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

[Colin Parkinson]

It won't be suicide, but the attrition rate of aircraft and pilots in a war with a peer enemy might be quite sobering. Particularly after each side runs short of missiles to arm their remaining aircraft with. I wonder how quickly we would deplete current stocks in 3 weeks of intensive combat?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

In the conflicts we've been involved in over the past decade/decade and a half, it's more the stuff in the picture attached and links below that concerns me...

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-a-10-warthog-planes-in-iraq-reportedly-shot-at-by-isis-militants-with-manpads-2015-1

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

 

[Loachman]

It won't be suicide, but the attrition rate of aircraft and pilots in a war with a peer enemy might be quite sobering.

If you are going to send a guy or girl into combat, give him/her a fighting chance to both kill an enemy or several, either in the air, on the ground, or both, and get back home to re-arm with whatever stocks remain.

A trainer will have to carry out far more sorties to launch the same number/weight of weapons as a single F35 (or whatever) will in a single sortie, and has little in the way of survivability aids - no sensors, no datalinks, no stealth, no ability to designate targets and carry even a light load. Pack the noses with C4 if we ever get desparate enough to send kids to battle in trainers. They'd have the same chances of survival, and greater effectiveness.

This country can afford real aircraft. There is no excuse to cheap out and potentially - and criminally - risk Canadian lives for no gain.

If we do eventually buy 88 fighters as "promised", we'll not be able to fill all of the seats anyway, in the shape that we're in now and for the foreseeable future.

 

[GR66]

The point I was making was that without a fundamental change to the way the government funds the military (and and equally fundamental change in the way the CF structures the military) we will never have a dedicated, properly capable in a true high-intensity combat environment, CAS aircraft.

As you've noted, even manning (an inadequately sized) fighter fleet of 88 aircraft will be a serious challenge for the CF.  How on earth could we manage an additional fleet of proper CAS aircraft? 

So, if we want to have any type of air support capability at all, then to my mind it will be something like was done with the Griffons, taking an existing asset and making it useful in a way that wasn't originally intended for it.  And then only in situations where we're up against an enemy that isn't in a position to really exploit its weaknesses.

An armed transport/utility helicopter, or trainer against China/Russia/Iran/North Korea of course would be a stupid idea.  Against a low-tech insurgent group like IS?  Maybe it might have some merit. 

Is spending money on that (niche) capability worthwhile compared to spending the same money on other core capabilities like more ATGMs for the infantry, more guns for the artillery, etc?  I have my doubts.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The only advantages would be that you could conduct CAS training with them and have a secondary fleet if the crap really hits the fan and you need far more aircraft than you ever have.
If we get the F35 the only CAS it will do is drop bombs from a fairly high altitude, which is not a bad thing, just might not be what the grunts would want. If there is conflicting priorities for the few fighter aircraft we will have is the RCAF going to place any importance on CAS? 

 

[McG]

If the “grunts” get the effect they need, does it matter if it was delivered by the plane they think they want?

 

[Kirkhill]

If the “grunts” get the effect they need, does it matter if it was delivered by the plane they think they want?

Personally I wouldn't care if the "package" were delivered by ICBM, if it arrived in a timely fashion and removed the problem while leaving me happily drinking my beer.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Personally I wouldn't care if the "package" were delivered by ICBM, if it arrived in a timely fashion and removed the problem while leaving me happily drinking my beer.

I can see a business opportunity here for FedEx

 

[Kirkhill]

I can see a business opportunity here for FedEx

 

[MilEME09]

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/icarus-aerospace-unveils-multi-role-capable-tav-aircraft/?fbclid=IwAR0u98LU0ktBhWwIpcVvFnGtxChn4IdaMFpNn2nOikRHSwE-Aosw_WTiBMQ

Meet the TAV, made in Quebec, not by Bombardier, 8,000 pounds of ordinance. Interesting low cost design, wonder if it could be useful to us?

 

[Good2Golf]

Looks exactly like an OV-10 Bronco.  I don’t see the scale-up to support 8,000lbs of munitions and 6hr endurance, from the Bronco’s 3000 lbs and 3-4 hours.

 

[dapaterson]

Looks exactly like an OV-10 Bronco.  I don’t see the scale-up to support 8,000lbs of munitions and 6hr endurance, from the Bronco’s 3000 lbs and 3-4 hours.

Almost like you should see an aircraft in actual operation, and not just buy based on manufacturer's claims.

 

[dimsum]

Almost like you should see an aircraft in actual operation, and not just buy based on manufacturer's claims.

