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

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

there are no A-10s in theatre

WTF?  More combat this year in that theatre than in the last 3 and there are no A-10s? 

 

[Good2Golf]

Notwithstanding its current grounding its my understanding that the F-15E compares favorably to the F-16, F/A-18 and Tornado in respect to CAS. It carries a larger payload and has a greater endurance (ie longer on-station time) than all three. As well it has an extra crewman over the F-16 and F/A-18, which apparently is quite useful for CAS type missions.

...but not as much as a B-52 on station for XX hours, carrying XXX JDAMs... 

G2G

 

[Journeyman]

Notwithstanding its current grounding its my understanding that the F-15E compares favorably to the F-16, F/A-18 and Tornado in respect to CAS.

You can't say "notwithstanding its current grounding...."    If it's grounded, it does not compare favourably with a less complex aircraft that is flying.

And I certainly can't comment on the source of your "understanding" -- your view may be popularly-held within the Mess or in the back of a Sea King.....but you won't hear it from anyone with dirty boots who's relied on CAS and is familiar with the danger-close template of the various aircraft.

Seriously though I dont see a drop off in CAS capabilities.

....quoting an airforce perspective, that's still mired in the Douhet-Mitchell mindset that worships statistics confusing the amount of iron successfully striking the earth....with combat effectiveness.

During an Op coincident with one of ours, I got to watch the Pred porn of a US mission. Yep, the B1 and F15s made all kinds of rubble bounce....repeatedly.
But at the end of the day, the only...yes ONLY....confirmed kills of bad guys by aircraft came from the A10 guns.

And because the enemy can psychologically link the A10 with the subequent destruction, it is a more feared platform than a contrail at 20,000 feet. As such it can be used in a show of force role as well (you don't have to kill all the local inhabitants).


Nonetheless, the USAF is transferring A10s back in-theatre as we speak, because they're needed and effective....despite what one may read on USAF websites.

 

[h3tacco]

My understanding is based on the fact that the F-15E, F-16. F/A-18 and Tornado are all of similar complexity and similar vintage. They all carry similar armament and with similar sensors. Except as mentioned the F-15E has a greater payload and endurance and an extra crewman. If your experience shows that the F-16, F/A-18 or Tornado are better at CAS I would have to guess it would have more to do with crew competency/training vice system capabilities.  Nowhere did I mention the A-10.

As you correctly pointed I have no experience in CAS. If you have experience where the F-15E did not preform CAS as well as  the "less complex" F-16, F/A-18, or Tornado I would to love hear why. 

 

[Journeyman]

My understanding is based on the fact that the F-15E, F-16. F/A-18 and Tornado are all of similar complexity and similar vintage. ...... Nowhere did I mention the A-10.

Ahh, correct. Mind you, the stated topic is F15's breaking up in mid-air....with the discussion turning quickly to how F-15's current operational role is CAS, given the noticable absence of Taliban air superiority fighters about.

Damn if A-10s didn't enter the discussion with GTG's earlier comment about the airforce adoration of Fighters having a negative effect on issues such as A-10s and CSAR -- and every posting since yours, except one by GTG, has been discussing A-10s. I apologize if we're moving too fast for you.

I will therefore state unequivocally that F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, and Tornado are just about equally not good at CAS.

And my experience with F-15E's not performing as well as the less-complex aircraft in a CAS role has been stated:
THE F-15E's ARE GROUNDED....THEREFORE, NO CAS!! 

But thanks for playing along.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Thinking back to my days as a FAC, the best platforms (that I dealt with) for CAS were (in order):

1.  USAF A-10s.  These guys were in a class of their own.  Once you read them on the target, they set up their "wagon wheel of death orbit" and pummelled it out of existence.  I had A-10s in Gagetown doing gun runs on tree lines 300 metres in front of me (they approached from behind me- I cleared them hot as they passed overhead).

2. USAF AC-130 Gunships.  The volume of fire they could deliver accurately would turn the tide of any battle.  Another bunch of real pros.

3. USMC A-4 Syhawks.  Unexpectedly, a bunch of Marine Reservists could really move mud with this airplane.  Lots of fun working with this eager and professional bunch- too bad the airplane is retired.

4. T-33s.  Yeah, it wasn't an armed aircraft, but they really worked hard to support our training and were really good at what they did.  Too bad they didn't have the bomb racks and guns still installed- they would have been awesome at "real" CAS.

