A
aesop081
Guest
Colin P said:
And then what would we use for trainers ? Who will maintain them ? Where will they be based ? We do not own these aircraft, might this be a problem ?
Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
And then what would we use for trainers ? Who will maintain them ? Where will they be based ? We do not own these aircraft, might this be a problem ?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
We would have to buy new ones, since they would be based in Canada they could be maintained as an extension of the contract. I suspect flying CAS training in a turbo prop would be quite a draw and would help retain pilots in the reserves (A bit more fun than flying for Westjet all of the time). It would build up the knowledge base for CAS both in the Air Force and the Army, plus start building better bonds between them. I would love to equip them with new A10's, but I am being realistic and the Turboprops would be cheaper to buy, run and maintain. They MIGHT also add a organic CAS for a future mission in some god forsaken hellhole where the parties involved have little AD and we do not have another partner to give us that CAS.
- Reaction score
- 27,526
- Points
- 1,090
Colin P:
There is no "Air Reserve" per se - it's a landing zone for ex-Reg F types, most of whom are employed on 330 day class B periods of service. Roughly 80% of Air Res intake is by CT; those who enter off the street are almost never sent to get their wings.
Of course, there's a strategic impact to this: if one goal in having a Reserve is to enable a surge to meet additional requirements and your Reserve is already committed, you're pretty much stuck.
From a strategic perspective, Canada has lost the bubble on the "Reserve Force"; with roughly 2 brigades worth of Reservists working full time (across all environments), and with those numbers skewed towards mid-level leadership ranks, it's not just the Air Reserve that suffers from an inability to surge.
There is no "Air Reserve" per se - it's a landing zone for ex-Reg F types, most of whom are employed on 330 day class B periods of service. Roughly 80% of Air Res intake is by CT; those who enter off the street are almost never sent to get their wings.
Of course, there's a strategic impact to this: if one goal in having a Reserve is to enable a surge to meet additional requirements and your Reserve is already committed, you're pretty much stuck.
From a strategic perspective, Canada has lost the bubble on the "Reserve Force"; with roughly 2 brigades worth of Reservists working full time (across all environments), and with those numbers skewed towards mid-level leadership ranks, it's not just the Air Reserve that suffers from an inability to surge.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks for the reply, I am trying to think outside of the box, trying to think of not what we presently can, but what we should be doing. The military is a bit like the abused spouse, it takes times to be able to look beyond the immediate issues to what we are going to have to do in the future. I suspect such a proposal would generate a lot of interest and help rebuild what is left of the Air reserve. A defined and interesting role as such will draw people, a concept I found is often lost on our senior leaders in the past. Even if the military, government and treasury board agreed to this today, it would likely be 2 years before the first aircraft arrived and another year before the squadron would be operational for the training role. I suspect that people would start to appear to fill the roles. As I suggested an aircraft already familiar to the system, the growing pains would be somewhat less.
If you think this is bad, just imagine what it was like at the beginning of WWII, going from a small peace time army to a large wartime army, it takes imagination to get things done, just like Worthington and his "scrap metal tanks"
Edited: It was Worthington not McNaungton that supported the Armoured Corp. "OOPS!"
If you think this is bad, just imagine what it was like at the beginning of WWII, going from a small peace time army to a large wartime army, it takes imagination to get things done, just like Worthington and his "scrap metal tanks"
Edited: It was Worthington not McNaungton that supported the Armoured Corp. "OOPS!"
While I perceive a need for a capable and cost effective ground attack platform in the Afghan theatre, I was hoping for a little more input before I direct my research further into the topic.
My theory at this point involves the design and production of a fixed-wing, propellor driven ground attack aircraft to provide air support in conflicts like Afghanistan (theatres where there is no air-to-air threat, and little to no threat from advanced surface-to-air weapons).
The idea seems to make alot of sense to me, and I am confused why so simple of a solution has not been implemented.
Starting with a design based on the airframes of either the A-1 Skyraider, or a P-47 Thunderbolt, make the design more efficient using CAD and simulations, reduce weight / strengthen the airframe using composite materials, add modern armor, find space to cram an electronics suite into it so that while it wouldn't have it's own radar, it could be directed from ground based radar or an AWACS platform.
The result would be an even more durable aircraft than the orignal design, have a long loiter time, and the ability to deliver munitions with a high-degree of accuracy (I'm assuming it would be easier to put unguided muntions on target more accurately moving 300 mph than 700 - 900 mph).
Production costs would be a fraction what they would be for a more "modern" jet age aircraft, as would the upkeep.... making it easier for the government to make a decision about having them in theatre in the first place.
