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

[Colin Parkinson]

It's ironic that a air force type would deride Chaff, I think it would be your best friend when a radar wants to lock on you!!  ;D

The government does make the final decision, but not in a vacuum, they relay on the Senior Commands for advice, the pressure from Allies and Representatives from the companies and the workers in factories in their riding's, plus I suspect interest groups and cool TV shows about the latest miltary gizmo the minister saw on Saturday.

 

[Good2Golf]

[slightly OT]

CF-18's have been pitched, several times.  They performed exemplary duty during OP ALLIED FORCE in Kosovo, but they are deployed on the direction of the Government, not on the wishes of the Air Force.  As others have noted, there has not been a shortage of offensive air support or battlefied air interdiction identified by NATO to request nations to provide more assets.  That's where it stops.  To imply that there is risk aversion on the part of the Air Force that causes the the case to be made not to deploy forces is uninformed at best.  Government is not sending them -- that appears to be 'point finale' -- that's life, we move on.   

Air support? 

What FOO here will say that with a 10-digit grid and tgt altitude, that they would not be able to effectively call in fires?  Question -- is a 10-digit grid and alt from a TUAV any less valuable than one from a FOO in the conduct of a fire mission?  Yup....thought so.  UAV capability only getting better.

Do the guys resupplied by CC130 airdrop when all other methods failed complain about not beinbg supported by air?  Yup....thought so again.

The list goes on, and will get longer in the near future....a little bit of introspective honesty in the CF's contributions in support of, and within the theatre would go a long way.

G2G

 

[McG]

[slightly OT]

I don't think it is off topic at all.  If one cannot demonstrate a requirement for "FOB CAS" because a network of existing CAS and UAV are meeting all of our needs, then it becomes very difficult to argue for such aircraft.  If "FOB CAS" will not result in aircraft on station any sooner (or more consistently), then there is no basis for calling on fixed wing attack aircraft to be staged any more forward; the existing procedure of flying from theatre bases (KAF, BAF, etc) or from out of country can meet our needs.

If effects on the ground are the point of concern, then capabilities of those aircraft flying from theatre bases should be examined.  If availability/responce time of aircraft is a concern, then perhaps more are required or perhaps more strike UAV should supplement the manned aircraft.

Going back to my earlier point, whatever the capability deficiency (real or perceived), it is not in our best interests to buy a low-intensity only CAS platform because this will only risk soldiers and airmen wherever out next theatre turns out to be.

 

[Old Sweat]

I second MCG's remarks. (I was going to say more, but my points do not require repitition.)

All I will add is what about air defence, including small arms in air defence?

 

[a_majoor]

I do believe that "FOB CAS" or a "Green Airforce" is desirable from several points of view: the availability of assets to the manouevre commander and the shortened response time for assets to get on station. As well, considering the huge logistical demands of high performance aircraft, a "Green Airforce" might actually be easier to deploy (and could also make self deploying the field force possible as well).

Obviously the Green Airforce would not look anything like the Blue Airforce, perhaps being heavily weighted towards armed UAVs and light cargo aircraft, but is the Blue Airforce is focused on their job at the higher end of the scale, then I don't believe that the Green Airforce will need to be too worried about enemy air power, and between the two will also have the means to deal with many levels of enemy air defenses.

WRT air defenses, it seems that even very sophisticated and high tech aircraft are vulnerable to small arms fire when they try to get "down and dirty". US aircraft losses in Viet Nam, Argentinian aircraft running out of fuel and crashing on the way home due to holed fuel tanks and Apache helicopters being shot down by SA fire during OIF come to mind. Even worse is the way low tech can be adapted against aircraft, certain types of mines and IED's can be rigged to be triggered by the downwash of a helicopter rotor, for example. The only solutions there are either "flying tanks" or changing TTPs on a constant basis to throw the air defenders off.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thucydides - what particular effects do you want the CAS to bring to the field?

Do you want more "eyes on"?

Do you want a flying machine gun platform?

Do you want to drop HE on targets, and if so what sizes (2 kg, 20 kg, 200 kg or 2000 kg)?

