This One's For Thucydides: Green Air Force

[Kirkhill]

Like many of the forward looking articles that Thucydides points to this one stretches credulity as they often veer so far from common practice that they can appear headed past the realm of science fiction into pure fantasy.  That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the proposals however.

The Dragoon Concept

This is a long blog in a series of long blogs about the MOD (UK) and defense procurement.

The author has a bee in his bonnet about what he calls SMAs (Small Military Aircraft) and initially I read the article as a continuation of his special pleading.

But I have to say, as you read through the entire post, written for the Daily Mail, he marshals an effective argument.

Cheers to you Thucydides.  :cheers:

 

[a_majoor]

Thank you Kirkhill.  :cheers:

A quick read of the blog post is the very common "this was a great idea but no one listened" meme, which is true more often than not.

I would have to do a lot of reading to find the references, but I recall the RAF was pretty dead set against Autogyros back in the 1920's and 30's (despite thier obvious uses as helicopter analogues for liason, spotting etc.) The USAF was never keen on COIN specific aircraft like the OV-10 or Mohawk, nor supportive of the A-10 program. Other important capabilites have also been given short shift; if the USAF was serious about airlift they should have pushed both Boeing (about costs) and Congress to purchase far more C-17's, for example.

WRT the actual concept being suggested, manned ultralights are a very interesting "niche" that can fulfill some roles at a much lower cost than conventional aircraft, but we also need to balance that with the requirement for range, bad weather operations and equipment such as night/thermal imagers and comms gear. I would be thinking more along the lines of a Cessna Caravan (perhaps the putative twin engine version), which could fulfill many of the roles the Twin Otter can in the far North, as well as serving as a sort of APC (can easily carry a section of Infantry or Paratroops), surveillance craft or even attack aircraft (Iraqi Caravans are armed with Hellfire ATGM's). Gustav Von Rosen demonstrated how it is done during the Nigerian Civil War using a fleet of 5 SAAB light aircraft to attack Nigerian airfields and even destroy a few MiG fighters on the ground.

Purchasing a fleet of Caravans to replace the Twin Otters as part of the "Canada First" strategy and continuing to purchase/produce them even at a low rate would provide the skeleton and logistical muscle to develop a "green" airforce; they could gradually expand throught the service as air ambulances, FAC spotter panes, carriers for SoF troops, coastal patrol and so on. Being fairly cheap fixed wing aircraft would also provide a means to equip RCAF reserve squadrons with operational aircraft.

Blue sky thinking for sure...

 

[GAP]

We loved the Cessna L-19 (later re-named the O-1) Bird Dog. Old but for it's time and place a lifesaver...

 

[Kirkhill]

Halfway between the Ultralight and the Caravan, and more in keeping with GAP's L-19 there is BushCaddy - all up for $111,000.

If you are heading along the Canada First Defense Strategy route then perhaps the BushCaddy (All Canadian) could be considered, as well, as an adjunct to CASARA operations in the same way that the equivalently priced RHIBs are utilized by CCGA/RCM-SAR (Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue volunteers.

Perhaps the government could consider funding and/or equipping and/or contributing to the supply of BushCaddies, RHIBs and (the ever popular) Bv206s for volunteer organizations like CASARA, CCGA and the Canadian Rangers under Canada First Defense Strategy.

That would increase the recce component (search) immeasurably across all of back country Canada as well as enhancing local response times and capabilities (rescue) which in turn would reduce the demand on the RCAF to maintain assets at notice to move.  It wouldn't eliminate the RCAF requirement, only allow it to refocus its efforts.

Meanwhile the light plane could be flown either manned or unmanned, with or without sensors, as a surveillance or transport system, domestically or as part of the expeditionary force (when operated by regular or reserve uniformed personnel).

Complete CFDS Volunteer Team

 

[cphansen]

Looking at the Bushcaddy sport I was interested by the possibility of buying a kit for around 25,000$.  I was just thinking how nice it would be for a Reserve unit to be bought the kit and have them assemble it.