I'm not sure about the effectiveness of early stinger and red-eye era man portable missles against turboprop aircraft... but I'd imagine that a radial engine does not emit enough heat for 80's era SAM's to track effectively.... someone can correct me on that if wrong.
So thats what I'm thinking.
I'm just fishing for some opinions on whether or not I am completely crazy before I start getting into the research for inflation adjusted costs for production and maintainence, etc...
Is it at all feasible? Is there a need for such an aircraft in a place like Afghanistan, or any of the similar locations we might end up spending a little time in?
The "it will never happen" comments aside, I am just wondering if I am the only one who thinks this might work.
I look forward to the input of the experts.
Regards,
Eric
My theory at this point involves the design and production of a fixed-wing, propellor driven ground attack aircraft to provide air support in conflicts like Afghanistan (theatres where there is no air-to-air threat, and little to no threat from advanced surface-to-air weapons).
The idea seems to make alot of sense to me, and I am confused why so simple of a solution has not been implemented.
Starting with a design based on the airframes of either the A-1 Skyraider, or a P-47 Thunderbolt, make the design more efficient using CAD and simulations, reduce weight / strengthen the airframe using composite materials, add modern armor, find space to cram an electronics suite into it so that while it wouldn't have it's own radar, it could be directed from ground based radar or an AWACS platform.
The result would be an even more durable aircraft than the orignal design, have a long loiter time, and the ability to deliver munitions with a high-degree of accuracy (I'm assuming it would be easier to put unguided muntions on target more accurately moving 300 mph than 700 - 900 mph).
Production costs would be a fraction what they would be for a more "modern" jet age aircraft, as would the upkeep.... making it easier for the government to make a decision about having them in theatre in the first place.
I'm not sure about the effectiveness of early stinger and red-eye era man portable missles against turboprop aircraft... but I'd imagine that a radial engine does not emit enough heat for 80's era SAM's to track effectively.... someone can correct me on that if wrong.
So thats what I'm thinking.
I'm just fishing for some opinions on whether or not I am completely crazy before I start getting into the research for inflation adjusted costs for production and maintainence, etc...
Is it at all feasible? Is there a need for such an aircraft in a place like Afghanistan, or any of the similar locations we might end up spending a little time in?
The "it will never happen" comments aside, I am just wondering if I am the only one who thinks this might work.
I look forward to the input of the experts.
Regards,
Eric
C
CrazyCanuck
Guest
The A10 works fine for now, no sense in us getting our own. We have more important kit to spend our money on.
I'm no expert either, but if I'm not mistaken - doesn't Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, Chile use a prop-driven ground attack aircraft known as the Dragonfly?
I don't even know if they are still in service, but I read about them in a Jane's article a while back. They were being used to attack guerilla forces & drug cartels deep in the jungles. Fitted with machine guns & rocket pods, they were prop-driven and could actually get up to a fairly good speed. I'll try to hunt down some research for ya when I've got a bit more time.
I'm not saying it would be practical for us to get them, as mentioned above, we have more pressing needs in terms of material acquisition. Just an aircraft that fits the description you mentioned.
I don't even know if they are still in service, but I read about them in a Jane's article a while back. They were being used to attack guerilla forces & drug cartels deep in the jungles. Fitted with machine guns & rocket pods, they were prop-driven and could actually get up to a fairly good speed. I'll try to hunt down some research for ya when I've got a bit more time.
I'm not saying it would be practical for us to get them, as mentioned above, we have more pressing needs in terms of material acquisition. Just an aircraft that fits the description you mentioned.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I'd have to agree with Boater the A-10 does an excellent job in providing air to ground support. And as you said phaedrus2 "it would be used to deliver munitions with a high degree of accuracy" well then I'm sorry to say but what about the M-777 wasn't it designed for that exact same job your prop airplane would provide? get the soldiers to call it in and the HE Excalibur round will do the rest.
CBH99 said:
The A-37 Dragonfly is built by Cessna ... its jet powered... but there are also a few other prop aircraft used in the "counter-insurgency" role in South American countries.
The OV-10 Bronco and IA 58 Pucará are prop-driven... but lightly armored and more suited to observation and control roles.
I am aware of these designs, but stayed away from them because I thought if such an aircraft was ever created, it would need to have a high degree of survivability from small arms fire.
Thanks for the input all!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Schafer,
I don't think it's accurate to compare artillery to air-to-ground aircraft for a number of reasons. I'm not an authority on artillery by a long shot, but I know that it's far less mobile than an aircraft, and also that a shell doesn't have eyes that a pilot does. Your point is valid, as artillery is indispensible, but I have to imagine that aircraft would be more effective against small, mobile groups.
