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

[WPA]

Just asking,

The type of conflicts that Canada is doing right now woulf it not be better to convert 4 130H into ground attact planes like the US uses as the new C130J are delivered.
DID the Four C-17 make it delivered free up C130? 
If anything more is need the CF-18 would be the better option and new reaper UAV's with hellfire missile and 250 pound bombs. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just asking,

The type of conflicts that Canada is doing right now woulf it not be better to convert 4 130H into ground attact planes like the US uses as the new C130J are delivered.
DID the Four C-17 make it delivered free up C130?   
If anything more is need the CF-18 would be the better option and new reaper UAV's with hellfire missile and 250 pound bombs. 

You mean the AC-130 Spectre gunship?

 

[George Wallace]

Just asking,

The type of conflicts that Canada is doing right now woulf it not be better to convert 4 130H into ground attact planes like the US uses as the new C130J are delivered.
DID the Four C-17 make it delivered free up C130?   
If anything more is need the CF-18 would be the better option and new reaper UAV's with hellfire missile and 250 pound bombs. 

This question has been asked and discussed in detail.  With a Search you will find that this is far too expensive a proposition for Canada to undertake.

 

[geo]

WPA, would you mind filling in your profile so we can know your background better?
(might save you a flame or two in the long run )

 

[OldSolduer]

Has the Harrier or similar V/STOL type a/c been mentioned?

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

I believe we are holding out for the F-35 in whatever final production variant emerges.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Has the Harrier or similar V/STOL type a/c been mentioned?

Yes, see this thread.

 

[George Wallace]

This question has been asked and discussed in detail.  With a Search you will find that this is far too expensive a proposition for Canada to undertake.

Yes, see this thread.

Anyone starting to wonder how some of these topics start to take up so many pages?

 

[thunderchild]

:cdnsalute: :cdnsalute:Two thoughts 1 south Korea is building the a-50 as a replacement for their f-5's.  It has a F404-400 an m61 cannon limited air to air and is a 2 seat / LIFT. the whole thing is is 80% of the size of an f-16 and costs about 22million per aircraft. I have more stats but I don't know if it is in flight refuelable. I prefer the JAS-39NG it uses the f-414 in the superhornet is truly multi role and has increased range and limited super cruse ability to 1.1MACH but is about 50 million each i think. According to CASR the AT-6B is 10 million per aircraft and has a limited useful load buta mix could a good idea.

 

[Michael OLeary]

:cdnsalute: :cdnsalute:Two thoughts 1 south Korea is building the a-50 as a replacement for their f-5's.  It has a F404-400 an m61 cannon limited air to air and is a 2 seat / LIFT. the whole thing is is 80% of the size of an f-16 and costs about 22million per aircraft. I have more stats but I don't know if it is in flight refuelable. I prefer the JAS-39NG it uses the f-414 in the superhornet is truly multi role and has increased range and limited super cruse ability to 1.1MACH but is about 50 million each i think. According to CASR the AT-6B is 10 million per aircraft and has a limited useful load buta mix could a good idea.

Start here:

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....

 

[thunderchild]

thanks for the info,  as I said I don't even imagiane that anthing could just be tossed into the mix.  I'm thinking about what could be used in 5-10 years time.  we're stuck with what we have ,we have harvard 2's moving to a armed version may not be such a strech as all CF piolts learn to fly them and parts and crews are available.  Im such a fan of the gripen because it is easily maintained in production since 1996 it is well armed and designed for use behind,in the midst of a hostile situation.  Personally the government should be equipping us to fight on our terms, but to me it seems smaller shorter wars more often is likely.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

Please use proper punctuation and grammar and spell check your submissions before you post.

Thank you.

The Army.ca Staff

 

[SupersonicMax]

thanks for the info,  as I said I don't even imagiane that anthing could just be tossed into the mix.  I'm thinking about what could be used in 5-10 years time.  we're stuck with what we have ,we have harvard 2's moving to a armed version may not be such a strech as all CF piolts learn to fly them and parts and crews are available.  Im such a fan of the gripen because it is easily maintained in production since 1996 it is well armed and designed for use behind,in the midst of a hostile situation.  Personally the government should be equipping us to fight on our terms, but to me it seems smaller shorter wars more often is likely.

We doN,t have parts, we don't own them.

 

[aesop081]

  we're stuck with what we have ,we have harvard 2's moving to a armed version may not be such a strech as all CF piolts learn to fly them and parts and crews are available. 

Are you German and living in Montreal by any chance ?

We may have pilots to fly them but we dont own the planes and we dont have military technicians to fix them. Oh wait, if we use them to fight, what are we supposed to use to train pilots ?

 

[HItorMiss]

CDN

We'll just get them to run around in a big open field and flap their arms while making machine gun noises with there mouths.  ;D

 

[thunderchild]

ok, I know that we don't own them and I'm not suggesting that we remove training aircraft from the flight line.  Any ground attack varients would have to be new builds.  as for tech support we can contract that out while we train our own.

 

[Old Sweat]

The Harvard was designed and is a trainer, nothing more and nothing else. Are you suggesting that we adopt an upgrade of a 1930's technology for something it was never to do, to support our troops in combat? It was tried before, by the way. In a fit of I don't know what, desperation perhaps, the Australians tried using a version called the Wirraway as a fighter in the early days of the Second World War. The results when the aircraft faced Zeroes were predictable.

 

[Danjanou]

CDN

We'll just get them to run around in a big open field and flap their arms while making machine gun noises with there mouths.  ;D

They're not doing that now? I'm sure Max mentioned the PO check on it in chat a few weeks back. 8)

 

[Adamant]

The Harvard was designed and is a trainer, nothing more and nothing else. Are you suggesting that we adopt an upgrade of a 1930's technology for something it was never to do, to support our troops in combat? It was tried before, by the way. In a fit of I don't know what, desperation perhaps, the Australians tried using a version called the Wirraway as a fighter in the early days of the Second World War. The results when the aircraft faced Zeroes were predictable.

As much as I agree that using the Harvards as an attack platform is dumb, I don't think that thunderchild was talking about the WWII-era Harvards.  I'm sure he meant the CT-156 Harvard II used by NFTC.

Just for clarification.

 

[Old Sweat]

It is still bascially a very old design that has been souped up like a street rod built from a Ford Model A.

Given the range of weapons and delivery systems and the ways available to control close air support these days, the whole premise is more than a little dubious, at least in my opinion.