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

[aesop081]

There are insufficient numbers of NASP airframes

Thats a contractual issue. If the Government wants more planes from NASP contractor, all it has to do is ask.

and the shortening of CP-140 numbers mean that there is a shortfall there as well.

Of course it creates a shortfall. It creates a shortfall in an area that a CP-142 cannot support.

Bring the CT-142 up to CP-142 standard, it makes a better trainer anyway.

Sure.

Add airframes to fully equip the Sqdn as a Patrol/OCU Sqdn.

And what is it going to patrol ? The Manitoba lakes ?

If the Sqdn is going to stay as a training asset only, cut it loose to the civvie sector. It shouldn't be any different than any other flight training done by the Air Force.

I'm sure that when the CT-142 life-expires, that is what will happen.

As it stands the Sqdn is under-equipped to serve any role other than training and the assets can be used elsewhere.

It is under-equiped for its training role. Lets not scatter its assets to other missions wich are already filled by other assets.

A capable military demands that we do better.

Certainly not by modernizing an old airframe for a mission that is already being done by brand new KA and .......Dash-8s.

 

[x-zipperhead]

CP-142???  ???  oi,oi,oi.  What next.  Thinking outside the box is well and good, but come on.  Besides the fact that, like CDN Aviator pointed out, there's too few of them as it is and they would be inadequate in a patrol capacity, you seem to dismiss the importance of force generation in favour of finding an operational use for every airframe.  All these different airframes with a multitude of operational tasks aren't much good if you can't train pilots and crews to fly them.  Once you have training establishments competing with operations for the training use of airplanes then you are going to experience a reduction in the production of the aircrew you need.  It ain't sexy but you have to accept that you need schools and airplanes dedicated to training. 

Maybe a little biased since I am in one of those training organizations

 

[a_majoor]

Back to the main argument, more thinking about the "Green Airforce" seems to be going back to airmobile and "Air Cavalry" concepts of the late 1950's and early 1960's, where the concept grew beyond supporting the manouevre commander to being the manouevre force. I believe the most fully fleshed out example was the 11th Air Assault Division (Test), which was the imediate predecessor of the 1rst Air Cavalry. The primary difference was the formation had integral fixed wing aircraft as well, including "Buffalo" or "Carribou" light transport airplanes for logistical support of dispersed formations.

A Canadian version of the idea was floated here, and can be considered an attempt to merge the ideals of airmobility with a view to cost constraints. How realistic the idea actually is is for the reader to decide.

 

[McG]

CAS should remain a manned venue for the time being.

UAVs have serious shortcomings in situational awareness ...

Sure, but I wonder ...

.... the working acronym is LASSO (Light Airborne Security, Strike and Observation).

It seems to me that striking and observing are things that a UAV can do pretty well.  What does "Light Airborne Security" entail that makes a "Cheap multirole aircraft" better suited than a UAV?

Keep in mind that we also have the CF-18 (with its on-board pilots) doing CAS.  If this were augmented with a strike UAV, the two types of aircraft should be employed such that thier strenghts compliment eachoter.  Is there a critical capability gap in a CF-18 and UAV organization that would not exist in a CF-18 and "Cheap multirole aircraft" organization?

 

[Steve Daly]

Too many issues for me to answer in my available time right now... but I will address them in due course.

LASSO is an answer to a question that should have been asked, but never was. Primarily, it removes the need to divert front-line combat forces to provide security in rear areas. That's why the focus is on cheap multirole platforms. Situational Awareness is the biggest factor. Current generation UAVs have severe limitations in the SA realm.

Having an expanded CP-142 fleet patrol the Manitoba lakes might be something for the future, but I would think that deploying for NorPats, patrolling the Great Lakes or patrolling the US-Canada border were all higher priority. Feel free to make a case for any area you think needs patrolling though.

btw, having a Sqdn train and have an operational role has worked quite well in Fighter Group for about half a century... no reason that the model can't be equally well applied by a patrol unit. Mostly it entails training sorties supporting an operational tasking on an 'as required' basis. Think about it... does the CP-142 need to be in Winterpeg to train, or can it be deployed to conduct OJT?

 

[McG]

.... Situational Awareness is the biggest factor. Current generation UAVs have severe limitations in the SA realm. ...

Arguably, the same vague statement could be made of a manned aircraft too.  It looks to me that you are presenting opinion as fact, and expecting other readers to simply accept that your underlying arguments are sound.

LASSO is an answer to a question that should have been asked, but never was. Primarily, it removes the need to divert front-line combat forces to provide security in rear areas.

Maybe an answer in search of a question.  Is there really a requirement for a dedicated RAS CAS platform (or would that be CAS RAS??!)?