5. Dutch F-16s.  Not bad, but they mostly viewed it at as sideline to air-to-air fights.

6. Canadian CF-18s.  Sigh.  Really gave the impression that they were forced at gunpoint to drop bombs and fire rockets.  Some pilots were pretty good; most were lucky to get their ordnance anywhere in the impact area.

7. German Tornados.  Maybe it was a language thing, but they never once reacted to any of my attack guidance.  They would just dump practice bombs where ever the hell they wanted to.  Luckily, we were in Goose Bay, so it didn't really matter much.

The upshot- the guys owning non-Mach 1 airplanes did the best.  The faster the top speed of the airplane (IMHO)  the worse the CAS service (in general) that you are likely to receive.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thinking back to my days as a FAC, the best platforms (that I dealt with) for CAS were (in order):

1.  USAF A-10s.  These guys were in a class of their own.  Once you read them on the target, they set up their "wagon wheel of death orbit" and pummelled it out of existence.  I had A-10s in Gagetown doing gun runs on tree lines 300 metres in front of me (they approached from behind me- I cleared them hot as they passed overhead).

2. USAF AC-130 Gunships.  The volume of fire they could deliver accurately would turn the tide of any battle.  Another bunch of real pros.

3. USMC A-4 Syhawks.  Unexpectedly, a bunch of Marine Reservists could really move mud with this airplane.  Lots of fun working with this eager and professional bunch- too bad the airplane is retired.

4. T-33s.  Yeah, it wasn't an armed aircraft, but they really worked hard to support our training and were really good at what they did.  Too bad they didn't have the bomb racks and guns still installed- they would have been awesome at "real" CAS.

5. Dutch F-16s.  Not bad, but they mostly viewed it at as sideline to air-to-air fights.

6. Canadian CF-18s.  Sigh.  Really gave the impression that they were forced at gunpoint to drop bombs and fire rockets.  Some pilots were pretty good; most were lucky to get their ordnance anywhere in the impact area.

7. German Tornados.  Maybe it was a language thing, but they never once reacted to any of my attack guidance.  They would just dump practice bombs where ever the hell they wanted to.  Luckily, we were in Goose Bay, so it didn't really matter much.

The upshot- the guys owning non-Mach 1 airplanes did the best.  The faster the top speed of the airplane (IMHO)  the worse the CAS service (in general) that you are likely to receive.

Then, does that mean we should be buying something like the AT-6? Or is it (something like it) too vulnerable to cheap, readily available and relatively unsophisticated AA weapons?

 

[Old Sweat]

To stick my oar in in response to Edward's question, I believe that we will be unable to purchase a separate "close air support" fixed wing aircraft for reasons that should be obvious to most of us. We never really had a dedicated platform, except for the few T33s that flew out of Rivers in the really bad old days. Even the Typhoon was a failed interceptor that was rerolled in an effort to salvage something from the project, and frankly it was not all that effective a platform, propaganda notwithstanding.

Where does this lead us? UAV? Armed Helicopters?

In the meantime, it seems to me there is a gap of some size in theatre and we can't do anything about it. Or can we? Is it militarily and politically possible to deploy a six paxk? Would it make any difference, considering it would be swallowed up in the giant light blue air power maze?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Firstly, I think our friendly neighbourhood Mod should split this- this is good stuff.

Ok- CAS.  Edward- I think (because I am not a expert on the Texan/Harvard II platform), that it is too slow, too vulnerable and can't carry nearly the ordnance required to be effective.  It only carries about 1200lbs of fuel, and burns that at around 400lbs an hour- add ordnance and hot and high, you will likely have to subtract gas.

I think what a good CAS aircraft demands is something that can get where it is going at a reasonable speed (maybe 300-400kts), but can loiter at at around 150-200kts for a couple of hours (at least) before having to RTB.  I think that it should have two engines (probably jet or turbojet), because the environment where the loss of an engine to ground fire is likely and would be very serious.  I think that it should have good self-protection features (armour and redundant systems where it makes sense, as well as decoys and jammers).  I think it requires a gun if some sort and the ability to carry a decent load of armament- enough for more than one pass.  It obviously needs the right radios to talk to the Army, as well as other aircraft.  It probably needs to be able to fight at night, too.

