• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

In Defence of the Air Force.

Kirkhill

Puggled and Wabbit Scot.
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,427
Points
1,160
Unlike the professional members of this forum I only played at soldiers.  At least that is the way that I see my Militia service during the 1980s. 

However I did have an opportunity to go to Gagetown and take Phase III training along with the real soldiers: a rare privilege for a MITCP officer.  While there I learned a bunch of stuff, some inconsequential stuff like the weight of an FNC1A1 complete with sling, bayonet and 20 round magazine attached.  And some stuff of real value, such as when you aren’t sure pretend you are.  People want to believe that somebody knows what they are doing. (Dropped off along Shanks Road at 0 Dark 30 with my syndicate for a night navigation exercise,  fumbling with bindings on banger boards while everybody else has competently slipped into theirs and are now arguing about where the heck we are, stand up, lead off and say “Right, this way, so-and-so with such-and-such,  whatsisname stay with me.”  Got lucky.  Guessed right.)

Also discovered a rare phenomenon pertaining to the radio.  It had magical properties. 

The way the course was run syndicate leader got the radio.  Everybody else tagged along behind.  Last man invariably lagging, a long way from 5 metre spacing,  no clue as to where they were, moaning and whining as he went.  It seemed to be a requirement for the position.  Leader spends his time yelling come on keep up.


Change legs.

Last man gets the radio.  Ldr drops to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to Last.  He starts lagging.  The guy that couldn’t keep up without the radio, suddenly, magically finds that he is 40 metres ahead of the syndicate and in yelling come on keep up.  Miraculous. 

Later, I observed similar effects in the absence of the radio and concluded the magical result had less to do with the power of the radio and more to do with the power of responsibility.

On to the Air Force.

A lot has been said about the Air Force and its 48 fighter jocks and how they don’t seem to want to play with the Army or the Navy.  Some guys that do work with the Army and the Navy seem to think they might be better off changing uniforms full time.  Perhaps they might.

On the other hand perhaps the problem is that the Air Force brass has constantly seen its responsibilities taken from it.  Its lunch been eaten if you like.  That does not tend to make for happy individuals.

Perhaps the answer is NOT to take responsibilities away but instead to add to the responsibilities. 

Consider 4 circles

The Heartland or Settled Canada (cities, villages, farms, roads, railways and such)
Sovereign Canada (trackless wastes full of vast exploitable riches etc etc reaching out to whatever we can claim under law)
Lines of Communications with the Rest of the World (the high seas)
Expeditionary Canada (Canada the good saving the world from itself and scoring points in the process)

The Heartland can be reached by truck on high speed highways and there are people scattered all over the place that are willing to help.  Not much chance of being hit by a bullet so little need for armour and big guns but lots of need for bodies to help and control situations.  A great place for a Militia to help out the civilian authorities like the RCMP.  They need a little stiffening from full time soldiers and airmen, but the threats the face will either be large crowds poorly armed and organized or small bodies well armed and organized.  Both will be faced infrequently.  Part time soldiers to deal with the occasional emergencies and a small force of well-trained and available regs would probably get the job done.

Skip Sovereign Canada for a minute.

Lines of Communications – the high seas, blue water, the Navy.  Keeping pirates, slavers, drug runners, and illegal arms shippers at bay.  The traffic cops of the sea lanes.  Secondary function making sure that Expeditionary Canada gets to where it is going and comes back safely.  A job for the Navy with help from the Air Force in helicopters.  No long runways at sea.

Expeditionary Canada.  Boots on the ground in foreign lands.  Primarily and Army force with some Air Force assistance – for planning purposes it might be better not to count on having long hard runways and a secure fuel supply.  Better to assume that support is going to come from Helicopters and the Artillery.

Now back to Sovereign Canada.  As in the Heartland the threat is likely to be small bodies, some well trained, some not so much.  They are also scattered over an incredibly large area.  Where in the Heartland the countryside is under constant observation from busybody neighbours and the local constabulary the sovereign lands are largely unobserved. The same is true of the approaches. 

