Canada considers purchase of used US Army Chinooks

[Blakey]

Don't get me wrong, I hope the Air Force starts to reap the benefits of this new CDS soon, as well as the Navy. I believe the Air Force ( at least the TPT Sqn's 440 and the like) should have the capability to lift a Bn and its kit en masse and drop them into any theater of operations via Galaxy, globemasters ect. I am not one who is of the mind that the Infantry can (or could sustain) itsself without the support of the Air Force and Navy, that being said, if the Army did go the way of self sustainability, then Air Force role would be much the same. I would also like to see a comparable GA fighter to say, a F16 or something along those lines for the AF.

I think the TACCOM idea will work in the intrim, but as they (Air Force) find that they are finding it hard to staff these positions as well as regular Air Sqn w/ FE's, pilots ground crew ect, they will quickly start to lobby for their assets to returned to Air Command.

OK rotor heads good idea by Blakey and Me or are we both drinking lunch?

Supper here, and I'm diluting it with Clamato. 8)

EDIT: One caveat, this is coming from a 17 year Infantry type, and this is in no way a claim to know all about Air Force Operations...just my thought, observations and opinion.

 

[Good2Golf]

Duey (or anyone else...)
What would you think of an "Army Air Corps" ala USMC fashion. In which all air assets (fixed and rotary wing) are sole property of the Army, and as such all pilots of said ac are in fact Army. This would give the Army the assets that it needs, in house. (CAS, CSAR, UH, AH, etc..)
Thoughts? am I right out of 'er?, aren't there any zoomies, or wannabe zoomies that would want to be Army?

Blakey, prior to unification, I would have been an Army officer and aviator -- it worked fairlye well in the past...pre-unification.  After tac aviation turned into a bit of a ba$tard-child, borne of two parents but not really acknowledged by either.  This, interestingly, in stark contrast to the Navy's continued sense of ownership over maritime aviation.  Tac Aviation had a few different "ownership/funding" configurations (capital acquisition = Army, operations = Air Force) in the FMC days, but come 1992, the Air Force took overall all responsibility for aviation: capital, ops, fuel, system engineering support, PY's etc...  The Army only had a request/advisorial role to tell Air Command what it wanted.  Where the capability is today is testament to the lack of co-ordination and co-operation between the two elements.

It will be intersting to see how 427 works out...small correction, it's actually OPCOM to CANSOFCOM (vice TACCOM)...a noticably more intertwined relationship than originally envisaged by some folks.  There's a lot to the "why for" on that one...we'll have to see how it works out.  The Air Force is still responsible for manning, aircrew and maintenance standards, flight safety and accident investigation, and CANSOFCOM controls how the assets operationally generate and employ.  Jury's still out on that, but responsiveness to the user will likely increase noticeably.

One of the main reasons you won't see any other squadrons heading under Army control is based on the Chief's moves towards a more (truly) integrated force.  Moving aviation under any kind of command relationship beyond the inter-element tasking process of today would not be consistent with the regional delineation of assets within the respective regions and the regional commanders' purvue, i.e. what about aviation as a domestic capability doing things other than hard Army/green support?  It's also not to say that the Army would run things any better if they had more responsibility over aviation -- after all, as I've noted before, it was Comd FMC in 1989, LGen Ken Foster, when the Army still had the hammer for equipping and resourcing of "army" aviation (a.k.a. tac hel) who signed the death warrant for Chinook and Kiowa and started the process towards supplementing the Twin Huey (and eventually outright replacing it) with the CH146 Griffon.  Yup, the Army did it, not the Air Force...so I am very wary when I hear guys say, "it would be much better under Army control."  As in, when the Army scrapped three fleets (Chinook, Huey and Kiowa) for one?  See what I mean...nice to hear the sentiments in the bar, but the talk doesn't go far when it comes to the real world.  BGen MacDonald (IIRC) was also the Amry man at the table during DMC (Defence Management Council) when the recce pod (ERSTA) was being discussed for the Griffon.  VAdm Garnett asked who supported it (CH146 ERSTA - electro-optical recce surveillance and targert system) and not surprizingly got an avertive look towards the ceiling from MGen Bastien (A/CAS, and a fighter guy) and when Gen MacDonald was asked for the army position on the Griffon, he noted that there were many projects of greater importance than Griffon ERSTA and the project was officially killed (and, BTW, the $75M held in the CFUTTH project was redirected to the CF-188 System Life Extension Program [SLEP] and CP-140 Aurora Life Extension Program [ALEP]...convenient, hunh?)