So what out there fits that bill?  The A-10 for sure.  The SU-25 as well.  Not much else jumps to mind. I personally do not like UAVS in this role, as the comms problem is a nightmare and SA for the operator is not nearly as good as a manned aircraft.  

The trouble with this is- selling an aircraft like this to our Air Force is difficult, if not impossible.  It is too much of a one trick pony- even if the trick is vital. Maybe something like NLOS (a ground based, precision munition) is a better solution for our military.  Thoughts anyone?

 

[observor 69]

Doesn't the SU-25 look sweet for CAS !

http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/su25.htm

 

[Kirkhill]

SKT it seems as if you are starting to hit the same seam that Tomahawk 6 was hitting on the MGS thread,

.....
The trouble with this is- selling an aircraft like this to our Air Force is difficult, if not impossible.  It is too much of a one trick pony- even if the trick is vital. Maybe something like NLOS (a ground based, precision munition) is a better solution for our military.  Thoughts anyone?

From T6

Trying to find something for the Artillery to do shows how far down the ladder of priorities it has slid. If it werent for the Afghanistan deployment there might not be any tubes left. It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery. If you are going to play with the big boys you must have artillery. I couldnt quite figure out why the CF hasnt bought HIMARS. It fits into a C-130 and one fire unit is equal to a battery of guns.

With NLOS and HIMARS capable of delivering similar warheads to those mounted on CAS aircraft, "orbiting" "on the deck", with all weather readiness what are the incremental advantages that CAS delivers in comparison to missile systems?  Especially with the Air Force heading to 250lb Precision Guided bombs (the Small Diameter Bomb) that puts the delivered payload of the G-MRLS and the SDB on the same footing.  3 or 4 HIMARS would deliver a similar punch to a pair of CF-18s, would be instantly on call and more easily reloaded (and fewer Hotel Bills ).

Reading your shopping list it looks like you are thinking of something like the Pucara or the old OV-10 Bronco.  Anyplace close?

 

[Spencer100]

Take this for what it is worth.  A-67 (looks like a Havard II) They say it is a replacement for the old A-1 Skyraider

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20071107.aspx

They say it will be ready next year. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Take this for what it is worth.  A-67 (looks like a Havard II) They say it is a replacement for the old A-1 Skyraider

Not a frickin chance it would replace a Skyraider.  Depending on what website you believe, a Skyraider could carry between 6000-10000 lbs of external stores, against 3600 lbs for the A-67.  I doubt that the A-67 would be anywhere near as survivable and I question the "hot and high" performance numbers.

Kirkhill-  I've been following the MGS thread.  It is not by accident that I am coming to the conclusions that I'm having.  Air Force Generals should be waking up at night screaming in terror - if they are paying attention.  The best way to do CAS in the future (gulp) might not be with an aircraft (BTW, I don't count Attack Helos as CAS.  Like a few others here, I consider them to be another land manoeuver unit).

I too am thinking that something along the OV-10 or Pucara line might be the answer- if the ultimate CAS aircraft (the A-10) is unavailable!

 

[Spencer100]

Not a frickin chance it would replace a Skyraider.  Depending on what website you believe, a Skyraider could carry between 6000-10000 lbs of external stores, against 3600 lbs for the A-67.  I doubt that the A-67 would be anywhere near as survivable and I question the "hot and high" performance numbers.

I did say to take it for what is worth and I see not very much 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Spencer100: If only:

A2D Skyshark
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a2d.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Not a frickin chance it would replace a Skyraider.  Depending on what website you believe, a Skyraider could carry between 6000-10000 lbs of external stores, against 3600 lbs for the A-67.  I doubt that the A-67 would be anywhere near as survivable and I question the "hot and high" performance numbers.

Kirkhill-  I've been following the MGS thread.  It is not by accident that I am coming to the conclusions that I'm having.  Air Force Generals should be waking up at night screaming in terror - if they are paying attention.  The best way to do CAS in the future (gulp) might not be with an aircraft (BTW, I don't count Attack Helos as CAS.  Like a few others here, I consider them to be another land manoeuver unit).

I too am thinking that something along the OV-10 or Pucara line might be the answer- if the ultimate CAS aircraft (the A-10) is unavailable!

Something like this you mean?  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352/post-614895.html#msg614895

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Disclaimer.  I am neither a pilot nor a FAC/JTAC.

I have been around the effects of CAS, however, and have been invovled in their use on a couple of occasions.

