A
aesop081
Guest
Old Sweat said:
Far from it.
Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
Far from it.
I may have been a bit over the edge in knocking the aircraft, but the concept of adapting an aircraft of that type for tactical purposes is not an ideal or even a not too bad solution. It is something that was done in the Vietnam era to drop iron bombs, naplam or rockets and to strafe concentrations of insurgents with fair accuracy. The world has moved on, and so should we.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
There are many examples of trainers being pressed into service as attack aircraft with mixed results. While a purpose built aircraft like an A-10 is by far the best solution, small air forces cannot afford this. Many current jet trainers can be used as CAS platforms (at least according to the manufacturer), so it isn't beyond the pale to consider this option.
As well, in the current threat environment, these sorts of aircraft might be better for the job; consider the A-37 Dragonfly or the A-1 Skyraider (AKA "Spad") were considered to be much better CAS platforms in the Viet Nam war than the "Century Series" fighter bombers or other jet warplanes the Americans used. Low and slow so you can see and identify the targets, and being able to remain on station for extended periods of time are the two keys to CAS, high performance jets like the F-18 do not have these attributes.
As well, in the current threat environment, these sorts of aircraft might be better for the job; consider the A-37 Dragonfly or the A-1 Skyraider (AKA "Spad") were considered to be much better CAS platforms in the Viet Nam war than the "Century Series" fighter bombers or other jet warplanes the Americans used. Low and slow so you can see and identify the targets, and being able to remain on station for extended periods of time are the two keys to CAS, high performance jets like the F-18 do not have these attributes.
Adamant said:
Umm....check out the T-6A/B based AT-6 (basically the same as the trainer but with some business making munitions no board):
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/military/at-6_ab/
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/military/at-6_ab/R0816AT-6_LithoUpdate.pdf (*warning, PDF file)
A
aesop081
Guest
Old Sweat said:
In fact, many nation use modified training aircrafts for operational purposes. This is not something from the past. Aircraft like the Pilatus PC-9 have successfuly been adapted for the light strike role. The environment these aircraft operate in has be be more permissive that that of an A-10 for example but if you are not facing a significant AD threat then why not.
These "wish list" threads sure tend to get circular, people absolutely refuse to read and post the same links over and over again. We're not going to see Canadian CAS over there by 2011, that is a fact. I would much rather see a helicopter providing overwatch than anything else in the sky today. I've seen what Kiowas and Apaches can do over there and its impressive! With fixed wing, the faster the platform the greater the chance of missing the target...
As well, in the current threat environment, these sorts of aircraft might be better for the job; consider the A-37 Dragonfly or the A-1 Skyraider (AKA "Spad") were considered to be much better CAS platforms in the Viet Nam war than the "Century Series" fighter bombers or other jet warplanes the Americans used. Low and slow so you can see and identify the targets, and being able to remain on station for extended periods of time are the two keys to CAS, high performance jets like the F-18 do not have these attributes.
In fact, many nation use modified training aircrafts for operational purposes. This is not something from the past. Aircraft like the Pilatus PC-9 have successfuly been adapted for the light strike role. The environment these aircraft operate in has be be more permissive that that of an A-10 for example but if you are not facing a significant AD threat then why not.
Two good comments. However we are talking about the CF and what we should do. In my opinion we will operate as part of a coalition, which means that there are a variety of delivery systems available. For starters, the attack helicopter and certain UAVs (as well as the A10) fill the role of the low, slow and long-legged Skyraiders et al of the Vietnam era four decades past. Second the high performance aircraft now have the ability to hit a point target accurately for a variety of reaons including various means to identify, designate and guide the weapon, and not only from the launching aricraft. I won't say anymore on this means.
To my tiny, aged mind, the solution is to procure platforms such as an armed UAV and/or to keep our CF18 fleet able to deliver smart stuff. I would also love to see some AHs in our air force. Some of this is doable within our personnel and financial constraints, maybe.
And, I agree with GDawg that this is hypothetical and we are not apt to see anything of the sort fielded by 2011.
In fact, many nation use modified training aircrafts for operational purposes. This is not something from the past. Aircraft like the Pilatus PC-9 have successfuly been adapted for the light strike role. The environment these aircraft operate in has be be more permissive that that of an A-10 for example but if you are not facing a significant AD threat then why not.
Two good comments. However we are talking about the CF and what we should do. In my opinion we will operate as part of a coalition, which means that there are a variety of delivery systems available. For starters, the attack helicopter and certain UAVs (as well as the A10) fill the role of the low, slow and long-legged Skyraiders et al of the Vietnam era four decades past. Second the high performance aircraft now have the ability to hit a point target accurately for a variety of reaons including various means to identify, designate and guide the weapon, and not only from the launching aricraft. I won't say anymore on this means.
