Who should own CAS & why it can't be trusted to an Air Force (from A-10 retirement thread)
- Thread starter SupersonicMax
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
So if the governments (Liberal and Conservative) won't risk the princesses in support of Canadian soldiers fighting our wars, then why are we wasting any more money on them, (beyond NORAD, as previously stated)?Transporter said:
...especially when MH and SAR aircraft require replacement; ah, but the RCAF's tribal elders are from the fighter aircraft world...... :not-again:
History is replete with examples of occasionally tearing down empires for the greater good -- except for the emperor, closest minions, and 'true believers' of course.
- Reaction score
- 18,781
- Points
- 1,280
Journeyman said:
I've heard a running joke in the RAAF that Air Combat Group (fighters) kept the Heron UAV as long as they did, and cycled fighter pilots through it, so they had enough operational experience (and bling) to justify the Hornets and Supers not deploying anywhere; it looked bad that all other fleets were regularly on ops. Once they had enough, it went to Surveillance and Response Group (MPA, which it really should have been in the first place).
But I digress...
Journeyman said:
Journeyman, we need to be ready to fight the next war, not the last one. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Mr. Putin has been getting a bit big for his britches off late. He has also been making noise about the arctic, (as have the Chinese). As much as I respect the Canadian Army, they have next to no use when it comes to maintaining our claims in the resource rich Arctic Ocean. The RCN could do it, if we bought them nuclear subs (which is not likely). Like it or not, the only service that can project a sustained presence in the Arctic is the RCAF. Like it or not, that is where the next cold war is going to be. We could leave it to the Americans to defend the arctic; I'm sure they'd been most happy to, given that possession is 9/10ths of the law. This would, however, amount to relinquishing our sovereignty in the region. Long story short; if we want to maintain our own territorial sovereignty, we are going to have to do it ourselves, and we will need the F-18s, (or F-35s or Typhoons.....) to do it.
Any time we are going to need CAS we are going to be operating as part of a coalition. We can get CAS from our allies. So, if it comes down to choosing which capability to prioritize, (which in the current fiscal environment it does), it's in our best interest to keep our fighters, and to use them for NORAD.
As for who should own CAS, (in a hypothetical world where we could afford dedicated CAS assets), it should be organic to the ground forces and operated by fully trained aviators. Making it organic to the ground forces allows the supported commander to put assests where he needs them when he needs them. Having it operated by aviators ensures that it doesn't become a stick in the spokes of the overall air effort.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
MAJONES said:
Are you suggesting that RCAF Private (T) should be doing this job?
I could be wrong, however, I believe JM has espoused, more than once, that that's where (NORAD) our air should be sent to.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
MAJONES said:
Journeyman said:
Journeyman said:
I suppose I could have stated it a third time, but I guess you hadn't noticed. Thanks for proving the adage that "a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention." :facepalm:
Ah, fortune-telling at it's finest; I gather you have an extensive background in strategic planning (and hence are aware of the recurring shortcomings of putting eggs in one basket).MAJONES said:
...unless "arctic/cold war" was an attempt at a pun, in which case you've established equal credibility at stand-up.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
MAJONES said:
That kind of thinking emphasizes the argument that the Air Force is not in touch with reality, in believing in their own importance.
Actually, the RCAF are only a QRF in this role. They are not in any way providing a permanent presence in the Arctic. The Canadian Rangers, on the other hand, are. Over the horizon radars and other sensors are providing early warning; again, not necessarily the RCAF. Any idea that the RCAF is fully capable of defending the NORTH is escaping down a rabbit hole into fantasy. It is always down to one thing when it comes to defending/asserting sovereignty; "boots on the ground". An aircraft flying over, every few days, is not defending, nor asserting anything; just a temporary presence.
Overflights of Greenland, Alaska, or any other nation, do not assert our sovereignty over those lands. Nor does it do much to actually assert sovereignty over our own lands. It is only through mutual agreements that the sovereignty of those lands remain under their nations control. The sovereignty of those lands would only change national control when another nation physically puts troops on the ground to claim them, not by flying an aircraft over them periodically.
MAJONES said:
Most of us arguing with SupersonicMax would agree.
George Wallace said:
Physician, heal thyself.
George Wallace said:
Couple of points for you to consider George. 1.) I'm not talking about defending the Arctic landmass; it's not under threat. I am talking about exerting control of our exclusive economic zone and the undersea resources that go with it. Unless you want to issue the Rangers SCUBA gear and have them advance by rushes to the continental shelf, I don't see them playing much of a role. As was stated, the best way to deal with this is nuclear subs. Given that this solution will never fly, the next best option is airpower (LRP backed by fighters). 2.) Any boots that get onto North American ground arrived by air or by sea. Thus, forward defense of the continent does not fall to the Army.
