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

[Dana381]

I'm not arguing you point, just asking for clarity. If the enemy can shoot down an SU-25 and by extension an A-10 then how would an Apache help. I did not know about the palletized systems already in use, I wonder if a mini version of a Phalanx using a 7.62 mini gun would be able to stop a manpad? If that was part of the gunship pallet and mounted to the ramp? I'm just dreaming now I know, but it does sound really cool!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am no expert anything tha flys or CAS.  But wouldn't these prop driven planes be easy pickins for AAA or even SA fire ?

It depends on the altitude the CAS platform is flying.  Close air support doesn't have to = low air support. 

Based on recent operational experience, I'd personally be more worried about MANPADs (even older gen ones).  An older article, but gets the point across about how hard these are to track and where some of them are known/suspected to have ended up.  I'm confident that systems like SA-24s are in the hands of 'undesirables' as well (call it a gut feeling ).  MANPADs at a glance

 

[a_majoor]

I'm not arguing you point, just asking for clarity. If the enemy can shoot down an SU-25 and by extension an A-10 then how would an Apache help. I did not know about the palletized systems already in use, I wonder if a mini version of a Phalanx using a 7.62 mini gun would be able to stop a manpad? If that was part of the gunship pallet and mounted to the ramp? I'm just dreaming now I know, but it does sound really cool!

Close air support via ground attack aircraft is a paradigm from 1918 "contact patrol" fighters, and until the 1970's, was really the only way to carry out the task. The development or laser and television guided "smart bombs" turned the equation around, now the pilot did not have to physically come up close and personal to see the target (technically this technology was developed near the end of WWII, but there was a long pause past 1945 as everyone tried to work out how to fight in a nuclear battlefield). By the 1991 Pesrian Gulf War, even the A-10 was mostly using "Mavrick" air to surface guided missiles to take out enemy tanks - coming in for a gun run invited eating a lot of GBAD, and many A-10s suffered massive damage because of that.

Today, an aircraft like an F-15E can be directed to engage a target over 100km away using a Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which glides towards the target - several versions have seekers which allow the bomb to track and destroy a moving target. various other long range munitions exist, and the future may include delivering a container which splits open in flight and releases a swarm of mini UAV's. Arsenal aircraft like the USAF B-52 could carry large numbers of these sorts of weapons and loiter for hours while F-35's or UAV's slip ahead to identify and mark targets. Farther ahead, the "arsenal aircraft" might be an F-15E or X, making it harder to engage the weapons carriers since they are full fledged fighters themselves. "Loyal Wingman" UCAV's will also be in the mix. Just to make it more confusing, there is a distinct possibility that ultra long range artillery rockets and shells could be directed by loitering air platforms.

The reality isn't a souped up A-10, but a distributed network of sensors and weapons platforms. This wasn't even really apparent when I started this thread. Perhals the real future is a swarm of small, relatively cheap "Skyborg" platforms operating from "lily pads" (minimalistic forward bases), which really answers the question of "should we have or need huge air bases forward to support high performance platforms to support troops"?

 

[daftandbarmy]

which really answers the question of "should we have or need huge air bases forward to support high performance platforms to support troops"?

The answer, of course, is 'yes', because RCAF Officers will continue to need to be able to earn campaign medals to progress in rank

 

[Halifax Tar]

Hit quote when it should have been modify opps

 

[Zoomie]

The answer, of course, is 'yes', because RCAF Officers will continue to need to be able to earn campaign medals to progress in rank

Can’t just have the RCN as the only deployable force in the CAF.

 

[MilEME09]

Reading more about the TAV, the company has a second version called the Wasp. Designed as a CAS/MPA that can fly autonomously. Which got me thinking could having a fleet of MPA drones benefit us? Not to mention an armedwould e in general would be useful, its easier to build a drone then train a pilot after all.

 

[Zoomie]

Who flies the drone?  What does the drone do?  Who analyzes what the drone looks at?  Where does the bandwidth come from to operate these drones - DWAN?

 

[dimsum]

Reading more about the TAV, the company has a second version called the Wasp. Designed as a CAS/MPA that can fly autonomously. Which got me thinking could having a fleet of MPA drones benefit us? Not to mention an armedwould e in general would be useful, its easier to build a drone then train a pilot after all.

MPA drones, with current technology, would help with the searching (ie. extra aircraft to monitor sonobuoys, whether dropped from them or a manned MPA).  I'm not sure they're at the point of attacking yet.

Also, we're not at the point (technologically maybe, but not culturally/doctrinally) to allow fully autonomous RPA operations, so as Ditch was alluding to, we'll still need Pilots, sensor operators, Int folks, etc.  It's not a "fire and forget" solution yet.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Reading more about the TAV, the company has a second version called the Wasp. Designed as a CAS/MPA that can fly autonomously.

From the article:

TAV is the first in a family of specialized aircraft, including WASP, a mission-oriented version, focused on close-air support (CAS), maritime and coastal patrol and anti-submarine warfare, and surveillance, and BRANTA, a long endurance, high-altitude optionally-piloted/unmanned combat air vehicle (OPV/UCAV).

Company *claims* don't equal an actual capability.  Keep in mind, this entire aircraft is a concept at this point.  It doesn't exist beyond 'the imagination and a few drawings'. 

- This is a 2-pers crew.  I'm not aware of any platform (modern one) that has only 2 pers to fly and do an ASW mission.  Most MH's are 4 pers crews.  2 pilots, a TACCO and a SENSO is the Canadian crewing (and it would be much better if there was a 5th seat for a 2nd SENSO).  One pers can only do so much, despite computers and automation.

- That little plane won't carry enough search or kill stores, far enough and with enough ONSTA ability, to be useful (IMO).  AAR capable?  So...you break off to tank...and...

- MHs have something to bring to the fight that MPAs don't, dipping SONAR.  They can return to MOTHER, bomb up again and go back out.  This Wasp?  Nope. 

- If you're going to be in the ASW game and be taken seriously, you need a true MPA.  This little platform isn't it.  You'd be surprised how quickly you can burn thru 100ish sono's, this baby plane can't even think about carrying that many.

In short?  *Next*

My  :2c: only;  if you want to see how a potential MPA *measures up*, you should compare it to the 2 big heavy-hitters in the world we know today.  Here's one article discussing them...

Boeing P-8A vs Kawasaki P-1: The comparison of modern MPAs.

Single comment on the P-8/P-1; MAD is a valid sensor and is worth its (low) overall weight on a MPA.  I've been ONSTA before and the Acoustics system went U/S;  while 'recovery of the Acoustic system' was in progress, we dropped down low and flew a MAD barrier between the surface force and LKP of the submerged contact. 

 

[Rifleman62]

Good video of ordnance loading on various US aircraft (closely related to CAS!)

https://www.facebook.com/116140569088136/videos/385580359022452/

Incredible Video of F-35|F-22|F-16|F-15|A-10 | Shows Its Insane Ability Loading |dropping bombs

 

[armrdsoul77]

Can we get in on a buy of these?