To my tiny, aged mind, the solution is to procure platforms such as an armed UAV and/or to keep our CF18 fleet able to deliver smart stuff. I would also love to see some AHs in our air force. Some of this is doable within our personnel and financial constraints, maybe.
And, I agree with GDawg that this is hypothetical and we are not apt to see anything of the sort fielded by 2011.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
hauger said:
I never said it couldn't be done. I said it wasn't a good idea, and I stand by it.
The PC-9, CT-156 and T-6 Texan II are all related airframes, so yes it can be done...
One could also arm the Infantry with 22's from Canadian Tire but, like adapting the CT-156, it is a ridiculous idea
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
well its more likely that we get an armed Harvard 2 than an A-10,AH-64 if there really is a need I think that this is the fastest cost effective alternative. No waiting or hoping to jump the production line no depending on somebody else to watch our butts. Limited pilot training as they would all be type certified anyway. UAV's are nice but how many do we have? I've never seen a Spewer with Hellfire missiles, GBU-10's, external cannon and fuel tanks but the AT-6C does.
A
aesop081
Guest
I see that this thread has irreversably departed from controlled flight...........as most "lets buy this aircraft" threads do.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
then I'm guessing that we don't need that capability now. Thanks for the conversation
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Using a CAS version of the Harvard or the Hawk as a basis for a squadron dedicated to CAS in the CF, would allow both the air force and the army to practice the techniques and build the capacity into the Air Force at a reasonable cost. The squadron could be a mix of reserve and regular pilots and even tap the civilian market for ground personal or maintenance. I suspect that quite a few pilots that leave the Forces to fly with the airlines would enjoy coming back for some CAS flying. In this configuration it would not be deployable, but if we were to get a handle on the manning issues, a deployable squadron might be possible for missions which may not have significant air support (UN type mission)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
That is what I've been trying to say thanks for the input Colin P.
Colin P
With respect, for you are a sensible and thoughtful poster, your above suggestion is not a good use of resources. There already is an established process for training and maintaining the standards of our FACs. It works well as events in Afghanistan have proven. (I can't speak for the air force on this.) To inject a less capable aircraft would just create static in a system that is working well.
Now, re the use of these aircraft in lower intensity operations. The army has avoided thinking like this like the plague during the peacekeeping years. If we train and equip for the worst case, we can adapt to less intense situations. The opposite is not true.
With respect, for you are a sensible and thoughtful poster, your above suggestion is not a good use of resources. There already is an established process for training and maintaining the standards of our FACs. It works well as events in Afghanistan have proven. (I can't speak for the air force on this.) To inject a less capable aircraft would just create static in a system that is working well.
Now, re the use of these aircraft in lower intensity operations. The army has avoided thinking like this like the plague during the peacekeeping years. If we train and equip for the worst case, we can adapt to less intense situations. The opposite is not true.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
The problem with using the next generation of aircraft for CAS is that they are becoming so expensive and we will have fewer in number, the air force will be reluctant to use them as such. Except as a bombing platform. If I recall the majority of aircraft shot down over Vietnam was by AA guns. Once you are into the weeds, you are placing a 50-100 million dollar machine into the lethal zone of a 50 year old 23mm AA gun.
While guided munitions reduces the need for close in bombing runs, the A10 is proving that air gunnery still has a place in the non-conventional warfare that abounds on our planet. I want to see the CAS ability maintained and improved in the CF. I realize we don't have the people or the bucks to build a highly effective deployable squadron at present, so that's why my suggestions was to use the type of platforms we already use that are also economical to buy and run for the present. A big part of the squadrons job would be the change the mindset in the senior levels, making close support an important component of any new overseas deployment. I am trying to suggest achievable baby steps for the moment.
While guided munitions reduces the need for close in bombing runs, the A10 is proving that air gunnery still has a place in the non-conventional warfare that abounds on our planet. I want to see the CAS ability maintained and improved in the CF. I realize we don't have the people or the bucks to build a highly effective deployable squadron at present, so that's why my suggestions was to use the type of platforms we already use that are also economical to buy and run for the present. A big part of the squadrons job would be the change the mindset in the senior levels, making close support an important component of any new overseas deployment. I am trying to suggest achievable baby steps for the moment.
- Reaction score
- 17,064
- Points
- 1,010
Colin,
Putting a turbo-prop training aircraft into that same AAA environment is not any smarter than risking a $50-100 million aircraft. I would suggest that, for the types of task you are implying, the Attack Helicopter is your platform of choice.