Our Privates are pretty sharp cookies, and besides, the pilots sure as h3ll don't want that job.................................... ;D
People with bigger brains and more shoulder bling than us are saying the arctic is the next hot spot (pun intended). You might want to trying reading something more than the sports page or watching something other than the Walking Dead. There's a great big interesting world out there; don't let it pass you by.
Before Afghanistan somebody said this:
How did that turn out in the long run?
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
Insightful comeback :boring:MAJONES said:
So you can't actually argue the topic at hand; you have to make up quotes about a completely different issue and different circumstances? :not-again:
Maybe you should just back out of the discussion and leave it to people, who while disagreeing, are at least in the same league here.
Edit:
ps - I don't read the sports pages, since I only follow rugby, which I do through several online sites and apps; I've never seen Walking Dead and haven't the vaguest idea of what it's about.
J-man,
I can see that you have a personal stake in the issue so I will excuse your tantrum. However, the points I made are valid. If you don't want to address them here that is your perogative. I would however, urge to to address them in your own mind just for the sake of your own personal growth.
I can see that you have a personal stake in the issue so I will excuse your tantrum. However, the points I made are valid. If you don't want to address them here that is your perogative. I would however, urge to to address them in your own mind just for the sake of your own personal growth.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
MAJONES said:
I am trying to wrap around in my mind how a RCAF pilot would fit into SCUBA gear flying high above the arctic wastes.
And I agree, that the RCAF would likely be the fastest TAXI to get ground troops into positions in the NORTH.
- Reaction score
- 1,724
- Points
- 1,140
JM & GW: have you ever lack air support in Afghanistan?
JM: we do more than NORAD and CAS. The fighter force is fairly significant political tool that has a fairly small footprint and is relatively cheap to deploy. We can (and have) have jets on deck within 48 hours of getting a warning order and drop bombs the next day. This flexible kinetic effect is fairly unique in the CAF toolbox.
We wanted to go to Afghanistan. Someone decided we wouldn't go. While I don't have all the details as to why, I can think of a couple of contributing factors:
-In 2002, we didn't have any upgraded aircraft yet. They were all what we called Legacy (1982 era). We did have the Nightawk targeting pod which was of marginal effectiveness. Nonetheless, we had already awarded the contract for the modernization and aircraft were being upgraded (80 to be precise). The first "R1" aircraft (the first half of the modernization) was delivered in 2003 and the last in 2006. This upgrade gave us improved radio (ARC-210, HQ, HQ2, Singcars), a new radar, new mission computers, interrogator, and a new stores management system. Nothing really helping us doing CAS from what we had before.
-We then sent the jets back for more upgrades, namely Link 16, AMRAAM, Joint Helmet Cuing System, and Sniper Pod. All but the AMRAAM being huge enablers for the CAS mission. We received the last R2 aircraft in 2010. Then there is the training issue. Pilots had to be trained to properly and effectively use those new systems. By that time, I believe (this is what I was told, not first hand) that there was no ramp space and/or need for more CAS in Afghanistan.
I think this may be one of the reasons why we didn't get to go, not because we didn't have the will.
JM: we do more than NORAD and CAS. The fighter force is fairly significant political tool that has a fairly small footprint and is relatively cheap to deploy. We can (and have) have jets on deck within 48 hours of getting a warning order and drop bombs the next day. This flexible kinetic effect is fairly unique in the CAF toolbox.
We wanted to go to Afghanistan. Someone decided we wouldn't go. While I don't have all the details as to why, I can think of a couple of contributing factors:
-In 2002, we didn't have any upgraded aircraft yet. They were all what we called Legacy (1982 era). We did have the Nightawk targeting pod which was of marginal effectiveness. Nonetheless, we had already awarded the contract for the modernization and aircraft were being upgraded (80 to be precise). The first "R1" aircraft (the first half of the modernization) was delivered in 2003 and the last in 2006. This upgrade gave us improved radio (ARC-210, HQ, HQ2, Singcars), a new radar, new mission computers, interrogator, and a new stores management system. Nothing really helping us doing CAS from what we had before.
-We then sent the jets back for more upgrades, namely Link 16, AMRAAM, Joint Helmet Cuing System, and Sniper Pod. All but the AMRAAM being huge enablers for the CAS mission. We received the last R2 aircraft in 2010. Then there is the training issue. Pilots had to be trained to properly and effectively use those new systems. By that time, I believe (this is what I was told, not first hand) that there was no ramp space and/or need for more CAS in Afghanistan.
I think this may be one of the reasons why we didn't get to go, not because we didn't have the will.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Max
The argument is are who should own CAS. The other roles played by the RCAF are irrelevant.
The argument is are who should own CAS. The other roles played by the RCAF are irrelevant.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Perhaps the real issue here isn't over who "owns" CAS, but rather that the technology is changing to the extent that CAS as a distinct category may no longer exist.