Sovereign Canada demands constant observation and occasional response.  The response however can be anything from photographing a polluter, to rescuing a downed aircraft, to interdicting a foreign fishing/mining/smuggling operation, to occasionally dealing with armed individuals and groups that choose not to accept the governments authority.  To meet all these needs requires multiple capabilities.  These capabilities can be duplicated and scattered widely or else, with good transportation they can be concentrated and deployed as required.

This job, part of the job that Canada Command is being tasked with, seems to me to be ideally suited to the Air Force.  Satellites, Radars, Air Defence and Search and Rescue are all primarily their job now in any case.  Add in responsibility for a brigade of light troops configured for platoon/company operations in Canadian territory as well as the Rangers.

All of a sudden Air Force commanders now have to figure out how to deploy, maintain and support THEIR guys on the ground out of THEIR budget.  They have responsibility, authority and budget.  They would also have to learn how to fight a ground battle.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they didn’t start producing results that were more convivial to the Navy, the Army dominated Expeditionary Command and the Militia dominated Heartland division of Canada Command.

Heartland – RCMP with Militia and support from Army, Air Force and possibly some Navy
Sovereign Canada – Air Force with support from Rangers, Army and Coast Guard/Navy out to 200 miles
Lines of Communications – Navy with support from Air Force
Expeditions – Army with support from Air Force, Navy and Militia.

Just some thoughts from an amateur.

Cheers.

PS I apologize to Edward and others for the abominable english.  Momentarily exercised.
 
Kirkhill said:
Lines of Communications – the high seas, blue water, the Navy.  Keeping pirates, slavers, drug runners, and illegal arms shippers at bay.  The traffic cops of the sea lanes.  Secondary function making sure that Expeditionary Canada gets to where it is going and comes back safely.  A job for the Navy with help from the Air Force in helicopters.  No long runways at sea.

I says "pardon me !! "

I dont see too many navy ships out there at the edge of canada's AOR.  I certainly dont see any sea kings out there either ( domesticaly speaking).  Who do you supose is the eyes and ears of the navy ?
 
So if I am reading Kirkhills post correctly, we will need to establish "Air Expeditionary Wings" with the organic transport, recce, C&C, helicopter and air combat power to support a battle group; either shuttling it around Canada or to the far corners of the world.

While in principle I am certainly for each Area/JTF being able to pony up an AWACS, J-STARS, Heavy and tactical transports, transport and attack helicopters and some A-10s to get me out of those difficult situations on the ground, etc, we will have to think very far out of the box to make this an affordable concern.
 
I guess my enthusiasm has made me incomprehensible.  ;D

What I am suggesting is that, starting with the Expeditionary Forces - they can't plan on having a runway available from which to launch fixed wing aircraft.  Therefore they should configure themselves around rotary wing support (manned and unmanned) and whatever artillery can bring to the picture.  Arty can now reasonably deliver 500 lb warheads out to 100 miles from the back of a truck.  They can also supply 20 lb shaped charge warheads out to 70 miles by missile.  In from there they can deliver more conventional fire support.

If a runway is available then the Air Force can contribute Fixed Wing assets like CF-18s and CP-140s.

For the Navy, operating on the high seas and delivering expeditionary forces, they too would probably better off continuing to rely on rotary wing support and, like the Expeditionary Force, if a runway is available then the Air Force can contribute.

However in both cases I think it is better to plan on not having something and being pleasantly surprised than vice versa.

Domestically I am saying I don't think that heavy weapons are likely to be used in downtown Toronto any time soon.  Small arms and riot sticks, trucks and field kitchens are more likely to be the order of the day, along with comms and recce gear.  That is where civil authority leads and will either require a large number of lightly armed or unarmed individuals or else specialist skills.

In the area of Canada where roads do not run, that is where I am suggesting that the Air Force should take the lead.  As it does just now in monitoring air approaches, and with the new NORAD agreement, possibly/probably the sea approaches.  It is also responsible for conducting aerial patrols over Arctic territory and the EEZ.  It is also responsible for recovering lost bodies and for shooting down incoming aircraft and/or ships.  All I am suggesting is that the Air Force should be given Opcon of a force of light army troops responsible for reacting to crises within Canada.  It would be equivalent to turning the Canadian Airborne Regiment over to Air Command and making Air Command responsible for deploying and supporting that force domestically.  The skills and capabilities learned domestically could then be put at the disposal of the Expeditionary Force IF CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT.

I am not arguing for a LFWA AWACS.  Or half a dozen expeditionary wings.

I am saying that by making the Air Force responsible for co-ordinating an Air Land capability domestically then they will learn, they will get credit when it is due and they might be more inclined to spend money on capabilities that ultimately will benefit the army based expeditionary force.  For example, providing rotary wing transport and fire support, FACs, you name it.
 
Kirkhill said:
I guess my enthusiasm has made me incomprehensible.  ;D

i have that problem alot

If a runway is available then the Air Force can contribute Fixed Wing assets like CF-18s and CP-140s.

2  CP-140 Aurora aircraft will be designated for the SCTF

For the Navy, operating on the high seas and delivering expeditionary forces, they too would probably better off continuing to rely on rotary wing support and, like the Expeditionary Force, if a runway is available then the Air Force can contribute.

The air force is already contrubuting.....who do you think provides the HELAIRDETS for all those shiny ships....


Kirkhill.....I recently took part in EX MAPLE GUARDIAN in Wainwright.  The army just disovered that an orbiting CP-140 is its new best freind.  I would say that the air force needs little "defending".....IMHO
 
aesop081:

I understand that little of what I am suggesting is particularly new.  And if the Air Force doesn't need defending then great. 
 
Kirkhill said:
And if the Air Force doesn't need defending then great. 

Well, except in bar fights.

As much as we joke about the AF, I think we all understand it plays
a vital role.
 
Trinity:

The only folks who don't understand the importance of the Air Force are the fighter jocks - and they're the ones who run the Air Force.

Notice how the Air Force went whole- hawg into refurbishing the CF18s?  At the same time, did they push to renew the transport fleet?  No?  Didn't they know that the CC-130s were reaching the end of their flight hours?  Well, yes, but fighters are sexier.  And more macho.  (The fact that it's multi-engine pilots who have more operational flight time in high risk areas is a topic best not disucssed in Bagotville, Cold Lake, or CAS)

The Air Force needs about a decade of CASes drawn from the multi-engine, TacHel or Maritime Hel worlds to properly focus the institution.  Maybe, if they learn to play nice, we'll be able to trust a fighter jock in the job around 2020 or so - by which time it will be all UAVs for air-to-air, anyways.

 
aesop081 said:
Kirkhill.....I recently took part in EX MAPLE GUARDIAN in Wainwright.  The army just disovered that an orbiting CP-140 is its new best freind.  I would say that the air force needs little "defending".....IMHO

How effective is a CP-140 in comparison to something like the new British Astor Sentinels, and does the capability difference (as well as the existing responsibilities of the CP-140) justify a new expenditure in your opinion?


Matthew.    :salute:
 
dapaterson said:
Trinity:


Notice how the Air Force went whole- hawg into refurbishing the CF18s?  At the same time, did they push to renew the transport fleet?  No?  Didn't they know that the CC-130s were reaching the end of their flight hours?  Well, yes, but fighters are sexier.  And more macho.  (The fact that it's multi-engine pilots who have more operational flight time in high risk areas is a topic best not disucssed in Bagotville, Cold Lake, or CAS)

That is because the last two shooting wars the airforce had, they found out that the CF -18 was totally outclassed and obsolete, it couldn't keep up with its allies and the computing power inside one of them was equal to a Commidore 64. Those upgrades were needed post 1991 Gulf War..... Finally the fighter force got what it originally needed (an upgrade) and the initial leg work for this was probably done way before the TPT Fleet started showing its age.
 
It would help if we just signed onto US-modernization programs for identical equipment from the outset and build them into our forward cash flows so we don't even have to debate the upgrades in the first place.