 

[Michael OLeary]

By all means, sell a plan for a dedicated Rear Area Security fighter.  And once the estimate has been completed for the Commander, the plan will ensure that they will be diverted to RAS if and when they are needed, but only as long as the Commander's plan will not be detrimentally affected by their retasking.

 

[Kirkhill]

LASSO is an answer to a question that should have been asked, but never was. Primarily, it removes the need to divert front-line combat forces to provide security in rear areas. That's why the focus is on cheap multirole platforms. Situational Awareness is the biggest factor. Current generation UAVs have severe limitations in the SA realm.

I'm afraid that I am not following.   We can't afford line of communications troops to secure our rear but we are to find the funds and personnel to recreate something akin to the 2ATAF  of 9th Air Force of WW2 and have them supply 24 hour cab-rank service?   Even with the full resources of WW2 that service couldn't be supplied - and that was just to supply strike forces, let alone supply your 24 hour observation and security tasks.

 

[aesop081]

Having an expanded CP-142 fleet patrol the Manitoba lakes might be something for the future,

Why ? Is there some threat in the lakes area i missed while i was flying there ?

but I would think that deploying for NorPats,

Ever done one of those ?

patrolling the Great Lakes or patrolling the US-Canada border were all higher priority.

More of a law enforcement mission that a military one is that case.

btw, having a Sqdn train and have an operational role has worked quite well in Fighter Group for about half a century... no reason that the model can't be equally well applied by a patrol unit.

Its already being done by the LRP comunity. Its called 404 LRP&T Sqn.

Mostly it entails training sorties supporting an operational tasking on an 'as required' basis.

I wouldnt know anything about what an OTU does, i'm only a gradute from 404.

Think about it... does the CP-142 need to be in Winterpeg to train, or can it be deployed to conduct OJT?

I wouldnt know about that as i only learned my job on the CT-142 in Winnipeg. Theres a good reason that most flying training in this country happens away from Major centers and around flat open terrain.

 

[x-zipperhead]

btw, having a Sqdn train and have an operational role has worked quite well in Fighter Group for about half a century... no reason that the model can't be equally well applied by a patrol unit. Mostly it entails training sorties supporting an operational tasking on an 'as required' basis. Think about it... does the CP-142 need to be in Winterpeg to train, or can it be deployed to conduct OJT?

True, just as 404 Sqn does in the LRP community.  The difference is those are operational training squadrons, meaning they are training wings qualified pilots and crews to be effective on those platforms in an operational environment.  As a result, they can fulfill limited operational missions.  The CT-142 is used to train ab-intio aircrew (brand new), who cannot be employed operationally.    If you want to find a medium range patrol platform, if that is even required, there may be better choices than the Dash-8.  The CT-142 has a mission to train ab-intio Navigators & AES Ops.  It is well suited and it is situated in a good place to fulfill that mission.  Just as the CT-156 is dedicated to training ab-initio pilots.

I don't want to derail the topic here, but you seem to be dismissing the need for dedicated resources to train ab-intio aircrew. 

Anyway back to the CT-156 being used in a CAS role.  It's an interesting idea. Relatively inexpensive and would provide increased CAS.  One thing that comes to mind though is that when we acquire such a airplane is it just for Afganistan?  Granted, it would be superb there as we have total air superiority. We probably will be out of there in the next few years.  Would a hundred havards be much good to us in any potential conflict with an enemy who actually has it's own airforce.  Are we acquiring for an immediate need or a medium to long term rationalized procurement of assets that will meet our defence needs in decades to come?

 

[a_majoor]

Assuming that we or our allies (more likely) will provide and maintain air superiority over the AOR, then there are few arguments against "FOB CAS", the "Green Airforce" or related concepts. I should note that in the beginning of the thread the need for aircraft with some high performance attributes was suggested, since they could be pressed into service against enemy air threats (even if the threat is enemy UAV's or their own "Green Airforce"), as well as to maintain quick response time. Note the kickoff aircraft for the thought experiment was the CF-5; a relatively "hot" machine, although with limited "legs" or payload.

This LASSO concept really seems like creating an airmobile manoeuvre force (unless I am reading this wrong), and these ideas have been floated and tested many times since the late 1950's. Fixed wing aircraft integrated into the airmobile manoeuvre force would seem to have lots of advantages, turboprop aircraft can certainly keep up with and escort the helicopters, and fixed wing transport aircraft can provide much greater logistical leverage to fast moving and widely dispersed forces. Given the desire for more capable CAS platforms, turbofan powered A-10 analogues might be the ideal choice (given nothing like the A-10 is being built today, we can call the hypothetical machine the A-x)

Given the limitations in overall resources to create pilots, airframes and infrastructure, I am very tempted to suggest the one "high impact" airframe we should be looking at for the manoeuvre commander is a FAC platform, which can provide real time observation of the AOR and vector in and control various assets in support of the manoeuvre commander. Given the high threat nature of the job from ground fire, a two seat OV-x would be the ideal, and given the will and resources to create that, then the next step of introducing an A-x is both logical and justified. (A airborn FAC also has some ability to act as a DF platform in his own right, many FAC aircraft in the past carried rocket pods to mark targets, and a WP warhead is always guaranteed to get attention). OF course a modern FAC also has the option to lase a target and guide a JDAM from an orbiting B-2 as well....