I suspect it would be great for the unit's morale and the ground and air crew would wind up knowing the aircraft better than any other type.  You could buy 4 aircraft for the price of buying an assembled one.  I suspect we would also see some very interesting suggestions for adapting the plane to the unit's mission.

All we need is some way of adapting this airframe to replace the Avro Arrow and the F35, no more need to worry about cost or number of aircraft.

 

[Kirkhill]

Looking at the Bushcaddy sport I was interested by the possibility of buying a kit for around 25,000$.  I was just thinking how nice it would be for a Reserve unit to be bought the kit and have them assemble it.

I suspect it would be great for the unit's morale and the ground and air crew would wind up knowing the aircraft better than any other type.  You could buy 4 aircraft for the price of buying an assembled one.  I suspect we would also see some very interesting suggestions for adapting the plane to the unit's mission.

All we need is some way of adapting this airframe to replace the Avro Arrow and the F35, no more need to worry about cost or number of aircraft.

Jeez, never thought about the DIY aspect for the Reserve.  Cheaper than a Jeep at that rate.

Now, as for the Arrow replacement idea ................ Forwarded here for review.

 

[Journeyman]

Jeez, never thought about the DIY aspect for the Reserve.

Not just the Reserve, but if all these zombie movies and HBO future apocalypse series are right (unless all things electrical do fail) ......hmmmm

 

[a_majoor]

DIY has lots of interesting implications (the most obvious being that I would always insist the crew chief rides with the pilot on the first flight after assembly...).

The very smallest of these aircraft resemble the SAAB Safari's that Carl Gustaf von Rosen flew during the Nigerian Civil War, and could fill roles like FAC, light ground attack and so on. Larger aircraft like the Caravan give you added capabilities like logistics and troop lift, have a longer range and are more robust to deal with flying in Canada (particularly the far north). It would be interesting to get an analysis done to see which sort of aircraft hits the "sweet spot" in terms of best overall utility for the RCAF.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thucydides:

I think that you might already be "situating your estimate" by deciding that the decision on these aircraft is an RCAF issue.

I'm incline to think that if the RCAF got their hands on the analysis you would quickly climb the ladder from:

"Well if an unarmed flit-about like the Dragon can get the job done then why not a Bush Caddy.  It at least looks like an airplane,";

To "If a Bush Caddy why not a Caravan"

"If a Caravan why not a Twotter"

"If a Twotter why not a Buffalo II"

"If a Buff II why not a C27J"

"If a C27J why not more Hercs"

"Oops - no money for 50 MUSD Hercs (or whatever they cost) - we'll have to call the whole thing off"

And nobody gets any capability whatsoever despite an initial solution priced at less than 25,000 CAD.

Not picking on the RCAF but the problem identified in the MOD articles is endemic in most organizations.  They start with the premise that there are certain things they do and certain things they don't do.  The things they don't do only draw money away from the things they do do.

Consequently innovation is hard.

 

[cphansen]

DIY has lots of interesting implications (the most obvious being that I would always insist the crew chief rides with the pilot on the first flight after assembly...).

The very smallest of these aircraft resemble the SAAB Safari's that Carl Gustaf von Rosen flew during the Nigerian Civil War, and could fill roles like FAC, light ground attack and so on. Larger aircraft like the Caravan give you added capabilities like logistics and troop lift, have a longer range and are more robust to deal with flying in Canada (particularly the far north). It would be interesting to get an analysis done to see which sort of aircraft hits the "sweet spot" in terms of best overall utility for the RCAF.

No offense but why should this be limited to the RCAF, if ultralights can help Recce elements avoid IEDs and Ambushes, shouldn't they be integral to the Army unit?

They won't require large support facilities, should be capable of flying and landing on a dirt road. Let the air and ground crews of the ultralights live and mess with the unit they support, surely that would enhance cooperations.  Especially after the ultralights have done a few beer runs for unit smokers.  They could very easily fill the slots the Kiowas did in the old LAR concept and the old bird dogs assigned to the armoured regiments.

Maybe revisiting the LAR concept would be useful now, we do have access to vehicle families which could produce a LAR capable of more than holding it's own in both asymetrical and symetrical warfare.