In the short term, we are seeing an increasing reliance on UCAVs to get up close and personal with the enemy, and a continuing increase in the capabilities of small UAV's. Nothing will say "CAS" like the company support platoon unleashing an ATV sized armed quadcopter to support a platoon under contact in some near future battle. Artillery weapons like Excalibur shells and FOG-M also have the ability to hit pinpoint targets at long ranges. Artillery weapons are also not limited by weather or time on station in the same way aircraft are.
On the other side of the equation, rolling in and blasting a target with an A-10 is a bit old fashioned when a Strike Eagle can release a glide bomb with a smart seeker or guidance kit from airliner altitudes and still make a pinpoint strike on target. Future support aircraft will carry large numbers of smart munitions, or perhaps attack targets with high energy lasers or railguns, vastly expanding the air defense envelope for potential enemies (and for us as well). Instead of an A-10 or F-16 sized aircraft, we might be looking at B-1 or 737 sized aircraft to provide fire support to the battlefield (those carrying laser or railgun weapons can attack targets on the surface, in the air and even in low orbit).
This gets back to the idea of aircraft as a form of artillery, and means tying airpower to the battlespace commander through an evolved version of the FSCC.
In the short term, we are seeing an increasing reliance on UCAVs to get up close and personal with the enemy, and a continuing increase in the capabilities of small UAV's. Nothing will say "CAS" like the company support platoon unleashing an ATV sized armed quadcopter to support a platoon under contact in some near future battle. Artillery weapons like Excalibur shells and FOG-M also have the ability to hit pinpoint targets at long ranges. Artillery weapons are also not limited by weather or time on station in the same way aircraft are.
On the other side of the equation, rolling in and blasting a target with an A-10 is a bit old fashioned when a Strike Eagle can release a glide bomb with a smart seeker or guidance kit from airliner altitudes and still make a pinpoint strike on target. Future support aircraft will carry large numbers of smart munitions, or perhaps attack targets with high energy lasers or railguns, vastly expanding the air defense envelope for potential enemies (and for us as well). Instead of an A-10 or F-16 sized aircraft, we might be looking at B-1 or 737 sized aircraft to provide fire support to the battlefield (those carrying laser or railgun weapons can attack targets on the surface, in the air and even in low orbit).
This gets back to the idea of aircraft as a form of artillery, and means tying airpower to the battlespace commander through an evolved version of the FSCC.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
To flip that and perhaps take Max and MAJONES side; where do you want to place the FSCC? In your futuristic scenario, the FSCC could be anywhere, even in that 747 or even Colorado.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
Thucydides said:
Your scenario though creates a new dilemma.
First, that it flies. The air force will demand that it comes under their control as they did when we started with army guys flying the UAVs out of Kabul. IIRC, that went from army non commissioned types flying them to AF officers flying them. However, maybe not, as from what I can gather, the Air Command and jet jockeys don't consider rotary wing stuff as true airforce anyway.
Secondly, you would now have to have an AF Officer\pilot type moving with the platoon and most of us ground types that have been around some know what an absolute pain in the ass it is trying to do our primary job of hunting and killing, without having to babysit a non combat arms type specialist who wastes space, rations and manpower.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
I cannot speak for GW; but for myself, as mentioned, the USAF was more than helpful.SupersonicMax said:
Were you not just arguing with Loachman that you're more expensive to deploy, by at least a factor of 10?
Ever done it for real?
My point exactly! The best poker hand in the world is meaningless if the cards don't get laid down. We are spending an inordinate amount of money on "potential energy" when what we've needed is "kinetic energy."
I'm simply suggesting that we stop pissing away all that money -- except for NORAD (third reference) -- so that the fighter-dominated RCAF leadership can feel good about themselves when talking to their American and British counterparts.
I notice that you've chosen not to answer this question; I assume that the answer is "no," notwithstanding your stretching for LCF points by mentioning SF.
From the same real-world experience (and credibility) then, I'd like to state that I've had sex with Jenna Jameson hundreds of times.... while watching porn.SupersonicMax said:
Well I could! I mean, I've gone through the motions in situations with non-porn stars....and I've read some theoretical 'doctrinal' manuals on the topic. :nod:
Oh, but that's not the same as actually doing it for real, is it?
An example of when fire support of any kind wasn't available during a TIC happened here
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ganjgal
So why the "mistrust?"
I'd say the stricter centralized control measures that the RCAF are proponents of, could have a similar effect as those stricter ROE had. Either way, not knowing you can rely on some kind of fire support, until such time as you've convinced those controlling that resource to provide it, adds to that mistrust
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ganjgal
So why the "mistrust?"
I'd say the stricter centralized control measures that the RCAF are proponents of, could have a similar effect as those stricter ROE had. Either way, not knowing you can rely on some kind of fire support, until such time as you've convinced those controlling that resource to provide it, adds to that mistrust
Similar threads
- Locked