 

[Steve Daly]

OK, ignoring the concepts that aren't really part of this thread...

LASSO, as a concept, has nothing to do with airmobile forces, but it could support such forces.

Basic taskings would include:

1. Airborne Security. The platform should be able to patrol an area and deter/deny Special Forces or irregular troops access to the area.  This is basically a COIN role. Protection of logistics/communication nodes and such assets as harbours/airfields is also part of the tasking.

2. Light Strike.  To accomplish (1) the platform should be able to engage detected targets with guns/missile fire as required.

3. Anti-Helicopter. Killing choppers that intrude into the rear area is also required.

4.  Point Air-Defence.  The ability to engage UAVs, cruise missiles or conventional strike aircraft is desirable.  The basic goal here is to extend the air-defence envelope of a high-value target to begin the process of attrition further out or to deny a hostile force the use of UAVs over a potential target.

5. Observation. To accomplish the tasking the platform is going to require sensors such as EO/IR turrets and radar. SAR radar is probably a requirement. A complex A-A radar is likely not needed, even if missiles such as AMRAAM are carried they can be used co-operatively with another platform responsible for datalink target info and mid-course guidance.

The 'inspiration' is the WWII CVE escort carrier. The CVE freed up more capable units to carry out the real front-line battle. CVEs protected rear areas and carried the brunt of the ASW battle late in the Atlantic War. In the Pacific the role was a little more wide open, protection of amphib forces ashore and fire support to those forces was quite common. The closest aircraft to my envisioned concept would be the 1980's British Aerospace SABA (Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft). SABA was A-A optimized, but a mud-moving capability is a natural extension.

The thing needs to be cheap enough that it doesn't break the bank. The basic idea is to free more regular forces for the main battle, not defeat those forces by sucking up huge amounts of defence dollars.

Note: The CF-156B concept is not really fully compliant with the LASSO concept. The CF-156B is somewhat lacking in performance and lacks a radar (though one could easily be fitted). Something like the Piper Enforcer would be a better match, but a tailwheel aircraft is not going to gain much traction these days.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Do you know a radar weights about 1000 lbs at the minimum and the max weight of the Harvard is 6500 lbs?  You would bring his payload to virtually 0.

 

[Michael OLeary]

OK, ignoring the concepts that aren't really part of this thread...

It's not much of a debate if you're only on "send" with your one theory.  And it's the fastest way to get people to ignore you.  If you have a proposal that you actually want to try and develop some support for, then you should be prepared to debate and defend it in detail, including the tangential concerns of other willing posters.  If your approach is simply to ignore any information which doesn't fit your plan, you've already failed.

 

[Steve Daly]

Do you know a radar weights about 1000 lbs at the minimum and the max weight of the Harvard is 6500 lbs?  You would bring his payload to virtually 0.

SupersonicMax, the AN/APG-67 radar weighs all of 160 Lbs. The LYNX SAR/GMTI radar weighs even less at approx. 115 Lbs. Either radar would be suitable now that later variants of the APG-67 have SAR capability. The APG-67 would also confer full AMRAAM capability if that were desired.  Fit would probably need to be in a wingtip nacelle such as was carried by the Hellcat and Corsair night fighters of WWII. Field of view would admittedly suffer somewhat. AN/APG-67: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/7729.pdf Lynx: http://www.ga-asi.com/products/lynxSAR.php

Micheal O'Leary, I'm ignoring the concepts not part of this thread... because they shouldn't be part of this thread. If you, or anyone else, wants to discuss them in another thread that's cool. It's basic forum manners to not drag a thread off-topic and this was getting way out of hand. Tangential concerns are one thing, direction changes are another. Discussion of patrol aircraft, patrol areas and utilization of training assets in operational, albeit secondary, roles doesn't quite fit with 'Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?' now is it? Debate and discussion are all very well and good. It stretches the mind and, if nothing else, forces the person defending a position to more fully understand it themselves.

There are some tangential concerns that are probably quite valid here, such as the use of CAS/COIN aircraft to support a deployed airmobile force. LASSO platforms would be even more capable in that role, but I hadn't originally weighed rough-field capability amongst the desired attributes... but hey, why not? LASSO v LASSO combat is something I hadn't thought of as well, and probably should have.  If weapons exist they will probably face each other.

 

[aesop081]

Micheal O'Leary, I'm ignoring the concepts not part of this thread...