Thus, while a nice though and raised for the right ideas, reality (which bites) causes things to turn out a little differently.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Blakey]

Duey (all)
Thank you for the frank points.
Duey, many thanks for the lenghty, informative reply.
I would probably not be able to do justice in replying to Duey's post at this time (busy with other matters... 8)), I will present my position more markedly in the near future.

Thank you again for the responses.

 

[Blakey]

small correction, it's actually OPCOM to CANSOFCOM (vice TACCOM)

Oops, my mistake.

when the Army still had the hammer for equipping and resourcing of "army" aviation (a.k.a. tac hel)

As stated earlier by myself, not being a SME on the aviation side of things, are you speaking of the "observers" position that was manned by Army Snr NCO's in the Kiowa?.

So this will kind of stand up as a "litmus test" with 427/CANSOFCOM?, is there any talk whatsoever (up in Air Command) that you know of, about possibly standing up (again?) an all "Army Air Corps"?.

It just seems that this Idea would better the two services, Army and Air, whereas the Army could equip, staff, maintain all of its air assets (fixed and rotary), while the Air Force could concentrate on heavy lift, TPT of (large numbers) troops and equipment etc...

I hope what I'm trying to suggest isn't that confusing, I just would like to see the us (Army) being capable of light to medium lift UH with a AH capability and some sort of fixed wing CAS. I honestly think that it could work.


Hope you can understand my ramblings  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

Blakey, at the end of the day, I think we're actually too small a force (tac aviation) to be considered as a uniquely "Army" asset.  Furthermore, the command and control structure is aligning with the regional commands, vice the 'pure' Army C2 structure.  If the Army were to be assigned OPCOM of all tactical aviation (less 427 SOAS), it would have to realize that in addition to its own force generation activities, the Army would also have to support all the non-Army things that tac aviation currently supports -- secondary SAR, national CF taskings (replacing batteries of microwave stations in North, public displays, domestic CD ops with RCMP/OPP/SQ, etc...).  Especially given the direction the CDS is heading with integral forces employed by the four new commands, a move of aviation from the Air Force to the Army is more like adjusting the accounting of who pays for what. 

Speaking frankly, folks should be under no illusion that what works for some large aviation forces (US, UK, etc...) would necessarily work as well for us.  I have spent most of my operational life working with the Army including most recently several years in Army doctrine and land force combat development staffs.  While I would like to think that tactical aviation would be better off as "Army Aviation", I honestly don't think that would necessarily be the case.  Regarding other users' C2 relationships, I suppose more will flow from seeing how 427 works out with CANSOFCOM in the future, but in contrast to many in the Army who are not particularly fussed with where aviation capability is, the SOF world is very keen on having spec ops aviation respond to its operational requirements.  Having recently spoken with many operators, I can confirm that the lads are very keen to have us working with them with whatever capacity we can squeeze out of the machines.  More often than not when I talk to folks in the Army, I get jokes and well-aged stories of "can't lift this, can't lift that", etc.... and never "lets see how we can maximize what you guys can give us".  It get tiring after a while, and it significantly affects the community's inclination to keep on trying to push rope with a user community that seems to continuously complain about the lack of capability.  Like it or not, guys will gravitate to operators that pull them in to the community vice those that continually razz them for what a machine that they had no part in procuring might or might not be capable of supporting.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Blakey]

Duey, good points.
Maybe I'm just so wrapped up with the idea that the Army should be self sufficient --to an extent--, I still believe that we (the Army) need Air Force and Navy support in order to successfully conduct operations either international or domestic.

