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

[FltEngr]

I've seen 3 of those Air Tractor landing in Fredericton 2 weeks ago....

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I've seen 3 of those Air Tractor landing in Fredericton 2 weeks ago....

IIRC there is a flight school located adjacent to the Fredrericton Airport that use these airframes.

 

[FltEngr]

IIRC there is a flight school located adjacent to the Fredrericton Airport that use these airframes.

It's Forest Protection Limited that flies them for mainly crop dusting. The flight schools you are referring to are Capital Airways and Moncton Flight Center remote facility.

 

[rampage800]

Well maybe this whole idea isn't too far off the mark, looks like the USAF is going exactly in this direction for a COIN a/c, okay maybe not exactly but running roughly parallel with


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/usaf-officially-launches-light.html

Who would have thought ?

 

[time expired]

It seems to me that the USAF already has the ideal airframe for the
CAS tasking ,great load carrier,good loiter time,good armoured protection,
the A10.There was also a two seater night attack version built but was
never ordered by the USAF.

Why is it not possible to reopen the production line?, surely that in the
long run this would be cheaper than acquiring a completely new aircraft.
                                        Regards

 

[SupersonicMax]

I think something important to consider is:

Right now, sure, we're all into COIN, however, 10-20 years from now, are we really still going to do this, or are we going back to a more conventional type or combat?  Buying aircraft now that we will not use in 20 years is a waste in my opinion.

 

[George Wallace]

I think something important to consider is:

Right now, sure, we're all into COIN, however, 10-20 years from now, are we really still going to do this, or are we going back to a more conventional type or combat?  Buying aircraft now that we will not use in 20 years is a waste in my opinion.

And what do you see in your crystal ball?

 

[Zoomie]

Buying aircraft now that we will not use in 20 years is a waste in my opinion.

Concur.

 

[YZT580]

Ground attack aircraft are the ugly ducklings of the air force.  They are slow, not very pretty and only used to attack the ground which is not what high speed jet jocks want to do.  But ask the boots on the ground in WW2 or Korea or Viet Nam what the greatest sound in the world was when they had their faces buried in the mud and they will universally say it was the sound of a piston driven douglas or Mitchel lumbering overhead.  After each of the aforementioned wars the first aircraft the air force got rid of was those same propeller fleets. 

Interestingly enough every war brings out the same requirements.  The guys on the ground need support and mach 1.4 doesn't help them much but 50 cal. strafing and precision munitions drops from close in does it every time so around 2 or 3 years into each of those wars some air force genius reinvented the ground support aircraft: they just called it different names.  This time it is COIN.  Next time it will be something else but I guarantee there will be a requirement for a troop supporting aerial platform in 20 years.

 

[SupersonicMax]

YZT, the F-18, or any multi-role jet fighter can do the job just as well.  Right now, CAS is a big priority for obvious reasons:  it's used in great quantity in Afghanistan.  In a more "conventionnal" war, would we really be relying on CAS as much as we do now?  Can we justify the acquisition of XX dedicated CAS platform when our fighters can do a good job?

 

[aesop081]

  The guys on the ground need support and mach 1.4 doesn't help them much

Not one single fighter out there does CAS at Mach 1.4.

I'm sure the guys on the ground don't mind an aicraft that can get to them at Mach 1.4 though, when shit is going south.

I will let you in on a little secret we have in aviation : We have more than one speed.

 

[rampage800]

Posted by: YZT580

Ground attack aircraft are the ugly ducklings of the air force.  They are slow, not very pretty and only used to attack the ground which is not what high speed jet jocks want to do.  But ask the boots on the ground in WW2 or Korea or Viet Nam what the greatest sound in the world was when they had their faces buried in the mud and they will universally say it was the sound of a piston driven douglas or Mitchel lumbering overhead.  After each of the aforementioned wars the first aircraft the air force got rid of was those same propeller fleets.

