Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Performance
Maximum speed 650 knots 1,204 km/h
Combat radius 760 nm 1,405 km
Ferry range 2,010 nm 3,720 km
Service ceiling 41,000 ft ft 12,496 m
Rate of climb 34,400 ft/min 10,500 m/min
Fill er up and check the hydraulic fluid eh??
The one in Kingston sure is pretty... sad it's impaled on a big stick....
TM
Maximum speed 650 knots 1,204 km/h
Combat radius 760 nm 1,405 km
Ferry range 2,010 nm 3,720 km
Service ceiling 41,000 ft ft 12,496 m
Rate of climb 34,400 ft/min 10,500 m/min
Fill er up and check the hydraulic fluid eh??
The one in Kingston sure is pretty... sad it's impaled on a big stick....
TM
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Would it fit on my utility trailer? I'll come get it this weekend. I have a big olde new england haybarn for storage.
TM
TM
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The Canadair CL-84 Dynavert was supposed to come in a gunship version, with the one picture I saw showing what looked like a medium calibre gun mounted in the nose and rocket pods attached to the fuselage clear of the propeller arcs. This was a long time ago and I don't have the reference picture any more, so I could be wrong.
Operating a small, light aircraft in support of troops on the ground would require changing a lot of how we operate. A very rugged airplane might actually deploy forward to a FARP (Forward Arming and Refueling Point) close to the battle, but this has different logistical issues from operating from an established airfield.
In the past, trainers or airplanes derived from trainers were used in this role. The Cessna A-37 "Dragonfly" is one example I can think of. The CF uses BAe Hawks for training, we could perhaps go this route (actually owning and operating them). Another alternative is a medium performance airframe, like the A-7 Corsair, which was a great gun platform and bomb truck.
Operating a small, light aircraft in support of troops on the ground would require changing a lot of how we operate. A very rugged airplane might actually deploy forward to a FARP (Forward Arming and Refueling Point) close to the battle, but this has different logistical issues from operating from an established airfield.
In the past, trainers or airplanes derived from trainers were used in this role. The Cessna A-37 "Dragonfly" is one example I can think of. The CF uses BAe Hawks for training, we could perhaps go this route (actually owning and operating them). Another alternative is a medium performance airframe, like the A-7 Corsair, which was a great gun platform and bomb truck.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hi,
Has anybody explored the possibility of say leasing some A-10's from the Americans? Considering that the Canadian "Warthogs" may have the opportunity to support American forces as well as other NATO contingents in Afghanistan, It might work.
The Americans are in the process of upgrading the 350+ A-10's. Going digital cockpit and new engines IIRC.
Maybe they could find another dozen in AMARC for us to use. What do ya think?
BTW almost all the AUP upgraded CF-5A's were sold to Botswana
Has anybody explored the possibility of say leasing some A-10's from the Americans? Considering that the Canadian "Warthogs" may have the opportunity to support American forces as well as other NATO contingents in Afghanistan, It might work.
The Americans are in the process of upgrading the 350+ A-10's. Going digital cockpit and new engines IIRC.
Maybe they could find another dozen in AMARC for us to use. What do ya think?
BTW almost all the AUP upgraded CF-5A's were sold to Botswana
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Wow I've heard many times the US talking of removing the A-10 from service but the thought doesn't last long I guess. They will be remembered along the same lines as the B-52 "immortal". Simply an amazing aircraft. Knowing the yanks they would sell us them for a buck a piece if we serviced them south of the boarder and threw in a few political favours.
We're fooling ourselves if we think we'll ever see a maple leaf on the side of one any time soon/ever.
We're fooling ourselves if we think we'll ever see a maple leaf on the side of one any time soon/ever.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
an inventory of +/- 367 A10s
(http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=70)
The original service life of the A-10 was 8,000 hours, approx = FY2005. Revised to 12,000 hours, approx FY2016. The most recent long range plan has the A-10 in the fleet through FY2028, approx 18,000-24,000 hours.
Somehow - think the US will want to keep it's fleet for as long as it can.
(http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=70)
The original service life of the A-10 was 8,000 hours, approx = FY2005. Revised to 12,000 hours, approx FY2016. The most recent long range plan has the A-10 in the fleet through FY2028, approx 18,000-24,000 hours.
Somehow - think the US will want to keep it's fleet for as long as it can.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I think the A-10 is an amazing aircraft but as others mentioned, it wouldn't be right for Canada since we need a "multi-role" aircraft. It's not very multi-role... It's "multi-blow-your-taliban-dirkadirka-ass-up-with-30-kinds-of-munitions-PRICK"....
It's VERY good at CAS and has a high survivability rating proven with it's successes in Iraq. I don't think I really need a website source to prove that, it's all OVER the net and any defence papers how well it performed.
