Best Air Support ?
- Thread starter toglmonster
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just a simple question and I am be no means an expert on this topic. Why cant they have one squadron for NORAD and one for Cas wouldn't that make easy for training or would it end up being to difficult for deployment because one squadron doesn't no the others job ?
One sqn for NORAD and 1 for CAS does not work because of the Canadian land mass. Fighters in Cold Lake cover western Canada, and the Bagtown fighters provide Air Defence for eastern Canada. 1 NORAD sqn could not cover all of Canada, including the arctic. I can assure you there is not enough jets for the NORAD task let alone adding CAS, BAI etc.... Canada is the planets second largest land mass after Russia, we need more than 80 fighter to defend it, without taking into account CAS/BAI etc... 80 don't cut it!!!
We had 66 Voodoos for NORAD (with the aid of USAF Voodoos & F106s in the day), we had 200 F104s (all in Germany except the training sqn), and Canada bought 189 F5s but only used 95. We replaced all these fighters with 138 Hornets. We are now down to 80 upgraded CF18s, great jet, more capability but as one CF18 pilots put it to me, "It's still and 1982 Corvette with a kick ass stereo". There are some F18's in mothballs, but they are there for a reason, they are for the most part time expired jets, too old, too bent to be worth upgrading.
In my perfect world I would have 5 sqns, 1 training sqn with 24 jets, a NORAD sqn east & west with 24 jets each, and 2 CAS/BAI sqns, 24 jets each to support army ops, total 120 fighters. This is a minimum, AETE would need a few, and you always need some attrition/war reserve spares. The Aussies currently have 75 F18's and 27 F111 bombers, which they plan to replace with 100 JSF, we only are looking at buying 80 JSF. We need more.....
We had 66 Voodoos for NORAD (with the aid of USAF Voodoos & F106s in the day), we had 200 F104s (all in Germany except the training sqn), and Canada bought 189 F5s but only used 95. We replaced all these fighters with 138 Hornets. We are now down to 80 upgraded CF18s, great jet, more capability but as one CF18 pilots put it to me, "It's still and 1982 Corvette with a kick ass stereo". There are some F18's in mothballs, but they are there for a reason, they are for the most part time expired jets, too old, too bent to be worth upgrading.
In my perfect world I would have 5 sqns, 1 training sqn with 24 jets, a NORAD sqn east & west with 24 jets each, and 2 CAS/BAI sqns, 24 jets each to support army ops, total 120 fighters. This is a minimum, AETE would need a few, and you always need some attrition/war reserve spares. The Aussies currently have 75 F18's and 27 F111 bombers, which they plan to replace with 100 JSF, we only are looking at buying 80 JSF. We need more.....
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
And we need more of a lot more, too.
The shopping list is long for everybody.
Recruiting and training personnel - and that's just to competent user level - is going to cost more and take years.
And more years to get people up to the command and supervisory level.
It will take far longer to get back up to where we should be than it did to fall so far.
The shopping list is long for everybody.
Recruiting and training personnel - and that's just to competent user level - is going to cost more and take years.
And more years to get people up to the command and supervisory level.
It will take far longer to get back up to where we should be than it did to fall so far.
Loachman,
Happy New Year, yes we need more of just about everything. Not sure the whole combining of the YOD/YBG sqns was a good idea, in YBG 425 generally held NORAD alert with 433 doing the expeditionary stuff, same split in YOD with 416 & 441. Might have been a good idea to split up the many tasks, divide & conquour. Should have left it alone.
Happy New Year, yes we need more of just about everything. Not sure the whole combining of the YOD/YBG sqns was a good idea, in YBG 425 generally held NORAD alert with 433 doing the expeditionary stuff, same split in YOD with 416 & 441. Might have been a good idea to split up the many tasks, divide & conquour. Should have left it alone.
The 40 or so jets not upgraded are refereed to in Air Force speak as "Legacy Jets". There was talk about keeping some around for the NORAD job, holding Air Defence alert. This fell by the wayside as most NORAD assets are rather state of the art, improved data links, secure comms, SATCOMM capabilities. You can't be dicken around when your tgt may be a hijacked civil airliner, you gotta get it right!! Data link capability is the future. The legacy jets for the most part are spent, used for spares & ground training aids, gate guardians etc.... There was a plan to sell them to the Czech rep, however they opted for Gripens instead.
When a fighter goes up on a training mission, a 2 vs 2 air to air for example, there is allot of twisting and turning, G force, causes wear & tear fast. Fighters are only good for so many hours, then they need depot maint (long term). You can only do depot maint so many times before she's done, museum time.
When a fighter goes up on a training mission, a 2 vs 2 air to air for example, there is allot of twisting and turning, G force, causes wear & tear fast. Fighters are only good for so many hours, then they need depot maint (long term). You can only do depot maint so many times before she's done, museum time.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,152
- Points
- 1,160
Peaches,
Thanks for the great info. Nice to know we have the aircraft and pilots/ aircrew that can do the job, just not enough of them. Can we vote you in as 'defence minister for life' next time round?
Thanks for the great info. Nice to know we have the aircraft and pilots/ aircrew that can do the job, just not enough of them. Can we vote you in as 'defence minister for life' next time round?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
(rant on)
We don't have enough Planes, Tanks / AFVs & Ships to do the job that the Gov't expects of us. The Gov't has dictated that the CF will grow by umpteen thousand troops in the near term.... but they have not provided the basic equipment that these troops will require once they have been enrolled... which means that we will be losing the troops that we desperately need........... never ending story huh?!
(rant off)
We don't have enough Planes, Tanks / AFVs & Ships to do the job that the Gov't expects of us. The Gov't has dictated that the CF will grow by umpteen thousand troops in the near term.... but they have not provided the basic equipment that these troops will require once they have been enrolled... which means that we will be losing the troops that we desperately need........... never ending story huh?!
(rant off)
Would love to be DM, be lots of changes!!
GEO is 1000% right, you can recruit 10 million new troops, if you don't have enough equip it's meaningless. New tanks and more, new and more IFV, helos, fighters. In a few more years the Navy frigates will need major upgrades & replacments. Having a military is no diff than owning a home or car, you need to do maint and replace and upgrade as time goes by. One of our biggest probs is not that there's no money, it is the process how we buy items. Too much political crap.
Buy 120 Leo2s and create a real tank regt. We don't need 50 tanks regts, but one fully equipped one we could use. we don't need 1000 JSF fighters, but we could use 120. Do we need 500 Apaches, no, but 50 would work.
GEO is 1000% right, you can recruit 10 million new troops, if you don't have enough equip it's meaningless. New tanks and more, new and more IFV, helos, fighters. In a few more years the Navy frigates will need major upgrades & replacments. Having a military is no diff than owning a home or car, you need to do maint and replace and upgrade as time goes by. One of our biggest probs is not that there's no money, it is the process how we buy items. Too much political crap.
Buy 120 Leo2s and create a real tank regt. We don't need 50 tanks regts, but one fully equipped one we could use. we don't need 1000 JSF fighters, but we could use 120. Do we need 500 Apaches, no, but 50 would work.
- Reaction score
- 7,514
- Points
- 1,160
Decided to stick this one here although the B2 is a Strategic Asset.
The US Air Force is upgrading the B2 to increase its bomb load from 16 500 pdrs to 80. Coupled with JDAM-ER and Link-16 that means that one aircraft on one pass could target 80 targets within a 100 km radius of its release point and land the bombs within 3m of their targets. Alternatively it can stooge around for a LONG time and supply a lot of CAS to troops on the ground.
The CAS isn't so much about the platform as the weapon system - specifically 500 lb bombs, JDAM, Diamond Back Wings and Link-16. None of those are beyond the capabilities of either the CF-18 or the CP-140.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34
The US Air Force is upgrading the B2 to increase its bomb load from 16 500 pdrs to 80. Coupled with JDAM-ER and Link-16 that means that one aircraft on one pass could target 80 targets within a 100 km radius of its release point and land the bombs within 3m of their targets. Alternatively it can stooge around for a LONG time and supply a lot of CAS to troops on the ground.
The CAS isn't so much about the platform as the weapon system - specifically 500 lb bombs, JDAM, Diamond Back Wings and Link-16. None of those are beyond the capabilities of either the CF-18 or the CP-140.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34
- Reaction score
- 18,810
- Points
- 1,360
Although the term has been kicking around for several years, planners are thinking more about effects-based operations (EBO) than the traditional platform-centric thinking. Yes, there will always have to be a platform to deliver ordnance, but more consideration is being given to what effects commanders want (including temporal and spatial factors). Kirkhill's reference to tweaking a strategic bomber (B-2) to improve delivery of tactically-optimized ordnance is a good example. It will be interesting to see how the Government's upcoming capability statement regarding the military positions the various operational requirements and how specifically air support is considered in support of contemporary operations.
G2G
G2G
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,439
- Points
- 1,160
Personally I think the problem has a lot to do with trying to build a "wonder airplane" to be all things to all people. This approach is just to costly nowdays and no one wants to risk their expensive planes to a SAM, Manpad or ZSU-23.
For these brush wars you could use a converted airliner as a bombtruck.
For these brush wars you could use a converted airliner as a bombtruck.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Colin P said:
Been done in the Falklands War 1982 by the Argentine Airforce using a C-130 as an improvised bomber ???
“….but on June 2 an Argentine C-130 made a similar attack on a British oil tanker within the 200-mile zone, causing little damage…”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925468-6,00.html
Also here:
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/ArgentineAirc.htm#c130
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/air-war.htm
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
For "effects" you are able to separate the platform from the weapon, and a B-52 can carry a vast quantity of any sort of PGM you care to name. I think (not based on actually delivering or receiving any CAS mind you) that concentrating your stores in a single heavyweight platform is probably not the ideal solution, since any event which grounds you platform or forces it to leave it's station will leave the troops in the lurch. There is also a consideration of flight time, how long does it take a glide bomb or whatever to get from the aircraft to the target if you are utilizing the tremendous cross range these weapons are capable of?
The other consideration is there has to be a certain amount of "platform centricity" based on what type of effects you want to achieve. Just like the Argentinian C-130 was not very effective as a bomber, I doubt there is any feasable way to make a B-1B into a close support gunship. Mind you, if you use the platform properly, you get pretty amazing effects; an Argentinian AC-130 would have swept the waters around the Falklands clean of any unescorted merchant or supply ship.
From what I am seeing here, knowledgable people are voting for putting the smarts in the weapons and systems, so the trend for CAS and air support in general will be to treat the platforms as "bomb trucks" and use the power of sensors, networks and smart bombs to supply the effects, with a few special platforms for effects that can't be delivered by bomb or missile.
The other consideration is there has to be a certain amount of "platform centricity" based on what type of effects you want to achieve. Just like the Argentinian C-130 was not very effective as a bomber, I doubt there is any feasable way to make a B-1B into a close support gunship. Mind you, if you use the platform properly, you get pretty amazing effects; an Argentinian AC-130 would have swept the waters around the Falklands clean of any unescorted merchant or supply ship.
From what I am seeing here, knowledgable people are voting for putting the smarts in the weapons and systems, so the trend for CAS and air support in general will be to treat the platforms as "bomb trucks" and use the power of sensors, networks and smart bombs to supply the effects, with a few special platforms for effects that can't be delivered by bomb or missile.
