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

[Loachman]

Others can dabble with limited-capability niche aircraft as much as they wish. We cannot afford the luxury.

 

[Good2Golf]

I can hear the carbon-fibre wing spar splintering from here when it takes a round or two in the seized-rotor...  :blotto:

 

[Kirkhill]

Others can dabble with limited-capability niche aircraft as much as they wish. We cannot afford the luxury.

I don't disagree on that Loachman.  I find it curious that, for a change, they seem to be trying something other than writing an encyclopedia of specifications then waiting 20 years for somebody to build it for them.

As to the utility of the craft - if nothing else they can use it as a trainer and see how close to the frontline their pilots want to fly it.  Especially attractive if it keeps the price of gas down and reduces the hours on the "front line" 3rd, 4th and 5th generation fleets.

Meanwhile G2G - is there a difference in sound between seized carbon-fibre and flung carbon-fibre?  ;D

 

[Loachman]

"They" can do whatever they want. We cannot afford a small fleet of less-than-fully capable niche aircraft.

We would still need to house them and train and maintain people to fly, fix, and support them, and those people and that money would have to come out of some other capability's budget. It's not worth the cost.

 

[Journeyman]

I can hear the carbon-fibre wing spar splintering from here when it takes a round or two...

At the risk of giving anyone ideas, wasn't that a benefit of the Hawker Hurricane?  The doped canvas could be repaired at the airdrome while the Spitfires, with their alloy monocoque fuselages, had to be trucked away for repairs.   

 

[Kirkhill]

"They" can do whatever they want. We cannot afford a small fleet of less-than-fully capable niche aircraft.

We would still need to house them and train and maintain people to fly, fix, and support them, and those people and that money would have to come out of some other capability's budget. It's not worth the cost.

Again, not disagreeing.  The RCAF is in a different situation than the USAF, or even the RAF.

 

[YZT580]

Perhaps if we were budgeting closer to the 2% we would be discussing this from the viewpoint of "Do we need this capability?" rather than rejecting it because of budgetary constraints.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Perhaps if we were budgeting closer to the 2% we would be discussing this from the viewpoint of "Do we need this capability?" rather than rejecting it because of budgetary constraints.

If that was the case, we should be looking at expanding and replacing the LRP fleet before getting play fighters.

 

[The Bread Guy]

At the risk of giving anyone ideas, wasn't that a benefit of the Hawker Hurricane?  The doped canvas could be repaired at the airdrome while the Spitfires, with their alloy monocoque fuselages, had to be trucked away for repairs.   

Hence the term "100 mph tape"?

 

[NavyShooter]

*OK, outside my lanes here as a sailor, and open for correction...my coffee index is not high enough yet today*

Bringing in the Scorpion wouldn't so much be a 'niche' fleet, it'd be able to replace some of what we already have.

Think in terms of replacing the Hawk and Tutor fleets.

Interweb info tells me that the Hawks have been in service since 2000, with a fleet of between 16 and 22 airframes.

Tutors have been in service since 1962, only flying with the Snowbirds now, with 24 airframes.

Suppose we took those 40-46 airframes, combined into one airframe (Scorpion.) 

There's enough life in the Hawks that they could be sold off for some cost recovery/offset, you have a standardized training and flight display team airframe, and while it's not a fighter, the Scorpion can carry out some air-to-mud training, along with ISR. 

Your personnel training/qualification load goes down because you are reducing the types of airframes.  Your parts inventory can go down because we're no longer trying to keep 54 year old aircraft in the air. 

If we were looking at a 'show the flag' capability with basic air-to-mud ability, the Scorpion could do that too, so maybe an extra 16-20 for a single squadron to 'bridge the gap'? 

[\cynicism]

Or, if we look at the "Interim buy" of the Super Hornets as being all we get for fighters for a long time....then a cynical person could suggest that having the single squadron of SH meets our 'basic' Air Defence requirements (and we can still use a 6-pack of them for expeditionary uses if necessary), so let's just replace all the other 188's with Scorpions, even though they are not air-to-air capable and pretend that our missions are covered off because we have enough airframes to do it.

If we bought 150 Scorpions for the Training/Air Demo/Show Flag roles, and maintained 20 Super Hornets for real Air Defence and Expeditionary Missions, that'd be a HUGE cost savings, an 'out' for the government of the day.  All they'd have to do would be to clearly define the Expeditionary role requirement and North American Air Defence roles in a new white paper. 

They could point at the numbers and say "Look, new planes" and the average member of the general public will nod and accept that the fancy new jets meet Canada's needs.  Even though they don't.

[/cynicism]

 

[Bearpaw]

Perhaps the Korean KAI T-50 Golden Eagle with engine upgraded to  General Electric F414-EPE
could better serve as a combined fighter-trainer and light ground attack aircraft.  They would likely cost
about $30M.airframe.

Bearpaw

 

[YZT580]

Perhaps the Korean KAI T-50 Golden Eagle with engine upgraded to  General Electric F414-EPE
could better serve as a combined fighter-trainer and light ground attack aircraft.  They would likely cost
about $30M.airframe.