Putting a turbo-prop training aircraft into that same AAA environment is not any smarter than risking a $50-100 million aircraft. I would suggest that, for the types of task you are implying, the Attack Helicopter is your platform of choice.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
An attack helicopter would be best I agree and we should have that capability but to give some capability a turboprop can be fielded faster, this is dependent on operational requirements, if we have 10-15 years the helicopter is the way to go. However if we only have 2 years then the turboprop makes more sense.
- Reaction score
- 17,064
- Points
- 1,010
Thunderchild,
You are not reading what is being posted here- NOTHING, not helicopters, not your turbo-prop idea, not flying sharks with laser beams will make it to Afghanistan in two years. Let's move on to reality, please.
You are not reading what is being posted here- NOTHING, not helicopters, not your turbo-prop idea, not flying sharks with laser beams will make it to Afghanistan in two years. Let's move on to reality, please.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
In a perfect world, I would get those attack helos, along with trying to weasel in on the re-manufactured A10 program for 20 airframes. The aircraft I suggested would not be the best for deployment as they have no armour to speak of and any attempt to harden them would suck up much of the payload they have. Once we get a dedicated CAS squadron and the people in place we can go shopping for a appropriate airframe. In my view (limited as it is) I don't see attack helicopters occupying the same niche as CAS aircraft, both bring different strength's and weakness to the mix it certainly is nice to have both and some good FAC's on the ground to use them.
Here are excerpts of the ambush of the French patrol as told by the survivors, I have picked out the relevent parts
H + 25 minutes. Évrard has asked for air support. Ten minutes later, American A-10s fly over the combat zone. The combatants are utterly interlocked and the pilots have to turn back. That’s what the Talibans were expecting. At the same time, Tora dispatches troops as reinforcements.
A pair of attack helicopter would be very good at this moment, it might have turned the battle even if they could not stay long.
At the very same time, an A-10 appears suddenly and fires a stream of 30 mm rounds, right above them. “We’ve taken advantage of the dust for withdrawing discreetly.” The paras get away through a series of thrusts and carefully avoid venturing onto the bombarded path
Any CAS is better than none!!
“I’ve seen the A-10s coming from the valley and flying above the slope at low altitude. They were firing at the insurgents but also straight at our position. It was dark, I was afraid they hit us. I’ve seized my flashlight and sent out a few SOS: dot dot dot, dash dash dash, dot dot dot. At some point, the plane has flown over me and I’ve seen the pilot’s figure. He’s sent me out signals with a red light. He had understood. It was an enormous relief.”
Shows the importance of pilots that eat, sleep, drink and poop CAS. It also shows that a aircraft with a decent gun (and ammo load) optimized for CAS is still important. It also shows the importance of FAC's, I am not sure from the report if their was a dedicated FAC or if any coordination was done by ground personal beyond the request for assistance.
Seaking
I agree that we won't have anything to send over there in time. However the world churns on and the possibilty of other deployments or even a renewed mission in Afghanistan exists. In fact predicting the future for the next 20 years is going to be a bit hard.
Here are excerpts of the ambush of the French patrol as told by the survivors, I have picked out the relevent parts
H + 25 minutes. Évrard has asked for air support. Ten minutes later, American A-10s fly over the combat zone. The combatants are utterly interlocked and the pilots have to turn back. That’s what the Talibans were expecting. At the same time, Tora dispatches troops as reinforcements.
A pair of attack helicopter would be very good at this moment, it might have turned the battle even if they could not stay long.
At the very same time, an A-10 appears suddenly and fires a stream of 30 mm rounds, right above them. “We’ve taken advantage of the dust for withdrawing discreetly.” The paras get away through a series of thrusts and carefully avoid venturing onto the bombarded path
Any CAS is better than none!!
“I’ve seen the A-10s coming from the valley and flying above the slope at low altitude. They were firing at the insurgents but also straight at our position. It was dark, I was afraid they hit us. I’ve seized my flashlight and sent out a few SOS: dot dot dot, dash dash dash, dot dot dot. At some point, the plane has flown over me and I’ve seen the pilot’s figure. He’s sent me out signals with a red light. He had understood. It was an enormous relief.”
Shows the importance of pilots that eat, sleep, drink and poop CAS. It also shows that a aircraft with a decent gun (and ammo load) optimized for CAS is still important. It also shows the importance of FAC's, I am not sure from the report if their was a dedicated FAC or if any coordination was done by ground personal beyond the request for assistance.
Seaking
I agree that we won't have anything to send over there in time. However the world churns on and the possibilty of other deployments or even a renewed mission in Afghanistan exists. In fact predicting the future for the next 20 years is going to be a bit hard.
Similar threads
- jollyjacktar
- Articles and Large Posts
