Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?

[Rifleman62]

Slideshow of 13:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/slideshow/2017/08/11/amazing-experimental-attack-planes-on-show.html#/slide/the-textron-scorpion-experimental-aircraft-conducts-handling-and-flying-quality-maneuvers-above-white-sands-missile-range-


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13393/usafs-oa-x-light-attack-experiment-is-looking-more-like-an-international-arms-fair

USAF's OA-X Light Attack Experiment is Looking More Like an International Arms Fair - BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK AUGUST 10, 2017

4.28 video at link

 

[dimsum]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13393/usafs-oa-x-light-attack-experiment-is-looking-more-like-an-international-arms-fair

USAF's OA-X Light Attack Experiment is Looking More Like an International Arms Fair - BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK AUGUST 10, 2017

This quote peaked my interest:

As with the U.S. Air Force, Australia and Canada could be interested in a light attack aircraft as a low-cost alternative to sending their multi-role F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets on operations abroad. Both countries routinely engage in counterterrorism and peacekeeping missions overseas that could call for surveillance and light attack missions in permissive environments.

 

[MilEME09]

Well now that could change things for our fighter procurement, did someone with insider information just leak something?

 

[Kirkhill]

Is there an RCAF pilot that wouldn't be qualified on the AT-6 Wolverine given the use of the T-6 (CT-156 Harvard II) as the primary trainer and the similarities?

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/ct-156.page

The Beechcraft T-6 Texan II is a single-engine turboprop aircraft built by the Raytheon Aircraft Company (which became Hawker Beechcraft and later Beechcraft Defense Company, and was bought by Textron Aviation in 2014). A trainer aircraft based on the Pilatus PC-9, the T-6 has replaced the Air Force's Cessna T-37B Tweet and the Navy's T-34C Turbo Mentor. The T-6A is used by the United States Air Force for basic pilot training and Combat Systems Officer (CSO) training and by the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps for primary Naval Aviator training as well as primary and intermediate Naval Flight Officer (NFO) training. The T-6A is also used as a basic trainer by the Royal Canadian Air Force (CT-156 Harvard II), the Greek Air Force, the Israeli Air Force (Efroni), and the Iraqi Air Force. The T-6B is the primary trainer for U.S. student naval aviators. The T-6C is used for training by the Mexican Air Force, Royal Air Force, Royal Moroccan Air Force, and the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-6_Texan_II

I guess the same question would apply to all the other air forces listed above.

 

[dimsum]

I'm really more surprised that the Americans aren't in full "Buy American" mode and single-sourcing the AT-6 over the Super Tucano. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Apparently the OV-10 Bronco kicked ISIS dish dash...

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068

 

[YZT580]

So, if the OV10 has already demonstrated it prowess why not simply put it back into production. It is a proven design, offers significant loiter time and is combat proven.  And all the reports have already been written and signed off.  It was/is a great aircraft for its specifically designed duties.

 

[dimsum]

Tangent:

So, if the OV10 Buffalo has already demonstrated it prowess why not simply put it back into production. It is a proven design, offers significant loiter time and is combat proven.  And all the reports have already been written and signed off.  It was/is a great aircraft for its specifically designed duties.

/tangent

For the Bronco, mostly because like the Buffalo, it'd be more of a hassle to re-tool the line, etc to start making them again?  The T-6 and Super Tucano lines are still in production.

 

[tomahawk6]

The CF probably cant afford a separate aircraft for CAS. The CF-18 will have to make do until the CF-35 is available.Although I do favor the Apache for supporting the ground forces.

 

[YZT580]

It would be a whole lot cheaper to stand up a couple of squadrons of T6's  than it would be to purchase 18 interim CF18s or the like.  Don't need any new infrastructure, we already train on type, maintenance and operating costs are far lower and it would get the libs out of the corner they have painted themselves into regarding Boeing and their ongoing trade dispute and of course the never buy F35 crowd.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Would actually standing up a actual RCAF training squadron with the Hawks, Harvard’s and some light attack aircraft to replace the current contractor system perhaps help with the pilot and maintainer retention? It would mean a posting with a regular schedules.