Excuse me but you are the one who brought it up so now you are stuck with it. Adress the points brought forward by people who fly/have flown maritime patrol and have flown the 142.

because they shouldn't be part of this thread. If you, or anyone else, wants to discuss them in another thread that's cool. It's basic forum manners to not drag a thread off-topic and this was getting way out of hand. Tangential concerns are one thing, direction changes are another. Discussion of patrol aircraft, patrol areas and utilization of training assets in operational, albeit secondary, roles doesn't quite fit with 'Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?' now is it? Debate and discussion are all very well and good. It stretches the mind and, if nothing else, forces the person defending a position to more fully understand it themselves.

You are the new guy here so dont think for a second that you can lecture the rest of us on what is proper form or not within this forum.

Have a great day.

 

[Steve Daly]

CDN Aviator, I'm not going to wander afield just because your sensibilities demand answers. If the issue is important to you, start a thread. If the issue is unimportant, don't start a thread. I really couldn't care much one way or another, I used the idea as an example only... if the example was rejected I would normally just look for another, better, example.

You are the new guy here so dont think for a second that you can lecture the rest of us on what is proper form or not within this forum.

I wouldn't think of lecturing folks on what is proper form within this forum. I will, however, remain bound by the acceptable behavior required at the majority of forums where I've been a member. This forum is nowhere near as active as others where I've been a member or a mod, perhaps things can be somewhat looser here and still work out OK.

And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress...

 

[OldSolduer]

How about an upgraded two seat biplane with the observer tossing hand grenades out the back?
Just a bit of humour. ;D

 

[SupersonicMax]

SupersonicMax, the AN/APG-67 radar weighs all of 160 Lbs. The LYNX SAR/GMTI radar weighs even less at approx. 115 Lbs. Either radar would be suitable now that later variants of the APG-67 have SAR capability. The APG-67 would also confer full AMRAAM capability if that were desired.  Fit would probably need to be in a wingtip nacelle such as was carried by the Hellcat and Corsair night fighters of WWII. Field of view would admittedly suffer somewhat. AN/APG-67: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/7729.pdf Lynx: http://www.ga-asi.com/products/lynxSAR.php

Micheal O'Leary, I'm ignoring the concepts not part of this thread... because they shouldn't be part of this thread. If you, or anyone else, wants to discuss them in another thread that's cool. It's basic forum manners to not drag a thread off-topic and this was getting way out of hand. Tangential concerns are one thing, direction changes are another. Discussion of patrol aircraft, patrol areas and utilization of training assets in operational, albeit secondary, roles doesn't quite fit with 'Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?' now is it? Debate and discussion are all very well and good. It stretches the mind and, if nothing else, forces the person defending a position to more fully understand it themselves.

There are some tangential concerns that are probably quite valid here, such as the use of CAS/COIN aircraft to support a deployed airmobile force. LASSO platforms would be even more capable in that role, but I hadn't originally weighed rough-field capability amongst the desired attributes... but hey, why not? LASSO v LASSO combat is something I hadn't thought of as well, and probably should have.  If weapons exist they will probably face each other.

You know that with the radar comes the wiring, the new hardares, etc, etc.  That's what's heavy in the end.  It all adds up.  Where would you put the radar?  I can't seem to find any space for it.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Steve Daly,

From my perspective what is appears that you have done is yank a capability concept out of your ass, given it a pretty acronym, and now are busily waving away any suggestion that your argument isn't fully developed from a task assessment or capability requirement perspective.  Additionally, you seem to be ignoring, or just haven't offered, details concerning a reasoned argument to justify the expense and efforts to develop a modified capability. What, exactly, makes you so well positioned to be the inventor/champion of this concept which you seem to imply has been ignored by the existing establishment?

So, before we put the cart before the horse by situating the estimate and leaping right to a fancy acronym and selection of airframe, lets start with your arguments to prove a deficiency exists that cannot be met by existing resources.  And source data would be welcome to help shape your argument.

Next, since the defence budget is not unlimited, what capability(ies) get cut to fund this new one?  And how do you demonstrate that your proposal is of greater value?

And, while we're n the subject of poorly presented proposals:

The following is recovered from a number of old threads and posted here for reference:

If you want to start proposing new aircraft programs, start with these points:

Tasks and roles to be conducted.
Aircrew training requirements.
Aircraft maintenance lifecycle.
Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks.
Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support.
Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations.

As you can see, simply comparing statistics or unit costs doesn't quite scratch the surface of what you are proposing....

As anyone that's been to one of our staff colleges can tell you, you win no points by assuming problems away, or by jumping to a preferred solution without examining and dealing with the details.

If this is such a great idea, then lay down the basics of the estimate showing why we need it, and how we can afford it. If it's not worth that effort, then it's just another wild-assed wish list idea.