 

[Loachman]

If this is such a good idea, why has nobody done it?

Always a valid question...

 

[a_majoor]

Since the RCAF has a lock on everything that flies, they are the obvious lead agency.

Kirkhill has identified the problem (mission creep) and the probable answers to Loachman's question includes lack of sexiness and "Not Invented Here". Telling Zoomies that they are destined to fly an aircraft they build themselves out of a kit might appeal to a certain percentage, but a much larger constituency will be lining up to fly the CF-35 (even if the odds are stacked towards flying the x-planes simulator on their Macbooks...)

If we were able to have an "Army Air Corps" and a "Fleet Air Arm" input into this, there would be at least three different aircraft being touted, since the needs of each service would be much different. Inviting other agencies that use aircraft (like the Coast Guard or CBSA) would also add many new requirements. A fairly large and robust aircraft that can accommodate different mission modules or carry a decent payload is the other solution (hence the Caravan idea; the big "cargo pod" that can be attached to the belly could be outfitted for lots of different military and para military missions). 

 

[FoverF]

One issue with having the RCAF in charge of a bunch of bush planes is that they would want RCAF pilots to fly them.

You would spend a bajillion dollars teaching a bunch of zoomies to fly on Grobs or Katanas or what have you, then teaching them to fly Harvard IIs, then teaching them to fly helicopters or multi engines or fast jets, then having them do a tour with an operational squadron, and then having them convert to fly something simpler than the Grob or Katana they started on.

I think RCAF aircrew would, in general, be massively over-trained and over-qualified (at a shockingly high cost), especially when you could teach experienced Army NCO's how to operate the aircraft in 6 months.

That's my take anyways. Worth what you paid for it.

 

[Loachman]

There are lots of countries that have Army Air Corps/Army Aviation Branches which are similarly disinterested, and for equally valid reasons. These suggested aircraft are severely limited, in usefulness rather than "sexiness".

 

[a_majoor]

I fully agree with the assessment WRT ultralights, but small/medium sized utility aircraft can fill many niche roles, and modular systems allow these sorts of aircraft to fill more niches. COIN operations have highlighted the need for specialized aircraft repeatedly, with the USMC developing techniques during the Banana wars and the RAF being used for pacification duties in Mesopotamia in the 1930's.

SOE and other proto "Special Forces" needed the services of special aircraft like the Westland Lysander, while the Germans used the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch (including Otto Skorzeny's rescue of Mussolini). The Americans created all kinds of specialized aircraft over the years, and pressed other types into service for COIN operations (including transport aircraft like the Dakota and eventually C-130 as gunships, purpose built aircraft like the OV-10 and even adapted trainers like the A-37 Dragonfly). Even the Tutor of "Snowbirds" fame has an armed variant, which served in the Royal Malaysian Air Force.

The "Green Airforce" that Kirkhill refers to in the opening post is an idea broached in an earlier thread that perhaps we needed some sort of aircraft or series of aircraft that had a much smaller footprint and could operate much closer to the troops for COIN operations than the high performance aircraft favoured by airforces today. An added benefit which occurs to me is that if the enemy is able to penetrate the local defenses and destroy several aircraft on the ground (such as happened in Afghanistan recently, wiping out essentially an entire USMC Harrier squadron), it would be less of a hit since the aircraft are a lower value target than high performance aircraft.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Call me crazy, but do not whole families if UAVs exist to do the role you see filled by an ultralight, but without risking a dude?

 

[Kirkhill]

You're not wrong SKT.  Nor is Loachman.

But I think I wouldn't have to go far to find people arguing that the situational awareness of an aerial observer with Eyeball Mk1 is greater than the view of the world gained "through a straw".

Equally I recall seeing discussion on these boards about the relative merits of being closed down inside an AFV while being reliant on viewing the world through sensors versus being able to stick a head outside the hatch and "sniff the wind".