As stated in other threads also, we need something truly multi-role like the Super Hornet, but more hopefully the F-35 JSF.
If it was up to US... I bet we'd have... F-22's for air superiority, A-10's for CAS, AC-130 Gunships just cause and Apache Longbows for good measure!
Alas.... It will never come!
Maybe we'll get lucky 20yrs from now and get to actually have an assault ship like we've been talking about in other threads also!!!
It's VERY good at CAS and has a high survivability rating proven with it's successes in Iraq. I don't think I really need a website source to prove that, it's all OVER the net and any defence papers how well it performed.
As stated in other threads also, we need something truly multi-role like the Super Hornet, but more hopefully the F-35 JSF.
If it was up to US... I bet we'd have... F-22's for air superiority, A-10's for CAS, AC-130 Gunships just cause and Apache Longbows for good measure!
Alas.... It will never come!
Maybe we'll get lucky 20yrs from now and get to actually have an assault ship like we've been talking about in other threads also!!!
- Reaction score
- 863
- Points
- 1,060
A while back, I believe Britney Spears mentioned a modernized piston engined fighter bomber- something like Sandy in Vietnam.
A-10 is a mean machine.
A-10 is a mean machine.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Other reasons for possibly leasing A-10's could be (total uneducated guesses obviously)
1) In theater in 12 to 18 mos.
2) May be able to bypass most of the bureaucratic processes associated with procurement
3) Can be returned to the Americans later
4) The most capable aircraft for CAS I can think of
5) We've leased from them before and it worked out OK (Voodoo)
Anyway, just some thoughts
1) In theater in 12 to 18 mos.
2) May be able to bypass most of the bureaucratic processes associated with procurement
3) Can be returned to the Americans later
4) The most capable aircraft for CAS I can think of
5) We've leased from them before and it worked out OK (Voodoo)
Anyway, just some thoughts
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
I'd rather go with MQ-9 Predators directing M777 fire when it's in range and using Hellfire or SDB's when artillery is not.
More to the point, A-10's make me nervous due to the ever-improving MANPADS available to those who can afford them.
M.
More to the point, A-10's make me nervous due to the ever-improving MANPADS available to those who can afford them.
M.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Here are some very out of the box ideas that a company called IML came up with out of New Zealand in the 1980s. From what I can gather, the designers were prompted by questioning how then current aircraft used their available dimensional envelopes and how they could perform their missions even suffering battle damage. The ADDAX-S is the most "fighter" like idea, while the AX-1 has similarities to the A-10
The wide engine spacing led to other ideas, like bleeding compressor air over the upper surface of the wing to vastly boost lift during take off and landing (not sure if this would work while you are flying at speed). On the other hand, Low Observability or "Stealth" was never considered, and there does not seem to be a provision for radar (not really a problem with the class of aircraft being considered here anyway). More can be found at this link: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=13654
The wide engine spacing led to other ideas, like bleeding compressor air over the upper surface of the wing to vastly boost lift during take off and landing (not sure if this would work while you are flying at speed). On the other hand, Low Observability or "Stealth" was never considered, and there does not seem to be a provision for radar (not really a problem with the class of aircraft being considered here anyway). More can be found at this link: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=13654
On the lighter side,how about the Defender developed in Carmen Manitoba. All Canadian development and production with economy at the forefront. Electrical conduit tubing actuates the flight controls.Cheap and readily available automotive parts integrated into the aircraft using Canadian Tire pop rivets to assure structural integrity under the most demanding flight conditions.
When I was stationed in Winnipeg in the 80's a took a little drive out to Carmen and met the developer and the machine that was under advanced stages of development. Neither were impressive. In fact I could not comprehend either the developer or the aircraft. I had to bang my head against a wall to try to awaken myself from what seemed like a bad dream. My head hurt all the way home. Photos 9 & 10 are the Defender.http://www.nfb.ca/trouverunfilm/fichefilm.php?id=17667&v=h&lg=en&exp=#
When I was stationed in Winnipeg in the 80's a took a little drive out to Carmen and met the developer and the machine that was under advanced stages of development. Neither were impressive. In fact I could not comprehend either the developer or the aircraft. I had to bang my head against a wall to try to awaken myself from what seemed like a bad dream. My head hurt all the way home. Photos 9 & 10 are the Defender.
http://www.nfb.ca/trouverunfilm/fichefilm.php?id=17667&v=h&lg=en&exp=#
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
So what is with the naked guy in photo 4?beenthere said:...... Photos 9 & 10 are the Defender.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,212
- Points
- 960
If I'm not mistaken that does'nt count the aircraft in storage that might add another 200 - 300 A/C to that number.geo said:
