CF-18's not being replaced???

[a_majoor]

Maybe I need to get a SPAD of my own, the fire is getting pretty hot!

Low level ground attack is, IMO, best done by armoured ground attack aircraft. British Tornados using all the Gucci kit designed to attack heavily defended Soviet airfields (including special penetration aids, decoys, chaff, flares and specially designed munitions that could be released during low altitude/high speed passes)  discovered this was terribly dangerous even against a fairly second rate enemy like the Iraqi army ca 1991, hence the move to high altitude bombing by most airforces (including the CAF) in conflicts since that time. For whatever reason, the high altitude SAMs havn't made much of an impact, even though Iraq and Serbia had this type of weapon as well.

I have no doubt it is possible to do low level attacks with CF-18s (and I have seen this myself in Wainwright), but watching the evolution of air tactics in the last decade and an half makes me wonder...perhaps what is really happening is low level air attack is moving from a possibility to a probability (i.e. "sure we can, but we think this way is better..."). Maybe sometime in the future UACVs will be either cheap enough or rugged enough to become the 21rst century version of the A-10 or SPAD, but in the mid term, it looks like bomb runs from +10K will be the order of the day.

 

[Gill557]

Yes I can see the radio communications between a fighter on CAS mission and its controller.
" Are we going to get a value for our money if we take out those tanks coming at our guys on the ground"
"Negative RTB"

Well considering most armoured units have AAA vehicles/SAMS why don't we use the fighter/bombers for what they were designed for.  Like strike missions behind the enemy's lines and strikes on his/her lines of communication.  Leave the CAS to armed choppers and dedicated CAS aircraft.  The A-10s and the Su-27 can take a pounding from AAA guns, h*ll the A-10 can even take a SAM hit and survive.  Try doing that with one of those F-16's.  A few rounds into one of those with send it crashing to the ground, so its gotta stay up high, out of the AAA zone, which then leaves it vulnerable to SAMs.  I don't believe it can be easy to hit a moving target with a Laser Guided Bomb.  I also do not discount the idea that High performance fighters have good survivability, I am just of the opinion that it is better to save them to hit things that the ground troops cannot hit.

Now this leaves a question, do you want to send a high performance jet into do CAS, a job it is really not designed to do, and risk both pilot and weapons load being destroyed by ground fire before it can do any good(granted this is a chance in war anyway), or do you send a dedicated CAS aircraft, which has better armour.  Personally if its my ass I'd like something to loiter around waiting for a target or in case someone walks into a sh*tstorm.  Again this is something that the A-10's were designed for, they had something like an hour to an hour and a half of loitering time over the battlefield in Desert Storm 1.  The F-16 and less then half of that, so they're in an out.
Now I am not saying I wouldn't want anything and everything that could carry a bomb/missile to come and save my ass if I'm about to be overrun, but I'd rather a pilot have a chance at personal survival as well as accomplishing the mission. Otherwise we won't have many pilots left to come and save us the next time.

Another thing about CAS in the past. CAS fighters were developed solely for that purpose during WW2, the British Typhoon is one example, the German Stuka is another as it was both a mobile artillery during the Blitzkrieg and later carried anti-tank cannons slung beneath the aircraft in the campaign in Russia.  This didn't mean that other aircraft like the P-51s, Spitfires, or Me-109s didn't do CAS, but most of it was left to the dedicated aircraft.


And to who ever claimed I was acting like Robert McNamara...
1) I am a soldier, not a politician
2) I do not believe a war can be won from an office thousands of kilometers for the battle zone
3) Unfortunately war is a game of numbers.  Who's got more... Who lost more... Losses to kill ratio... etc.
      Examples:  During Battle of Britain the Kill/Loss ratio of planes was in the daily paper, granted these were probably exagerated for morale purposes
                    Vietnam: They infamous body counts
                    Any war: A general looks at how many troops he lost, compared to how many his troops killed or ar suspected of killing/wounding

Well I've said my piece.  Let the comments begin  ;D

 

[JBP]

Well, I don't think we'd have to worry too much about the issue of CAS anyway. Except for the fact that we'll have the CF-18 until about 2021...... Let's hope we don't need them! HAr har! Just kidding, back when the F-18 and the F-16 were squaring off against eachother to be chosen (they were both then the YF-18 and YF-16) as the low cost/small airframe multirole combat aircraft, the F-16 was first chosen by the USAF, shortly after the F-18 was chosen by the USN as an attack aircraft. It can do CAS, sure it can't take as many hits as an A-10, but again, the A-10 was designed during the cold war to be a pure tank/armour killer.

The CF-18 can do CAS, the USN has used it for strike missions, as have we in training and in Kosovo.

When/if we do buy the Joint Strike Fighter, I imagine we'd buy the VSTOL version, which makes it perfect for CAS also. This would mean it can run from rough runways (roads or fields) and stay up close to the battlefield. Again, we won't be attaining any new aircraft until about 2020 or so though...

This snippet is from the CF Airforce website about the future of the CF-18:

Collectively, the abovementioned initiatives will ensure that Canada has a state-of-the-art CF-18 fighter force that remains effective and operationally credible until the 2017-20 timeframe.

Link:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/future_e.asp


So, it would appear that after that we'll need a new airframe/aircraft. We've already invested in the development of the JSF. That's probably what we'll buy. We certainly couldn't afford F-22's, even 15-20 yrs later. This new aircraft, designated the F-35, was designed for air-to-ground role primarily.

Another good link:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm

Joe

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting perspective on air support: at the SG05 planning meeting we were told planned CF-18 participation has been scrubed since the Air Force would not bring them below 5000 ft. I suppose one thing against high altitude bomb runs during training is the lack of "LCF" for the young troops (watching dogfights and low level air attacks in Wainwright was pretty cool, even if you suspected in "real life" you would be watching from inside the fireball...).

I was a bit dissapointed they seemed wrapped around the "airshow" aspect of things, and to my knowledge no one seems to have suggested the CF-18s come with 500lb bombs to drop in the fire boxes.....

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Just to throw in my 2 cents on CAS etc, the blurring of the lines (no more close, deep and rear) may mean that all air support is "close", even if it is delivered from high altitude above AAA range.  If we are operating in the sandbox somewhere against the modern enemy then I think that it is preferable to have airpower with precision weapons available than having to fly in artillery to support each mission.  Put a B52 or some other plane up top with JDAM and guys on the ground with the right equipment and training to employ them.  If it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill two bad guys then so be it.  Let the bean counters do the cyphering.  Aerial firepower alone cannot win, but if combined with good ISTAR and ground manouevre it can certainly be a key part of victory.

2B

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just looking at the CDA's new distribution titled "Understanding the Crisis in Canadian Security and Defence", I see that Howie Marsh shows the Air Force complement of Cf-18's to be at 34 for FY 2006. The table at page 29 shows this stat:

Aircraft Type  Cost Per Flying Hour  Annual FH Per Year    Quantity                                Fleet Cost (millions)
c130            $15,000                  656                          31 (reduce to 13 by 2006)      $305
c150            $10,000                  900                          5                                          $45
cf-18            $33,000                  156                          80 (reduce to 34 in 2006)      $412
cp140          $ 30,000                  463                        16                                        $222
ch124          $16,000                    338                        29                                        $157
ch146          $6,700                      264                        92 (reduce to 78)                  $137
ch149          $10,500                    393                        15                                        $61.9
dash8            $7,800                    684                          5                                          $27
ct133            $9,300                    131                        6                                          $ 7
ct114            $4,900                    146                        8                                          $6

Total                                                                          285 (195 2006)                      1380

Other than a pretty pathetic tally for an air force belonging to a NATO and G-7/8 country, my real surprise is the Cf-18 total. Is this an error or is there something unaccounted for? 
                                           

 

[aesop081]

you can take the ct-133s out of that as well as the total number of ct-142s is 4 not 5.  I seriously doubt the accuracy of the number of CF-18s left in 2006.  The fighter upgrade program is being carried out on 80 aircraft, 48 of the being assigned to the operational squadrons and the remaining 32 supporting the training and maintenance system.  The auditor general has already slammed the government for the small number of jets being upgraded, calling it inadequated for the country's defense needs.