Now why would anyone do that?  Those reps have nothing but the best intentions  :nod:

 

[dapaterson]

Now why would anyone do that?  Those reps have nothing but the best intentions  :nod:

Cough LockMart a decade ago on the F35 cough

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Looks exactly like an OV-10 Bronco.  I don’t see the scale-up to support 8,000lbs of munitions and 6hr endurance, from the Bronco’s 3000 lbs and 3-4 hours.

More info here.  Really?:

+ One belly mounted optionally installed (up to 30mm) 360-degree turret cannon

I wish them all the best, but when I actually see an aircraft flying I  won't be hold my breath.

 

[Weinie]

Does anyone notice the syntax/grammar errors in their on-line brochures? Could just be a problem with the English language, as it quotes Marko Ivankovic, senior product development manager and flight test engineer for Icarus Aerospace.

 

 

[Halifax Tar]

I am no expert anything tha flys or CAS.  But wouldn't these prop driven planes be easy pickins for AAA or even SA fire ?

 

[Dana381]

The point I was making was that without a fundamental change to the way the government funds the military (and and equally fundamental change in the way the CF structures the military) we will never have a dedicated, properly capable in a true high-intensity combat environment, CAS aircraft.

As you've noted, even manning (an inadequately sized) fighter fleet of 88 aircraft will be a serious challenge for the CF.  How on earth could we manage an additional fleet of proper CAS aircraft? 

So, if we want to have any type of air support capability at all, then to my mind it will be something like was done with the Griffons, taking an existing asset and making it useful in a way that wasn't originally intended for it.  And then only in situations where we're up against an enemy that isn't in a position to really exploit its weaknesses.

An armed transport/utility helicopter, or trainer against China/Russia/Iran/North Korea of course would be a stupid idea.  Against a low-tech insurgent group like IS?  Maybe it might have some merit. 

Is spending money on that (niche) capability worthwhile compared to spending the same money on other core capabilities like more ATGMs for the infantry, more guns for the artillery, etc?  I have my doubts.

I agree 100% and in order to change the governments military spending habits the media has to change its constant negative spin on anything military related. Ottawa Citizen's Defense Watch didn't even run a story about the acceptance of AOPS Harry DeWolf and neither did CBC. During the Afgan war these media outlets were criticizing the government for NOT buying new kit. Our soldiers need support and our media actively prevents it in peace time.

Someone should design a modular mission module to slide into a Hercules to make it a gunship. If side doors were added in the right places a pallet could be made the size of the cargo bay with heavy guns and ammo stores mounted. Any Hercules with the doors added could load the module and become a gunship relatively quickly and when not needed it could be used for humanitarian and cargo missions. It would not likely be able to mount guns a large as a dedicated AC-130 carries but should be able to mount guns large enough to make a potent gunship for close air support. You could even add some AGM's and rockets to wing hardpoints if weight allows.

 

[YZT580]

Just get Viking to re-purpose the Buf. We already own the air frames and it would provide jobs for BC and AB. (sarcasm)
After all the Yanks did it with the DC3 in the 60's and the payload figures are about the same. Loiter time would be good and any opposition would be laughing so hard that they wouldn't be able to focus their aim until it was too late.

 

[a_majoor]

Someone should design a modular mission module to slide into a Hercules to make it a gunship. If side doors were added in the right places a pallet could be made the size of the cargo bay with heavy guns and ammo stores mounted. Any Hercules with the doors added could load the module and become a gunship relatively quickly and when not needed it could be used for humanitarian and cargo missions. It would not likely be able to mount guns a large as a dedicated AC-130 carries but should be able to mount guns large enough to make a potent gunship for close air support. You could even add some AGM's and rockets to wing hardpoints if weight allows.

There are multiple iterations of this idea already, including the AC-130 Specter Gunship, kits that allow the USMC to attach Hellfire ATGM's to underwing stations of a C-130 and even a pallet allowing you to fire small "Griffon" missiles from the ramp while in flight.

Of course, the shootdown of an AC-130 over Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War during a daylight mission demonstrated that the gunship isn't viable in contested or defended airspace, and to my knowledge, no daylight missions have been undertaken since then. Even at night, there are insurgent forces which have MANPADS and the ability to use NVG's or other devices which would make operations difficult for a cargo plane, much less one flying low and slow for an attack run, and against a modern near peer enemy, you would be toast. Russian Spetsnaz operators with MANPADs essentially cleared the skies of Ukrainian SU-25's in the Donbass, and the SU-25's are analogues of the A-10. If a dedicated ground attack aircraft isn't going to cut it, then adapting a cargo plane won't work very well either.

The one thing a C-130 could do in the modern environment is serve as a "mothership" for UAV or UCAV's, an idea the Americans are exploring now. This is far different from a gunship mission, however.