I do see A-10s as the gold standard.  To add to what Journeyman said, my observation was that the enemy was truly afraid of that plane.  Several long TICs were ended by the A-10 cannon.  I would argue that the A-10 should be replaced by another A-10. 

We were also supported by "strategic bombers", and truth be told they had some advantages.  For one series of encounters we were in a very remote area and others means would take a while to get to us and had somewhat limited endurance.  The big bombers, on the other hand, could get to us in minutes and could stick around for a while dropping JDAMs as required (we were the main effort for a little while).  Perhaps not the ideal CAS platform, but you can't always get what you want and sometimes you get what you need.  When you need fire support NOW you appreciate somebody that can get to you quickly.

AHs were great for developing the situation and their firepower was wonderful but their time of flight to your location and endurance could be issues.  I do not see AHs as maneouvre assets.  We had this debate down south quite a bit.  AHs have some of the characteristics of manouvre units, but ultimately their limited endurance means that I see them as fire support (using the US Army BOS as a point of view).  That being said, I refer you to my disclaimer.  Their escort capabilties, however, made them worth their weight in gold and not having them is a non-starter.  Perhaps this runs counter to my thought of them being fire support and not maneouvre.  Perhaps a good debate to be had here.

Tos um up, my own observations were that the different platforms gave you advantages and came with disadvantages.  That may be a blinding statement of the obvious, but perhaps the "so what" that I took away was how important it was to undestand these and then sequence your assets accordingly.

If it were up to me, for Canada I would spend any available money on attack helicopters and then make sure that our CF-18s were optimized for CAS.  I believe that work is being done on the second issue.  Whether I would want an air force consisting only of A-10s is another issue.  That might be a little extreme.  We do have territorial air defence issues and an air force without fighters seems a little out of balance.  A mix of fighters and ground attack planes would seem the optimal solution, but I'm not sure if we are in that position.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

Disclaimer.  I am neither a pilot nor a FAC/JTAC.

....
If it were up to me, for Canada I would spend any available money on attack helicopters and then make sure that our CF-18s were optimized for CAS.  I believe that work is being done on the second issue.  Whether I would want an air force consisting only of A-10s is another issue.  That might be a little extreme.  We do have territorial air defence issues and an air force without fighters seems a little out of balance.  A mix of fighters and ground attack planes would seem the optimal solution, but I'm not sure if we are in that position.

I don't think we can reasonably argue against fast movers for the territorial defence of Canada.  With a large land and sea area and a huge air volume, with varied threats (and many non-threatening events requiring recce), with some threats being exceptionally dangerous but all threats being intermittent, AND with a well prepared infrastructure to support fast-movers  they are pretty much THE best answer as first responders.  As flying bomb-trucks they can rapidly move the necessary ordnance from the warehouse to a position where they can be released and engage the enemy (and not expose the pilot and aircraft to much risk).  With the right Optronics they can rapidly move to a position to get "eyes on" and start generating a sense of the situation.  They can get there faster than UAVs and loiter (with tankers) long enough for the UAVs to get on site and establish a permanent orbit.

For Domestic Ops CF-18s, or fighters generally, make perfect sense.  They are a defensive armament.

But they don't make sense for Expeditionary Forces: Too much infrastructure, too low endurance, too little armament, too expensive in hardware, crew and maintenance.  A six-pack of CF-18s would buy many UAVs and HIMARS with a mix of missiles.  What could that six pack do that couldn't be done by the 155s in combination with the HIMARS and the UAVs?

On the other hand, it seems to me, that the "Gunships" whether fixed or rotary, single, twin or 4 engined varieties DO bring something different to the battlefield.  They bring presence.  If not a sense of humanity, at least a different sense of scale.

Soldier to soldier conflict is a test of courage. The winner gains moral ascendancy but the fight is too equal and the outcome too uncertain.  The enemy is inclined, I believe, to "give it a go" in the words of our Aussie brethren.

Soldier to explosive conflict is a different test of courage but there is little moral ascendancy gained by the bomber.  The "victor" is often the person on the receiving end.  Bombs, perhaps, should be included under "environmental" issues like sun, rain, snow and dust.  They impair operations and they can stop operations but there is a sense of, I want to say unreality, but that is wrong. The effects are real enough but like the sun and the snow and the dust there is little that can be done about them other than endure them.