 

[MilEME09]

Would actually standing up a actual RCAF training squadron with the Hawks, Harvard’s and some light attack aircraft to replace the current contractor system perhaps help with the pilot and maintainer retention? It would mean a posting with a regular schedules.

While I don't know the issues facing the airforce retention problem, I imagine being posted to places like cold lake doesn't help. Doing our training in house as well (with contractor help at first) will probably save cost as well. Problem is the investment to make it happen.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Would actually standing up a actual RCAF training squadron with the Hawks, Harvard’s and some light attack aircraft to replace the current contractor system perhaps help with the pilot and maintainer retention? It would mean a posting with a regular schedules.

I would say a large part of that might be where they would be posted to.  Places like Portage and Moosejaw aren't exactly on the top of people's *where do I dream of living* lists.

Ref buying a few Sqns of light attack prop airframes...they're more niche aircraft IMO, and we need multi-mission type ones because of our size and funding (or lack of it).  If we did get them, where would the $ come from...we are on a fixed income afterall.

:2c:

 

[YZT580]

The availability of cash is not the issue: it never really has been.  The government of the day deals in perception.  If purchasing ground attack aircraft is perceived to resolve an equipment/political issue and can be demonstrated as being consistent with the direction in which the government wants to move then it will happen.  As witness, recall the purchase of the C17s and the Leopard tanks.  Our current government has stated their desire to get back into 'peace keeping' and they have pledged resources to fulfil this goal.  Pursuing the purchase of said aircraft for support punts the issue into the next decade as they can promise as soon as we have the resources we will be there.  Both Mali and the Congo have demonstrated the requirement for light duty airborne support.  Purchasing new interim aircraft is resolved and it doesn't take money away from their favourite charities.  IMHO it is a win-win for the libs.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So all of a sudden there's an abundance of extra YFR to go around???

I couldn't get flight suits or even t-shirst this spring and summer so far...people are not able to get PRTs issued...I won't even get into serviceability because of no spares, etc...and we have no money contraints. 

 

[MilEME09]

So all of a sudden there's an abundance of extra YFR to go around???

I couldn't get flight suits or even t-shirst this spring and summer so far...people are not able to get PRTs issued...I won't even get into serviceability because of no spares, etc...and we have no money contraints. 

CANSOFCOM needed new DEU's sorry  >  the airforce and the CAF is living on a fixed income less then what we need.

 

[Good2Golf]

It would be a whole lot cheaper to stand up a couple of squadrons of T6's  than it would be to purchase 18 interim CF18s or the like.  Don't need any new infrastructure, we already train on type, maintenance and operating costs are far lower and it would get the libs out of the corner they have painted themselves into regarding Boeing and their ongoing trade dispute and of course the never buy F35 crowd.

By cheaper, I'm assuming you are not referring to Departmental personnel costs, which on the whole would make even a very healthy capital acquisition budget look tiny in comparison.

Take a look at the Cost Factors manual and your "couple of squadrons of T6's" will set DND back a cool 1/20th of a Billion dollars in personnel costs, give or take.  You should not be surprised then, that the DM's blood pressure rises significantly when the good idea fairies are at work, especially when they "just" ask for people.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

Idle thought.

If all pilots are type qualified on the CT-156/T-6/AT-6 does that mean that the pool of pilots available to provide support in permissive environments is all pilots (including rotary wing), rather than just the pilots qualified to fly the F-18/F-35?

Thus reducing the workload on the F-18 pilots.

Second idle thought.

If the CT-156/T-6/AT-6 is a primary trainer does that mean that the time necessary to convert a pilot into a "useful" asset can be reduced?

Third idle thought.

What is the impact on Reserve Pilot employment and retention?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So all of a sudden there's an abundance of extra YFR to go around???

I couldn't get flight suits or even t-shirst this spring and summer so far...people are not able to get PRTs issued...I won't even get into serviceability because of no spares, etc...and we have no money contraints. 

There is always money to be had, if you are the chosen ones, Who is the chosen ones depends on the government of the day, crisis dejour and political capital to be spent or gained.

 

[YZT580]

Thanks Colin you said it much better than I.