Matthew.  :salute:
 
Or instead of purchasing x amout of units at the same time. Buy small lots of equipment at regular intervals. Thus ensuring regular upgrades of equipment.
 
Though I'm trying to understand the intent of the thread, Iterator's post in another related thread is
a good one:

Iterator said:
The article postulates that Army effectiveness is not an Air Force priority and therefore 1 Wing is not required as part of the Air Force - however, that whole line of reasoning can be ignored if you accept that Joint effectiveness is one of the priorities. If changes are required by the Army to have greater (or more effective) support from the Air Force, then better direction is required from the higher levels of the CF/DND.

I'm not saying that more direct control shouldn't be sought, but Air Ops are Air Ops, and all
aircraft should be "Air Force". There is no need for an Amphibious Assault ship to be crewed
by the Army or for the troops being landed to be Navy.

Even if the article is correct on splitting Rotary and Fixed flight training earlier on, this
doesn't call for any big changes...

I believe alot of what Kirkhill is describing is not exactly within the control of the Air
Force proper, but above 1CAD, including direction, strategic logistics, equipment
prioritization, and acquisition.   Iterator's post make sense to me as Air Ops are air
ops and domestic ops are better under the direction of joint consideration (without
having a road map for the current elemental transformations).

Some issues are addressed in the deployability of air mobile support units, air
expeditionary units, and maintenance of readiness levels that are tied up in the
transformations today.  However, under differentconditions, one would need more
facts to understand why its works or why it doesn't to portray the real situation.
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
How effective is a CP-140 in comparison to something like the new British Astor Sentinels, and does the capability difference (as well as the existing responsibilities of the CP-140) justify a new expenditure in your opinion?


Matthew.    :salute:

I respectfully decline to comment........sorry
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
It would help if we just signed onto US-modernization programs for identical equipment from the outset and build them into our forward cash flows so we don't even have to debate the upgrades in the first place.

Not possible; some of their equipment is US-only, and other equipment is designed for missions and capabilities that our higher levels see little use for. 
 
Centurian1985 said:
Not possible; some of their equipment is US-only, and other equipment is designed for missions and capabilities that our higher levels see little use for. 

::)

The CF-18 upgrades is based on the USN's F/A-18C as somewhat described here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1602

and as much as i hate to use CASR as a source:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-cf18-3-2.htm

A more detailed search on google would have told you that. I guess one of your many duty stations wasnt the CF-18 upgrade PMO
 
The Airforce has the knowledge and the experience to deploy anywhere any time. We just choose not to.

If the airforce has any short comings tactically. IE being able to deploy. one only has to look at the Air Crew and Ground Crew and the calibre of the people that wear the AF uniform.
We Get to thank fine regiments like the PPCLI, RCR, Vandoo, ARTY and Engineers for sending us such gung ho airmen through the LOTEP program. They scream army for the first six months. but then after thier first deployment overseas in a five star hotel, we get to see the true blue in all of them.....

Right AESOP081 ;)
 
aesop081 said:
::)

The CF-18 upgrades is based on the USN's F/A-18C as somewhat described here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1602

and as much as i hate to use CASR as a source:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-cf18-3-2.htm

A more detailed search on google would have told you that. I guess one of your many duty stations wasnt the CF-18 upgrade PMO

My sources were the CF-18 pilots themselves.  Last I heard they were a better source than google.  ::)
 
Centurian1985 said:
My sources were the CF-18 pilots themselves.  Last I heard they were a better source than google.   ::)

I'll make sure to go ask tomorow...there's a half-dozen Hornet pilots downstairs.  I have to go talk to those guys anyways...between the CF-18s and the  E-3A's....there's way too much noise here lately  ;D

 
Centurian1985 said:
Not possible; some of their equipment is US-only, and other equipment is designed for missions and capabilities that our higher levels see little use for. 

Hopefully you can read as well; note the underlined portions.  When you go 'downstairs', to the DIAC I presume, make sure you talk with a pilot who's actually flown in a US aircraft. 


 
Back
Top