50 split of reg and reserve maintainers might mean you could also retain more ground crew.
Let's just say for argument sake you get a squadron based out of Edmonton. The "Combat Radius" allows it to fly to Wainwright, Coldlake and Suffield and return. Now that would be without weapons. Dry runs could be done at 2 bases and live fire at Cold lake likely with a fly Friday night to Cold lake, aircraft prepped Saturday, mission briefs, sortie out, expend ammunition, return to Cold lake, de-arm, service aircraft and return to Edmonton on Sunday. Maintainers get roughly a 2 weeks to a month to carry out maintenance between missions. Squadron could support exercises across Western Canada with FOO's getting experience calling in air support (Squadron could provide a small ground team to coach units in proper procedures). Start with 2 Reserve Squadrons, on in the West and one in the East, both at or near big cities.   

Great idea!

 

[Infanteer]

I wish that this thread would die.

So, is there any alternative to breaking the bank with the only airframe on the market?  Are we doomed to obsolescence by F35?

 

[Kirkhill]

My takeaway from the article that I posted was that the USAF decided it was ripping the guts out of too many high end vehicles doing stuff that something simpler could handle. 

They were burning more gas than they might, more parts than they might (and parts that were more expensive and harder to get) and reducing the inventory of aircraft necessary for fighting a major war.  And reducing the number of seats available to keep pilots flying between wars.

 

[Loachman]

I wonder if having a Reserve squadron flying such might actually help retain pilots, flying one of these is likely to be quite enjoyable for a fighter pilot, particularly when it's not a full time commitment.

Max is in a better position to answer the joy aspect. Perhaps he could conduct an informal survey.

How many ex-fighter pilots are in Edmonton to draw upon? Techs? Enough? How does one determine this?

We had a healthy number of mainly ex-fighter-cum-airline pilots in Downsview flying Kiowas. We lost the majority of them post-Griffon conversion and move to Borden, even most of the ones who had an easier and quicker commute to Borden than Downsview. Commuting was not a problem in the Kiowa days - we had guys driving in from the far side of Kitchener, Trenton, and north of Barrie. A lot of them didn't like the machine, and they were not afforded the same flexibility as they were with the Kiowa - they had to find two more crewmembers with the same personal and work schedules (airline guys do not work Monday to Friday as a rule).

If moving and re-equipping a Squadron is as challenging as this was (years of disruption and instability), how much of a challenge would creating one from scratch be? And what happens if the novelty wears off for a good chunk of the Reservists and they drop out over the following two or three years?

say a 50/50 split of reg and reserve maintainers might mean you could also retain more ground crew.

A healthy complement of full-timers, Reserve and Regular, is essential to any Reserve-heavy flying organization. 400 Squadron's policy was a min monthly attendance of six days for Class A people, in order to maintain basic currency. Currency does not equal proficiency. Our long-established Class B establishment was slashed post-Afghanistan and it hurt bigly. It's not coming back. Reg PYs have to come from somewhere, so who loses? There is a shortage of experienced aircrew and groundcrew already. What do you want to shutdown in order to start a glorified non-deployable flying club?

Let's just say for argument sake you get a squadron based out of Edmonton.

Hangars? Office space? Simulator (almost every flying community has one now)? Money?

Again, what is the military benefit for this?

 

[suffolkowner]

So, is there any alternative to breaking the bank with the only airframe on the market?  Are we doomed to obsolescence by F35?

I think this is the reality that people are going to have to deal with just as the F-35 is going to play havoc with the high end NATO/allied market. If not the F-35 than what? Gripen? Fa-50?

For low end permissive environments are we going to be able to afford to fly F-35's as opposed to Predator's, Fa-50's, Super Tucano's (Harvard's)

We already pay for Hawk's and Harvard's one way or another so it's not like we actually need to add an airframe.