Bearpaw

There are lurkers on this website, wouldn't it be wise not to give them too many bad ideas!!! [

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The flaw in all this musing about the Scorpion is that we (the CF) does not own the Hawk. Our contractor in Moose Jaw does. The contractor provides jets, parts and technicians to the CF for a price.

So, if you want Sqns of Scorpions for the RCAF, what are you prepared to give up? Because PYs are a zero sum game in the CF and no HQ ever shut itself down to provide PYs for a new capability....

 

[QV]

From someone who knows nothing about air combat power let me say this; the thought of our country only having 18 "real" fighters (and SH at that) as well as a bunch of those cheaper far less capable aircrafts is scary.  Potemkin village indeed.

 

[SupersonicMax]

NavyShooter:  how do you plan to maintain our NORAD commitment and have a deployable force in case of major conflict? 

 

[Good2Golf]

Meanwhile G2G - is there a difference in sound between seized carbon-fibre and flung carbon-fibre?  ;D

Primary sound likely the same.  The secondary 'thump' at the AGI* may sound a bit different, though.

The flaw in all this musing about the Scorpion is that we (the CF) does not own the Hawk. Our contractor in Moose Jaw does. The contractor provides jets, parts and technicians to the CF for a price.

So, if you want Sqns of Scorpions for the RCAF, what are you prepared to give up? Because PYs are a zero sum game in the CF and no HQ ever shut itself down to provide PYs for a new capability....

Perhaps they could redirect the as-yet-not-approved PYs for the 5th fighter squadron for the SHs? ;D

Cheers,
G2G


*AGI: 'air-ground interface'

 

[NavyShooter]

NavyShooter:  how do you plan to maintain our NORAD commitment and have a deployable force in case of major conflict?

Hi Max,

I'm not suggesting that it's what the CAF wants, or that it would meet our current requirements (or at least I'm not meaning to if it read that way) what I am suggesting is that since the public is not bought in on the need for F-35's, if the government presents another 'solution' that sounds good, the general public would probably accept it.  (Mostly I think because they don't understand the benefits of the Sensor Fusion capabilities and the networked battlespace that the F-35 provides.)

Really, Joe Q public isn't going to really know the difference between a light fighter/trainer and a real fighter, they see a grey, sleek airframe with a Maple Leaf in a roundel. 

If the Government says:

"We're buying a few more of a less capable aircraft for a LOT less money, it lets us consolidate 3 different types of aircraft, and because they're less expensive it means we can keep our campaign promise to put money into the NSP, but the Super Hornets will cover 'enough' of our mission capability requirements for NATO/Expeditionary that we'll be OK in the long run."

Is the average Canadian Citizen in the 'heartlands' of Toronto, or Vancouver going to argue? 

Nope.  And that's the problem.  The 'obvious' technical advantages of the F-35 as a 5th generation aircraft make a lot of sense, but the public doesn't understand the capability well enough to embrace it. 

If the 'sale' to the public was done right, we'd end up with our wings clipped, our capabilities gutted, and all the public would know was that we saved money, got MORE airplanes, (they're grey, and look fast, right?) and the government kept their promise to fund the ships with the savings....

Plausible?  Yup.

Desirable?  Nope.

NS

 

[suffolkowner]

Is there any benefit to the light fighter/trainer approach though? (minus the leasing part of the equation)
Would it be that difficult to maintain armed versions of our Hawks/Harvards?

assuming new brighter government, bigger budget

F-35
T-X
harvard/tucano

would it be cheaper to run predators for that CAS/COIN role in permissive environments?

 

[Kirkhill]

The flaw in all this musing about the Scorpion is that we (the CF) does not own the Hawk. Our contractor in Moose Jaw does. The contractor provides jets, parts and technicians to the CF for a price.

So, if you want Sqns of Scorpions for the RCAF, what are you prepared to give up? Because PYs are a zero sum game in the CF and no HQ ever shut itself down to provide PYs for a new capability....

At risk of adding oxygen.... (never stopped me in the past)

If we are paying a company, any company to supply a service for a couple of decades, we are paying them to buy the equipment they use.  It just doesn't get managed through our procurement process.  And that is a major plus.

But... having said that... if we could figure out how to purchase/lease/rent/procure kit effectively (stop laughing).... if we could figure that out, Navy Shooter's suggestion on the Hawk-Tutor thing is defensible.  I wouldn't go so far as to bring it into the SH/F35 discussion though.  And I don't disagree with EITS on the value (unexploited) of the LRPA. 

With respect to the PYs - somebody is already supplying the PYs - either service or private contractor.  Is their any reason why, instead of the student riding in the contractor's plane the contractor couldn't ride in a government plane?  Or support the government plane on the ground?

 

[Loachman]

if we could figure that out, Navy Shooter's suggestion on the Hawk-Tutor thing is defensible.

No, it is not, on any grounds.

There are cheaper ways to convert fuel into noise - and that is all that would be accomplished by buying aircraft that have little to no combat viability and effect.