I would suggest to you that beyond the machine gun platform that there are other means of delivering those capabilities.  And if it is the machine gun platform you want then you move into the A-10/AC-130 realm for fixed wing solutions. Meanwhile rotary wing platforms are available for that task.

What would a Light Attack Aircraft contribute that could not be covered by a mix of UAVs, HIMARS/GMRLS/MRLS and helos?

 

[a_majoor]

If I had to prioritize (it is not easy making priorities you know!), I would say "eyes on" is first, and rapid DF second, with bomb hauling third.

While I started with the CF-5 as an example, the idea has evolved from catalogue shopping, so a "Green" UAV or new ideas like the LAMV are worth considering. More to follow.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would this fit into the mix?

The lurker bomb that can hover for ten hours... and then strike its target  in the space of a minuteBy Peter Almond
Last updated at 2:38 AM on 12th October 2008

A revolutionary missile that can stalk a target until the perfect moment to strike is being developed by the Ministry of Defence for use against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The so-called lurker bomb will also be able to shadow British troops for up to ten hours or 100 miles, ready to take out enemy targets with surgical precision at a minute’s notice.
The 12ft weapon – officially named Fire Shadow and made in Britain by leading missile manufacturer MBDA – will be operated by the Royal Artillery.

Source: The Daily Mail

Graphics on the link.  50lb/20kg warhead.

 

[YZT580]

Admittedly, I am not, repeat, not an expert in the delivery of munitions but I am an expert in aviation concepts and one issue that is not forthcoming in this discussion is the advantage of having real eyes lurking overhead and watching the activities going on below.  Returning veterans from Viet Nam all spoke of the comfort of having an FAC overhead during a firefight with one of those big old sky raiders (not a jet) that was able to lumber in when needed.  They weren't fast, they weren't pretty but they certainly did the job. 

I also suspect that much of the efforts of 'the other guy' is to identify means of interfering with the electronics on the UAVs and this will happen eventually.  All in all, there would seem to be much to be said for having an A-10 style aircraft in the inventory, even more so than helicopters which are slower and more vulnerable (me thinks)

 

[Steve Daly]

CAS should remain a manned venue for the time being.

UAVs have serious shortcomings in situational awareness, they are overloading the existing network infrastructure and the loss rate in routine ops is 5-10 times that of a manned platform. UAVs also have shortcomings in the type of weapons that may be employed, they are fine for long range engagements with missile/LGBs or newer GPS guided weapons... but they suffer horribly when the job requires strafing or engaging a close-in popup target.

A couple of generations down the road and UCAVs may be suitable for the CAS role, until then we need a man to be not just in the loop, but in the cockpit.

 

[Steve Daly]

Hello all!

I found this site while seeing where my CF-156B concept had wandered off to on the web. 

I noticed that the previous subject discussing the concept had been somewhat 'spoiled' by the apparent presence of someone who really didn't understand the concept. Or perhaps  didn't understand any concept... I wasn't quite sure.

For clarity, the original article can be found at: http://www.casr.ca/mp-army-aviation-coin-daly.htm with an accompanying 'Modest Proposal' at: http://www.casr.ca/mp-army-aviation-coin-daly.htm  The included attachment shows a rather different view of the Snowbirds than many may be familiar with. The image is based on the original CASR article artwork.

Any feedback welcome.

 

[Schafer]

Interesting concept..... It would be just like in Vietnam when rescue choppers would be flying into save a downed pilot they were escorted by prop driven aircraft that provided protection. Personally I like the idea, but in reality due to date the CF has been given to withdraw forces from the sandbox. It is unlikely that we would have this, if it were to ever be approved. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.....

But good idea.

 

[Steve Daly]

Despite the merged thread which brings my other post here...

The CF-156B concept is not just for COIN or CAS roles. In fact, COIN as a role should be hastened to a quick and ignoble death. I'm working on a new concept which would replace COIN with a new acronym, and a new mission profile. At present the working acronym is LASSO (Light Airborne Security, Strike and Observation). Cheap multirole aircraft doing a variety a valuable roles with minimum modification, that is something Canada can afford and the rest of NATO actually can use.

On the CAS side, we have to acknowledge that Canada is never going to be able to afford a dedicated CAS/BAI platform. CAS/BAI is going to be limited to whatever capability the CF-18 replacement brings to the table.