Soldier to machine conflict is something else again.  And I believe that the relative invulnerability of the A-10, just like the tank, applies a different psychological effect to the combatants.  It is an obvious threat, it is an "irresistible" force and it a personal threat.  That vehicle is moving at a speed that allows you to time to think.  It is coming for you.  Nobody else. You have time to decide whether to run away, or stay and try to fight, or just stay and die in place.  And reality is that if you stay option C is the most likely outcome.  I think you may get the same effect out of a sustained bombardment (and for a small force maybe that is only 2 or 3 effectively placed rounds), or an infantry assault by overwhelming numbers but I don't think you can beat the "cost effectiveness" of "gunships" and "tanks" in achieving that ascendancy.

I don't think, ultimately, that destroying each individual fighting soldier is the way to win wars.  That, IMO, just seems to create martyrs whose cause is taken up by their sons and daughters.  What seems to be a better strategy is to demoralize the enemy, to get them to break and go hands up.  Then you get to demonstrate your ethos to them and remove the sense of otherness that was instilled in them to get them to the battlefield in the first place.  Take a look at how many German PWs decided to emigrate to Britain and Canada and the US after being held in PW detention camps.  That was the most lasting victory of the allies.

The Gunships and Tanks may be mechanical, inhuman monsters, but they operate on a human scale.  A fast mover that drops its bomb and exits the scene before the sound of its arrival is heard doesn't have the same impact.  Perhaps a B52 circling at 40,000 ft and leaving contrails in a blue sky does have the same impact - a sense of being watched, being vulnerable and being impotent.  I think those are the effects that ultimately gain you the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of your opponents.  You may have to take out 10-30% of their number to get their attention and get them to put their weapons down. They may not like you and probably won't trust you.  But, you have gained the opportunity to talk to them and convince them of your moral superiority.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

For Domestic Ops CF-18s, or fighters generally, make perfect sense.  They are a defensive armament.

But they don't make sense for Expeditionary Forces: Too much infrastructure, too low endurance, too little armament, too expensive in hardware, crew and maintenance.  A six-pack of CF-18s would buy many UAVs and HIMARS with a mix of missiles.  What could that six pack do that couldn't be done by the 155s in combination with the HIMARS and the UAVs?

Well, everything has infrastructure and endurance issues.  To add to my disclaimer, I am not a gunner.  That being said, I will offer that guns (155mm in our current instance) give you one form of fire support.  HIMARs, CAS and AHs give you other forms.  Genuine fast movers let you cover a potentially huge area which is a bonus in dispersed operations.  Guns, on the other hand, are relatively restricted and they have a logistical tail that requires sustainment outside the wire.  You want both in my opinion. 

As for the moral plane, we can go down a COIN tangent here as well as a philisophical rabbit hole.  To venture in a little bit, I would argue that ultimately it is political victories that count.  Your military successes only buy time and space for those political things to happen.  There are various psyops angles to military means (personal or impersonal) and I am not qualified in that field.  In a TIC itself I don't really care, just bring fire support on the enemy.  It it means dropping a rather impersonal JDAM then so be it.

To come back to more tangible arguments, while it pains me to say this I can understand why Canada has CF-18s instead of A-10s.  I'm sure that in the late 70s there were air force guys who wanted both F-15s and A-10s.  I don't know if Canada is in a position to have two such planes and I can understand why they went with a single dual-role fighter.  I don't know if our situation has changed in that regard.  The USAF is in a different situation entirely and I hope that the dedicated CAS platform survives the next decade.

All that being said, I still think that Canada needs to get AH-64s or some other modern attack helicopter.  If we want to have other helicopters in theatre we need the escorts.

 

[observor 69]

"To come back to more tangible arguments, while it pains me to say this I can understand why Canada has CF-18s instead of A-10s.  I'm sure that in the late 70s there were air force guys who wanted both F-15s and A-10s.  I don't know if Canada is in a position to have two such planes and I can understand why they went with a single dual-role fighter. "

As an avionics tech, during the 70's, I am a bit out of my lane commenting on your remark. But my first thought is in context at the time we had 104's and wanted a multi role contemporary generation aircraft, in other words we skipped a generation. I also think fighter jocks aren't really attracted to air to dirt even if at the time that was our NATO role. My memory of that time was 16's versus 18's , good at multi-role and two engines. I can't recall or even think that A-10s were in the mix. In fact my understanding is the USAF in the past has had no love for A-10s.