I would agree that A-10s are probably the most effective platform, but if Canada decides to have it's own dedicated air to ground platform, turboprop aircraft would be a much more affordable and realistic option.
I don't think it's accurate to compare artillery to air-to-ground aircraft for a number of reasons. I'm not an authority on artillery by a long shot, but I know that it's far less mobile than an aircraft, and also that a shell doesn't have eyes that a pilot does. Your point is valid, as artillery is indispensible, but I have to imagine that aircraft would be more effective against small, mobile groups.
I would agree that A-10s are probably the most effective platform, but if Canada decides to have it's own dedicated air to ground platform, turboprop aircraft would be a much more affordable and realistic option.
phaedrus2 said:
Because, even if it could be done at reasonable cost and it worked in this mission, it may well not in the next.
If it was such a good idea, somebody else, somewhere (other than third world countries for local use only), would have done it.
The more accepted combination of fast CAS aircraft, A10, and armed helicopters doesn't leave much of a niche market.
- Reaction score
- 22,049
- Points
- 1,360
"joint fires"
At the end of the day, whether the effects come from a boat, plane, gun, tank, etc... really doesn't matter. A munition that has terminal accuracy sufficient for the operational role is fair game for being a part of the joint fires structure. As Loachman said, such a concept is so particular, that it may well not work in the next theater. As well, odds are that there may be a few other factors that we're not privy too that would render a light, prop-driven plane impractical in the current deployment.
G2G
At the end of the day, whether the effects come from a boat, plane, gun, tank, etc... really doesn't matter. A munition that has terminal accuracy sufficient for the operational role is fair game for being a part of the joint fires structure. As Loachman said, such a concept is so particular, that it may well not work in the next theater. As well, odds are that there may be a few other factors that we're not privy too that would render a light, prop-driven plane impractical in the current deployment.
G2G
New here.
Here is an aircraft that might work.
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/military/at%2D6%5Fab/
Here is an aircraft that might work.
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/military/at%2D6%5Fab/
The answer seems simple to me. All you have to ask is what aircraft was designed nearly from the outset as a F-5 replacement.
Answer: the CAS variant of the Korean T-50 Golden Eagle, the A-50.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/
"The aircraft has seven external hardpoints for carrying weapons, one on the centreline under the fuselage, two hardpoints under each wing and an air-to-air missile launch rail at the two wingtips.
The wingtip launch rails can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. The underwing and centreline hardpoints can carry rocket pods, air-to-surface missiles or air-to-air missiles according to the mission requirements, e.g. AGM-65 Maverick missiles or mk 82/83/84 bombs or rocket launchers.
In November 2005, the A-50 successfully test-fired an AIM-9L air-to-air missile.
A 20mm General Dynamics Armaments three-barrel M61 cannon is installed internally on the A-50 LIFT version. The gun is mounted behind the cockpit and carries 205 rounds of ammunition in a linear linkless feed system. The A-50 LIFT can carry electronic warfare pods and a radar warning receiver. "
"The A-50 made its first flight in September 2003. A programme of weapon delivery flight testing is continuing and deliveries of the A-50 are planned to begin in 2009."
Answer: the CAS variant of the Korean T-50 Golden Eagle, the A-50.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/
"The aircraft has seven external hardpoints for carrying weapons, one on the centreline under the fuselage, two hardpoints under each wing and an air-to-air missile launch rail at the two wingtips.
The wingtip launch rails can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. The underwing and centreline hardpoints can carry rocket pods, air-to-surface missiles or air-to-air missiles according to the mission requirements, e.g. AGM-65 Maverick missiles or mk 82/83/84 bombs or rocket launchers.
In November 2005, the A-50 successfully test-fired an AIM-9L air-to-air missile.
A 20mm General Dynamics Armaments three-barrel M61 cannon is installed internally on the A-50 LIFT version. The gun is mounted behind the cockpit and carries 205 rounds of ammunition in a linear linkless feed system. The A-50 LIFT can carry electronic warfare pods and a radar warning receiver. "
"The A-50 made its first flight in September 2003. A programme of weapon delivery flight testing is continuing and deliveries of the A-50 are planned to begin in 2009."
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Loachman said:
I am sure the Army has happily accepted the A-10, but I am not sure if the USAF brass has, I'm sure they will clamour to have them retired to free up money for their two pet projects F-22 & f-35. The politics of US defense spending does not seem to leave a lot of room for common sense.
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Philltaj said:
Did you read the second post in that thread?
Similar threads
- jollyjacktar
- Articles and Large Posts