Speaking frankly, folks should be under no illusion that what works for some large aviation forces (US, UK, etc...) would necessarily work as well for us

You're probably right, I think its more of a pipedream that I have, when it boils down to it, the government (present or any future) will not or would not lay down the money needed to stand-up an entirely separate aviation unit within the Canadian Army, but...everyone is entitled to their dreams I guess.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

The CF is smaller than the Marine Corps. They seem to have managed integrating the parts into one entity.  Admittedly they have an entirely expeditionary focus ... much like your new expeditionary command.

Sorry.... I suddenly hear a chorus of "It seems to me, I've heard that song before" coming on.

 

[beenthere]

Duey. Rather than a 6-10 split maybe give some consideration to periodic deployments to Edmonton during certain phases of troop training during the first years of working the Chinooks into ops. That would work out the details and practise of running detached operations without having to create another unit.
Training,development, and maintenance functions grow best under one healthy standard. In the past there were more than a few things that grew into general practise as a result of geographical/operational isolation without ever becoming recognized or approved.
When the dust has settled and requirements become better established if there's a requirement for a sqn in Edmonton one could be established and maybe it could be the reason for acquiring a couple of the latest new models with a few more buttons and bows.

 

[beenthere]

Beenthere's bringing up points that were valid not only in the past but would be quite relevant in the future as well.  This is along the same lines as my thinking, whereby splitting capability up into too many smaller packages turns out to be both more costly and, ironically, less effective (because of the reduced overall serviceability rate at the smaller detachments/units - a problem experienced on a near continuous basis at the 447/450 twin squadrons (3 and 4 ac respectively, after the loss of CH147002 in Ranking Inlet)

Lets say we have a fleet of 16 ac, the most I would split it up to would be, as a purely hypothetical example, 10 aircraft in Trenton and 6 in Edmonton (my gut feel for the level of support needed in support of the Army at Edmonton and support to CMTC in Wainright weighed against that provided to eastern Canadian Army units [Pet, Valcatraz and Gagetown] as well as CANSOFCOM.)  Trenton poses a challenge in that the squadron would not be in direct contact with the primary user as well as the potential lack of "tactical aviation" mind set (as this squadron would most likely fall under command of 8 Wing Trenton, an "ATG-esque" wing with a clear transport and SAR flavour to it...)  The latter is a bigger concern for me as there are different mind sets between 'tac hel' and 'transport/SAR' communities.  It would no doubt be a challenge to maintain operational effectiveness in a location that doesn't have responsiveness to Army and SOF components as an inherent/full-time task.  I'm not saying Trenton wouldn't work, it would just be a big challenge for all those folks in the squadron as they might appear more like "fish out of water" than members of a tightly integrated and operational Wing.  I suppose in its support, Trenton is getting more and more experience/exposure to deployed operations, which is definitely something the heavy-lifter would unquestionably be doing in the future.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey

Trenton is actually quite into the "tactical world" . Unfortunately because of restraints due to lack of airframes the quarterly TALEX exercises don't come off anymore but there is lots of the same thing going on.
A TALEX committed 12 aircraft and crews for about 10-14 days and was about as tactical as it comes for a CC-130. Lots of single ship airdrops worked up to 3, 6 and 12 ship formations and drops in a 24/7 operation.
From what I see from reading between the lines is that the Base Commander wants operational units to offset the high profile that The RCAF Museum has created so anything that flies and makes noise is an asset. The base is forever promoting it's commitment to the units that it houses.Everyone dresses in the new combat duds and the place has taken on a whole new look and commitment.
That's a far cry from the ugly duckling welcome that awaited 450 Sqn. in Uplands..We had to move all of our ugly vehicles over to the former fighter Q Hangar where they would not be seen by the visiting public.

 

[Good2Golf]

Duey. Rather than a 6-10 split maybe give some consideration to periodic deployments to Edmonton during certain phases of troop training during the first years of working the Chinooks into ops. That would work out the details and practise of running detached operations without having to create another unit.
Training,development, and maintenance functions grow best under one healthy standard. In the past there were more than a few things that grew into general practise as a result of geographical/operational isolation without ever becoming recognized or approved.
When the dust has settled and requirements become better established if there's a requirement for a sqn in Edmonton one could be established and maybe it could be the reason for acquiring a couple of the latest new models with a few more buttons and bows.