Is the level of risk associated with Ultra Light or Bird Dog operations different than that associated with LOH operations?  I don't know.  I'm just interested, both in the concept as laid out in the article (and apparently endorsed by some Brits with T-shirts) and the advantages it might offer to the conduct of operations.  Maybe the idea doesn't make sense when people are shooting at you but perhaps it could have merit in operations when they are not.

I don't see many Ultralights in military (or para-military service). I do see a lot of "SMAs" and "Caravans" (or Britten Islander/Defenders-UK AAC and Partenavia P.68s - Italian Carabinieri) in COIN-Paramilitary-Police roles. 

Edit to correct typos and also to add: Many countries that do not have first-line air forces use small aircraft for tranport and surveillance and even those that are flying aircraft like F16s employ small single and twin propeller aircraft for transport, ISR and Ground Support.

 

[dimsum]

Tangent ahead:

I'll agree that it's generally better to have a wide view v. the "straw", but besides flight safety SA, what can't a camera pod do in a wide field of view (and if the operator isn't fixated on something)?  I believe that people blow the "straw" problem out of proportion; it would be no different than flying with NVGs. 

Besides, some UAVs (like the Heron) have a panoramic camera as well for forward view for the Pilot as well as the sensor pod.  It's not great, but it's there for quick SA of approaching weather, etc.

 

[Loachman]

small/medium sized utility aircraft can fill many niche roles,

We do not have the luxury of filling "niche roles" with multiple fleets of capability-limited aircraft.

SOE and other proto "Special Forces" needed the services of special aircraft like the Westland Lysander, while the Germans used the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch (including Otto Skorzeny's rescue of Mussolini).

That was all that they had. Helicopters do this far, far better.

The "Green Airforce" that Kirkhill refers to in the opening post is an idea broached in an earlier thread that perhaps we needed some sort of aircraft or series of aircraft that had a much smaller footprint and could operate much closer to the troops for COIN operations than the high performance aircraft favoured by airforces today.

What "need"? Any aircraft that can perform a useful role is going to have a significant "footprint". What prevents high performance airtcraft from operating "much closer to the troops"? Those aircraft have long endurance, move faster, carry a greater variety of weaponry, and have sensor systems. What can they not do, now, that you think a cheaper, less-capable aircraft, can do?

"Closer to the troops" also means "closer to the enemy" - generally greater risk for no benefit.

If something is useful under the worst circumstances, ie all-out, total warfare, it will generally function quite well in a lower-threat environment such as Afghanistan. That does not work both ways, however.

Why does the Army need tanks and LAVs? Wouldn't lightly-armoured and lightly-armed trucks and SUVs be cheaper and have a smaller footprint?

An added benefit which occurs to me is that if the enemy is able to penetrate the local defenses and destroy several aircraft on the ground (such as happened in Afghanistan recently, wiping out essentially an entire USMC Harrier squadron), it would be less of a hit since the aircraft are a lower value target than high performance aircraft.

There have been remarkably few aircraft, or anything else, lost on the ground on major bases in Afghanistan over many years. As in any war, sometimes the opposition get lucky. The benefit of having militarily capable aircraft around, despite the cost and slight risk, outweighs the cost and risk of having more cheaper and less capable aircraft cluttering up available ramp space.

One modern aircraft can do more than hundreds of WWII-era, or even Vietnam era, aircraft, with much less risk to aircrew and civilians around targets.

Regardless of what operations are being conducted in the hellhole-du-jour, those modern aircraft are still going to be necessary, and their crews still need to train. They could do that back home while the cheapies fly and die overseas, or they could do their flying in theatre for almost the same cost while negating the need for the cheapies in the first place.

So, again, what real benefit is there to this, sadly, undying proposal?

- mod edit to fix quotes -

 

[Loachman]

DIY has lots of interesting implications (the most obvious being that I would always insist the crew chief rides with the pilot on the first flight after assembly...)

I always liked to take "hostages" along on flights anyway. It doesn't have to be a post-initial-assembly flight to give a tech some incentive.

Not that I ever really thought that they needed any. They are professional enough, and there are decent checks in the system. I have never had less than full confidence in our maintainers.