You can also count the CT-114s to be gone sooner rather than later.  The list also leaves out the 3 CP-140A arcturus, the CC-115 buffalo and CC-138 twin Otter.

Like you said however....pretty sad

 

[Inch]

Where'd you get those numbers Whiskey? I'm with aesop, there must be an error in the CF18 totals as well as the CT114. Last time I counted there were 9 Snowbirds and 2 team coordinators for a min of 11 CT114's still in service. The CF website says there's 22 in service.

 

[aesop081]

Where'd you get those numbers Whiskey? I'm with aesop, there must be an error in the CF18 totals as well as the CT114. Last time I counted there were 9 Snowbirds and 2 team coordinators for a min of 11 CT114's still in service. The CF website says there's 22 in service.

I got my numbers and CF-18 info from JDW.........i trust them alot more than i ever will the CDA

Edit : the list posted also neglects to mention the Hawk and Harvard II aircraft.  ( before anybody jumps all over me i know they are leased but they still support AF operations so IMHO they count.  Besides i'm sure that the Hungarian AF, who just leased Grippens for 10 years from Sweeden counts leased aircraft on thei OOB)

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just looking at the CDA's new distribution titled "Understanding the Crisis in Canadian Security and Defence", I see that Howie Marsh shows the Air Force complement of Cf-18's to be at 34 for FY 2006. The table at page 29 shows this stat:
                                           

Has to be an error on his part, or he is not stating something else, for example the rest of the aircraft are off the line for upgrade. But then, so are some of the CP 140's.

The copyright date of the booklet is March 2005. Got it in the mail today. Usual doom and gloom stuff, but the cf18 figure and the c130 figure caught my eye.

LOL, in another part the booklet says we have 4 Oberon SSK. I'm sure Col. Marsh {ret'd} will clear this up sooner rather than later.

Cheers guys,
Whiskey.

 

[Inch]

Apparently I should learn to read!  :-[

Oberons eh? I though we got rid of those a few years ago. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Oberons eh? I though we got rid of those a few years ago. 

They were still in Halifax last week along with two IREs!

 

[Inch]

They were still in Halifax last week along with two IREs!

Yeah, they're sitting over at the Dockyard Annex, but I thought they were paid off and waiting to be disposed of.

 

[mover1]

Very interesting threat and good debate on this one no Far of topic at any time, however I would like to clarify a few points, It's not the 30 million dollar airplane but the 5000 dollar bomb that takes out the 2 million dollar tank, and you need fast air and fighters to keep that other guy with fast air and fighters away from you, and as for the numbers, I of the Aircraft, I think they are way off the mark. His number of F-18 totals must be the number of upgraded C models we will have by then. The F-18 modernisation programme is a slow and methodical process and when I left 441 Sqn they were just getting into starting the upgrading and they were going to be off line for about a year and a half.

 

[Good2Golf]

Ummm...those numbers are a bit off.  The CF188 Incremental Modernization Program (based on the USN's ECP583) was orginally going to upgrade 96 aircraft but was subequently reduced to 80 aircraft at the last IMP Senior Review Board.  Once all 80 aircraft of up to spec (including new APG-73 radars, a host of avionics and data-link upgrades and some updates to the DEWS - def EW suite), their ELE (est. life expectancy) will be around 2020.  I old flying buddy of mine is moving into Bombardier in Mirabel this summer to conduct final acceptance flight test on the modded birds.  Should be interesting to see how the upgrades pan out in future tasks for the Hornet...should bring interoperability back in line with other C/D-E/F models.

I don't know what the deal is on Howie's 13 Hercs.... ???

Cheers,
Duey

 

[mover1]

:boring: I have hercs on my board, there are three on the tarmac and none of them are working so I think the herc number just reflects the sevicability rate for the whole fleet at any one time.

 

[Good2Golf]

:boring: I have hercs on my board, there are three on the tarmac and none of them are working so I think the herc number just reflects the sevicability rate for the whole fleet at any one time.

Ahhhh....what was the SK number again?  ;D

 

[Inch]

Ahhhh....what was the SK number again?   ;D

I'll you you right now, there's no F*ing way there's 29 serviceable Sea Kings!