Beenthere, fully agree...I'd keep all the machines in one location -- Trenton doesn't seem like a bad idea, and do TD runs to CMTC in Wainright when required.  Re: 450's SMP vehicles...we had them back at the squadron in the late -80's/early-90's...the public didn't seem to mind.  Shameful that some green-suited micro-managers actually thought up the idea of hiding our trucks in the Q-hangars... :-\

Cheers,
Duey

 

[beenthere]

Duey.The Relocation of the 450 Sqn. from St.Hubert to Uplands was somewhat odd by any means. It came as a result of one of those rather quick and suspicious political announcements that are followed by actions that don't really make much sense. As I recall there was an announcement that "military flying from St. Hubert would cease."That was made about early 1970.
At that time St. Hubert had 429 Sqn. with a number of Buffalos, 450 Sqn. with CH-113As and the Air Reserve Unit with Single Otters all of which belonged to Mobile Command. The Buffalos were moved to Trenton and Edmonton and given to Air Transport Command in what was later revealed to have been a somewhat sneaky move engineered by ATG.  450 Sqn. was moved to Uplands which was not in favour of having the squadron on their base for some reason and the Base Commander actually stated that sentiment publicly. The Air Reserve Unit continued to operate at St. Hubert and still does so.
After the CF-100s moved to North Bay, 436 Sqn. moved to Trenton and AETES moved to Cold Lake Uplands was getting pretty bare looking and 450 Sqn. and 2AFMS became big time operators on the hangar line.There were SMP trucks all over Uplands and they were welcome. Too bad that someone made another one of those announcements and we lost a line of great hangars at Uplands.

 

[Good2Golf]

Duey.The Relocation of the 450 Sqn. from St.Hubert to Uplands was somewhat odd by any means. It came as a result of one of those rather quick and suspicious political announcements that are followed by actions that don't really make much sense. As I recall there was an announcement that "military flying from St. Hubert would cease."That was made about early 1970.
At that time St. Hubert had 429 Sqn. with a number of Buffalos, 450 Sqn. with CH-113As and the Air Reserve Unit with Single Otters all of which belonged to Mobile Command. The Buffalos were moved to Trenton and Edmonton and given to Air Transport Command in what was later revealed to have been a somewhat sneaky move engineered by ATG.  450 Sqn. was moved to Uplands which was not in favour of having the squadron on their base for some reason and the Base Commander actually stated that sentiment publicly. The Air Reserve Unit continued to operate at St. Hubert and still does so.
After the CF-100s moved to North Bay, 436 Sqn. moved to Trenton and AETES moved to Cold Lake Uplands was getting pretty bare looking and 450 Sqn. and 2AFMS became big time operators on the hangar line.There were SMP trucks all over Uplands and they were welcome. Too bad that someone made another one of those announcements and we lost a line of great hangars at Uplands.

Yup, what went around, came around....again.  We were in the 7 Wing mess at Uplands for the reading of the '94 budget that there was an announcement in that actual speech that a "tactical helicopter squadron" would be moving from Uplands to St-Hubert...didn't take much imagination to figure who was moving...    Merci, Monsieur Masse

Who knows...maybe after standing down in St-Hubert, 450 will stand up in Trenton, to meet up with its (old school, down deep 10TAG) brothers, the Buffs? 

Cheers,
Duey

p.s.  It was a real shame to fly in to Ottawa one time and taxi past the flat expanse that used to be my 10 Hangar home...  :'(

 

[beenthere]

What's the latest on this? I was away for the month of June and haven't  heard anything other than the announcement that there had been a plan to get 17 aircraft within the next few years. I saw press coverage in three newspapers but they were all similar and lacking in detail.

 

[geo]

it's been announced that we're going to get them (maybe, sometime, possibly) but no detail on it's financing and no detail on source / type of aircraft.