Even if Canada were to be interested in purchasing later Mks of the BA Hawk, the latest version has a flyaway price in excess of $30M C/airframe. To acquire any useful number we start talking about an order in excess of $1B C!

Not within the next 25 years... by then UCAVs should be suitable and Canada might look at that capability.

btw... How do I get this forum software to stop displaying my email? None of the profile options seem to make any difference and I'll be damned if I'm going to advertise a valid email addy for any spambot that is lurking!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Your email when in italics can only be seen by you, the DS and the Forum owner.

 

[Steve Daly]

Thanks Ex-Dragoon!

I'm used to other boards where it displays as 'Hidden' when not being displayed. Different forum, different software... got to get used to the differences.

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

 

[a_majoor]

CAS as supplied by the "Green Airforce" would rely on a mixture of airframes and systems. I can certainly see manned FACs as an important part of the mix, but what goes in after the target might be an armed UAV, a rotary wing platform or an intelligent munition like Kirkhill highlighted (or similar weapons like "Tacit Rainbow" or ALARM; an anti radar cruise missile from the late 1980s and a British anti radiation missile respectively).

The FAC would also have access to other "Green" systems as well, so if a target can be services by artillery, mortars or a nearby LAV then the FAC should have access to the appropriate nets to call it in.

The other thing a "Green Airforce" should be able to supply is rapid logistical support, both for the aircraft and the supported ground forces as well (although this is probably the subject of a different thread. Mods, is starting a "Green Airforce" thread from this point appropriate?)

 

[WrenchBender]

Some of the things that are being bandied about here are included in the INGRESS program for the CH146.

WrenchBender

 

[Steve Daly]

INGRESS should have been nose mounted to free up a weapons pylon. It's just another example of the head shed trying to get things implemented quickly in case the politicos change their mind and tighten the purse strings.

A 'Green Airforce' might have certain appeal, but it's just going to get in the way of fleet rationalization and commonality. It's also going to start a war between various political factions within the military. A much better way to go would be to better integrate capabilities that support the ground forces with capabilities that the Air Force want.

An example would be upgrading the CT-142 Gonzo Nav trainers to full CP-142 patrol aircraft. They can still be used in the training role, but an expanded fleet with updated sensors also provides the Air Force, and supported forces, with an enhanced surveillance capability.

A Green Airforce means we get back to the situation that saw the CF get rid of the CH-147s, the boys in blue saw no utility in them as perceived 'Army' assets. None of the elements are going to support any capability that doesn't seem to bring them an advantage.  If we want an airborne capability for the Army, we have to design for the Air Force. It's all a matter of stroking egos, stroke the wrong one and you're wasting your time. Stroke the right ego and whole worlds of possibilities open up.

To design a CAS capability for the Army, first figure out what the exact Army needs are. Then figure out what those capabilities, or extensions of those capabilities, bring to the Air Force. Offer up a desirable option, not an imposition on an already tight budget.

 

[aesop081]

An example would be upgrading the CT-142 Gonzo Nav trainers to full CP-142 patrol aircraft.

No.

The CT-142 , all 4 of them, are not enough as it is to provide for the required production of ANAVs and the soon-to-be increase in production of AES Ops. We cannot afford to send them to do anything else. Even if we were to buy more Dash-8s, several of them would be needed at CFANS.

Short and medium range coast patrols is already well in the hands of the NASP and long-range by the CP-140.

 

[Steve Daly]

There are insufficient numbers of NASP airframes and the shortening of CP-140 numbers mean that there is a shortfall there as well.

Bring the CT-142 up to CP-142 standard, it makes a better trainer anyway. Add airframes to fully equip the Sqdn as a Patrol/OCU Sqdn.

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

Ultimately, we should be looking to get as much utility as possible from each asset. Training assets can have a valuable wartime role if the imagination is there. I was in 414 (EW) Sqdn when Ottawa and AirCom told us the Sqdn had no wartime role. There could have been one, but the head shed wouldn't listen. Instead a valuable asset was on the budget chopping block as just another training-only asset to be axed.

A capable military demands that we do better.