The reality is there is no commitment to defence in Canada meanwhile Australia currently has 4 high end platforms in use Classic Hornets, Super Hornets, Growlers, and the F-35

 

[dimsum]

The reality is there is no commitment to defence in Canada meanwhile Australia currently has 4 high end platforms in use Classic Hornets, Super Hornets, Growlers, and the F-35

Agree with the sentiment, but the RAAF doesn't have the F-35 yet.  It has 2 airframes, which it will use to train up its pilots.  After that, the Classic Hornets will be replaced. 

 

[suffolkowner]

Agree with the sentiment, but the RAAF doesn't have the F-35 yet.  It has 2 airframes, which it will use to train up its pilots.  After that, the Classic Hornets will be replaced.

Still thats going to be an extended switchover is it not? How quickly can one realistically switch airframes?

 

[Loachman]

I think this is the reality that people are going to have to deal with just as the F-35 is going to play havoc with the high end NATO/allied market.

The cost per machine continues its downward trend.

For low end permissive environments are we going to be able to afford to fly F-35's as opposed to Predator's, Fa-50's, Super Tucano's (Harvard's)

For non-permissive environments are we going to be able to afford to be stuck with a bunch of underperforming aircraft left out of battle?

One machine will work in both environments, the others will not.

UAVs are not cheap. They require complex ground control stations with line-of-sight and powerful directional antennae to transmit control information and video. Range for that is limited. Satellite control imposes delay in each direction - video and telemetry lag for the operator, and control signals lag for the UAV. Engagement of moving targets is challenging at best. Current UAVs are optimized for endurance. They are not manoeuvrable, making re-attacks quite time-consuming and the machine vulnerable to attack, and payloads are light. They cannot yet operate in formation.

The little, thirteen-foot-wingspan, unarmed, CU161 Sperwer UAV was the most expensive machine, per flying hour, that the CF has operated. Yes, that was a unique case, but still serves to illustrate the point.

We already pay for Hawk's and Harvard's one way or another so it's not like we actually need to add an airframe.

We would still have to buy the machines and man and maintain them, whether a particular airframe is in use in a training capacity or not.

The reality is there is no commitment to defence in Canada meanwhile Australia currently has 4 high end platforms in use Classic Hornets, Super Hornets, Growlers, and the F-35

The reality of the airframes has already been addressed. Australia's situation is different. They do not have a big brother next door to help them out, and have closer less-friendly neighbours, and had a different domestic experience during the Second World War compared to us.

 

[MilEME09]

The reality of the airframes has already been addressed. Australia's situation is different. They do not have a big brother next door to help them out, and have closer less-friendly neighbours, and had a different domestic experience during the Second World War compared to us.

To use the WWII context for Australia, they are "The England of the Pacific", and they know it. In the event of any conflict in the western pacific region, Australia knows, and understands that with the exception of New Zealand, they are alone with help a long way away. There fore they need to have the military capability to fight and hold the line and maybe go on the occasional offensive while they wait for help to arrive. Our Strategic situation is different, we are right next to the most well funded military in the world, if we are attacked, help is hours away at worst. This paints a vastly different picture as to our defense priorities.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I've tried to stay away from this thread because I show my age when I remind everyone that I served when we, the Canadian Army (AKA Mobile Command) had our own, organic CF-5s, and transports and helicopters, too. The notion of true joint forces (designed by Paul Hellyer) only lasted for about a decade: it was just too much for a handful of air force generals to bear. ( I remember (circa 1973 or 74) briefing LGen Carr on the enormous complexities of C2 of air forces by army tactical HQs ~ there were none! We had the right radios, we had good, sound, tested procedures and more and more pilots were graduating from the army staff college and staffing the TACPs, there was no operational C3 case FOR Air Command.)

While I understand Chris' explanation of why a very, very large air force like the USAF might (re)consider having some dedicated, single role, CAS aircraft, is there a sound case for a country like Canada or even the UK or Germany to have such a capability? I guess I understand the tactical appeal, but can someone make a sensible "business" case for it?

It seems to me that we, the defence community, should be trying to exploit the tiny opening the Senate has given us in its most recent report and ask our government to provide attack helicopters ~ for which, I believe, sound operational and business cases can be made.

 

[suffolkowner]

The cost per machine continues its downward trend. 