Agree 100%, you don't even have to go back as far as the conflicts you mention to make your point for CAS, I'm sure there was probably an incident within the last week in Afg where the good guys were hunkered down awaiting the CAS strike (although it wasn't necessarily a prop driven a/c) The truth of the matter is CAS/BAI always has and always will be in style, its been going on since WW I (in a very elementary way) and will probably be around for the rest of my lifetime at least. To say that we might not need that capability in 20 years might be shortsighted, I'd point to the A-10 for an a/c that is basically a one trick pony and look how long that platform has been around or the AC-130 for that matter(TE, they, A-10s, are also being outfitted with SNIPER pods now, and FMV capable, imagine that ????) I totally understand that the limitations placed on Canada mean we need an a/c that basically can cover a full spectrum of operations, not every country is under those same constraints !!!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The problem with the "do all fighter-bomber" is that the growing cost of each airframe will mean less aircraft being bought and a increasing reluctance of the senior staff to risk those airframe in strafing attacks. Once the A10's go and the current generation of fighters are replaced by F-22/F-35 or similar, I think you can wave goodbye to low level attacks. i have no doubt they will do fine at higher elevation attacks. The question will be can the increase in technology combined with stand off attacks replace the effectiveness of low level strafing?

 

[SupersonicMax]

The problem with the "do all fighter-bomber" is that the growing cost of each airframe will mean less aircraft being bought and a increasing reluctance of the senior staff to risk those airframe in strafing attacks. Once the A10's go and the current generation of fighters are replaced by F-22/F-35 or similar, I think you can wave goodbye to low level attacks. i have no doubt they will do fine at higher elevation attacks. The question will be can the increase in technology combined with stand off attacks replace the effectiveness of low level strafing?

I wouldn't be surprised to see low level CAS (more like medium level attacks), as you call it, carry on with the new generation fighter.  However, with the advances in Technology, it is possible to hit precisely a target without having a visual ID from the aircraft (if you have Lat/Long, with a JDAM, or with a LGB).  It would obviously depend on ROEs.  It's been done already, in theater.

There are a few obvious advantages to that, one being that the first pass won't scare them away if lead cannot drop his bombs, for any reasons. 

On the con side of things, well, hearing jet engines screaming above you tend to make you keep your head down. 

Low/Slow aircraft, like the Air Tractor or the Texan II are specifically designed for COIN ops and I am sceptic as to how efficient they would be in a more conventional warfare.  The battlefield is/will be much different from Korea/Vietnam/WW2/WW1.  The assets are much more limited, which makes the reaction time much slower with slower aircraft.

 

[aesop081]

The question will be can the increase in technology combined with stand off attacks replace the effectiveness of low level strafing?

But why does it have to replace it ?

Do we need an F-35 to come down low if the troops on the ground are already supported by AHs of various forms ?

 

[rampage800]

Do we need an F-35 to come down low if the troops on the ground are already supported by AHs of various forms ?

SA-6, 15, 20....to name a few.

 

[aesop081]

SA-6, 15, 20....to name a few.

i'm not sure of what you are saying here.......

 

[Zoomie]

COIN, AC-130 etc is all fine in the current theatre where the low to mid level threat is relatively low.  Put a slow tractor or Tex2 in a situation with modern Air Defense and a lack of air superiority and the game is changed dramatically.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

But why does it have to replace it ?

Do we need an F-35 to come down low if the troops on the ground are already supported by AHs of various forms ?

And AH here means Attack Helicopters.

SA-6, 15, 20....to name a few.

Those are Surface to Air missles....

i'm not sure of what you are saying here.......

What he said.

 

[rampage800]

CA

What I'm trying to say is that with those threats on the ground that the F-35 is probably going to have to come low, he can't just hang out up top, not with the SA threats in a modern conventional war, thats why we have things like SEAD.

I don't think collectively as a group we can say that the planes discussed will be useless in a conventional war and then on the other hand say we'll just buy a (insert a/c of your choice ie.JSF), stay high above the threat and not have to come down because thats not going to work either, we can't drop JSOWs for an entire war (or have dedicated arty support).

This subject is starting to bounce around quite a bit here, I'm not saying one platform is better than another what I am saying though is CAS and a/c that have those abilities are here to stay.

NFLD Sapper, I don't follow your post at all, are you narrating ?