Yes, but I don't foresee it ever costing $10 million to purchase and $2000 per hour do you? My point wasn't really about the cost of the F-35 but it's cost versus the alternatives

For non-permissive environments are we going to be able to afford to be stuck with a bunch of underperforming aircraft left out of battle?

Yes, and we already have 24 Tutors, 25 Harvards, and 16 Hawks that have never fired a shot in anger

One machine will work in both environments, the others will not.

Agreed, but I wonder if it is truly the best use of resources that's all

UAVs are not cheap. They require complex ground control stations with line-of-sight and powerful directional antennae to transmit control information and video. Range for that is limited. Satellite control imposes delay in each direction - video and telemetry lag for the operator, and control signals lag for the UAV. Engagement of moving targets is challenging at best. Current UAVs are optimized for endurance. They are not manoeuvrable, making re-attacks quite time-consuming and the machine vulnerable to attack, and payloads are light. They cannot yet operate in formation.

The little, thirteen-foot-wingspan, unarmed, CU161 Sperwer UAV was the most expensive machine, per flying hour, that the CF has operated. Yes, that was a unique case, but still serves to illustrate the point.

Agreed, but there remains a push to acquire them nevertheless. It was more to illustrate 3 different aircraft directions to go in, a manned aircraft may be preferable 

We would still have to buy the machines and man and maintain them, whether a particular airframe is in use in a training capacity or not.

The reality of the airframes has already been addressed. Australia's situation is different. They do not have a big brother next door to help them out, and have closer less-friendly neighbours, and had a different domestic experience during the Second World War compared to us.

Agreed, again however they will still be operating those airframes at the same time, where there's a will there's a way. I'm not so sure about their threat environment, we're pretty close to Russia ourselves. They sometimes seem to get along pretty well with Indonesia and China too for that matter.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Still thats going to be an extended switchover is it not? How quickly can one realistically switch airframes?

Probably 10 sims and 4-5 flights...

 

[suffolkowner]

Probably 10 sims and 4-5 flights...

wow, that's impressive and a good thing. Is that specifically for transitioning to the F-35 or in general? I had read that the F-35 was an easy plane to fly

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I've tried to stay away from this thread because I show my age when I remind everyone that I served when we, the Canadian Army (AKA Mobile Command) had our own, organic CF-5s, and transports and helicopters, too. The notion of true joint forces (designed by Paul Hellyer) only lasted for about a decade: it was just too much for a handful of air force generals to bear. ( I remember (circa 1973 or 74) briefing LGen Carr on the enormous complexities of C2 of air forces by army tactical HQs ~ there were none! We had the right radios, we had good, sound, tested procedures and more and more pilots were graduating from the army staff college and staffing the TACPs, there was no operational C3 case FOR Air Command.)

While I understand Chris' explanation of why a very, very large air force like the USAF might (re)consider having some dedicated, single role, CAS aircraft, is there a sound case for a country like Canada or even the UK or Germany to have such a capability? I guess I understand the tactical appeal, but can someone make a sensible "business" case for it?

It seems to me that we, the defence community, should be trying to exploit the tiny opening the Senate has given us in its most recent report and ask our government to provide attack helicopters ~ for which, I believe, sound operational and business cases can be made.

I think the terms "helicopter" and "ground attack" gives our governments indigestion. As for Loachmans comments about "undeployable" I will have say the aircraft is being deployed in several arenas and if the need is there, then they will be deployed one way or another, just like the Cougars and Bisons. Fair comments on personal issues, what I was thinking is that to have a posting near/at a major city is likely to give people a reason to stay in. As for the F35, I don't believe they will every be used in close and dirty and getting them deployed will be very political as always. Prop or rotor driven air support for a deployment in a remote area *cough* Mali *cough* might be more politically digestible.

 

[Kirkhill]

Probably 10 sims and 4-5 flights...

Curious.  So how many aircraft can a pilot stay current on simultaneously?

And ERC - re CAS - as much as I like tweaking Loachman from time to time, he and you are, in my opinion, on the right track with respect to focusing the Canadian effort on the Attack Helicopter.  The US is a different case. 

In fact, with respect to helicopters in general, I would be inclined to turn our current 2/3 medium, 1/3 light structure on its head and make it 2/3 light (helo) and 1/3 medium-heavy.  The helo force has a lot more utility in Canada's frozen, forested and maritime areas, in peace, war and civil insurgency, than TAPVs and LAVs.  It also offers expeditionary opportunities that complement TAPVs and LAVs.

 

[Kirkhill]

From the Defence Budget thread.

[quoteJust for reference - the senate called for 36 Chinooks and one AH for each Chinook - apparently in the senate that equates to 24 AH.

Loachman, how would you feel about 36 AH-1Zs and upping the CH-146s to the UH-1Y configuration?  Don't adjust the number of flying squadrons or pilots.  Just adjust the inventory.[/quote]

Working on the assumption that a helicopter is an engine furiously spinning inefficient wings to keep a weight dangling underneath it from hitting the ground I am going to assume that bigger is better.

The CH-146 uses a TwinPak PT6T-3D(??) that puts out something like 932 kW total according to Wiki and that engine can keep a total mass of 5355 kg in the air until the gas runs out.

The Old UH-1N using the same TwinPak was only expected to keep a total of 4763 kg flying 

So the CH-146 powerplant was expected to lift 5355 Canadian kg instead of 4763 American kg - I assume that is some sort of cross-border discount of some sort.

When the USMC "Converted" their UH-1Ns they replaced the 932 kW engine with a pair of 1150 kw engines for a total output of 2300 kw.  Or 150% more than the CH-146.

That means that aircraft with the same registration numbers increased their all up weights from 4763 American kg to 8390 American kg.  Or almost double the load lifting capacity as the UH-1Ns.

Any of that sound about right to you and G2G?

 

[GK .Dundas]

From the Defence Budget thread.

[quoteJust for reference - the senate called for 36 Chinooks and one AH for each Chinook - apparently in the senate that equates to 24 AH.

Loachman, how would you feel about 36 AH-1Zs and upping the CH-146s to the UH-1Y configuration?  Don't adjust the number of flying squadrons or pilots.  Just adjust the inventory.

Working on the assumption that a helicopter is an engine furiously spinning inefficient wings to keep a weight dangling underneath it from hitting the ground I am going to assume that bigger is better.

The CH-146 uses a TwinPak PT6T-3D(??) that puts out something like 932 kW total according to Wiki and that engine can keep a total mass of 5355 kg in the air until the gas runs out.

The Old UH-1N using the same TwinPak was only expected to keep a total of 4763 kg flying 

So the CH-146 powerplant was expected to lift 5355 Canadian kg instead of 4763 American kg - I assume that is some sort of cross-border discount of some sort.

When the USMC "Converted" their UH-1Ns they replaced the 932 kW engine with a pair of 1150 kw engines for a total output of 2300 kw.  Or 150% more than the CH-146.

That means that aircraft with the same registration numbers increased their all up weights from 4763 American kg to 8390 American kg.  Or almost double the load lifting capacity as the UH-1Ns.

Any of that sound about right to you and G2G?

Actually the one thing that doesn't get mentioned much is that the UH 1 Y are almost all new builds .
It seems that Marines are play fast and loose with this programme.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Curious.  So how many aircraft can a pilot stay current on simultaneously?

And ERC - re CAS - as much as I like tweaking Loachman from time to time, he and you are, in my opinion, on the right track with respect to focusing the Canadian effort on the Attack Helicopter.  The US is a different case. 

In fact, with respect to helicopters in general, I would be inclined to turn our current 2/3 medium, 1/3 light structure on its head and make it 2/3 light (helo) and 1/3 medium-heavy.  The helo force has a lot more utility in Canada's frozen, forested and maritime areas, in peace, war and civil insurgency, than TAPVs and LAVs.  It also offers expeditionary opportunities that complement TAPVs and LAVs.

I am current on two and will be on three. You can maintain basic currency on all but can probably effectively maintain tactical proficiency on one, unless tactics are somewhat transferable in which case you can probably do two.