Views on air force modernization and capabilities expansion

[aesop081]

Allright folks, i figured i'd open myself to flaming.   A while ago there were some people saying that some of us were afraid of making suggestions on what we saw as ideal force structure for the army so, staying in my lane, here's what i think for the air force.   Feel free to question and pick apart as this is in no way perfect.

Fighter aviation:

Even with the current modernization, the CF-18A/B airframe is getting seriously old.   I realize that Canada is , at first glance anyways, waiting for JSF to come to production but, IMHO, this is somewhat of a long way off and will be a very expensive option.   I propose to replace the CF-18s sooner rather than later with the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Raffale.   personaly i favour the Raffale but since the Typhoon already has several custumers there could be economies of scale to be had there.

Fighter aviation would be concentrated around 4 Wing in Cold lake ( 416 & 441 sqn) and 3 Wing in Bagottville ( 425 & 433 sqn) and of course 410 sqn as the fighter OTU.   Cold lake ( 410 sqn) would assume the duties of center-of-excellence for all fighter aviation in similar fashion to what the army is doing.

Maritime patrol

IMHO, the current incarnation of AIMP is a complete disaster.   I feel that the CP-140 has to be replaced in the medium-to-long term.   Prospective candidates include the US MMA and the British Nimrod MR.4.   There are not very many options for replacements in this role.   One option would be to seriously accelerate the AIMP program.   14 Wing Greenwood would be the COE for maritime aviation. 405,415 and 407 as the operational sqns and 404 as the OTU.   MP&EU and 14 SES would remain in place to rpovide support the maritime patrol operational community.

Tactical airlift

I propose the replacement of CC-130 E/H employed in the TAL role with the C-130J for 429 & 436 sqn ( 8 wing trenton) and 435 sqn (17 wing Winnipeg).

Strategic airlift

I propose the purchase/lease of 6-8 C-17/A400M to be based at 8 Wing trenton ( 437 sqn)

Search and rescue

Purchase/lease 16 C-27 and equip 442(Comox), 413(Greenwood), 429(Trenton) and a new sqn in Winnipeg for the current "coast guard-type" SAR

Snowbirds

I would like to see the current aircraft replaced by Hawk ( lease or purchase)

Maritime hellicopters

Not to be marginalized, i would like to see the number of CH-148 purchased increased to 41 to compensate for long term attrition, maintenace and training.


Now for some other stuff:

1 Wing would lose 408, 427 and 430 qns as those would fall directly to the army brigades.   They would remain air force, responsible directly to 1 CAD for the airworthiness of the aircraft and crew currency but would report directly to the brigade commanders for training and day to day operations.   1 wing would concentrate around 400, 438 and 403 sqns to provide CH-146 initial training, augmentation fro the line sqns and deployable capabilities for "air force only" ops. 1 Wing should also gain 2 to 3 sqn of medium lift helicopters based on the Merlin HC.1 ot S-92 to provide more robust support to the army.

I would also like to see the creation of 2 dedicated combat SAR ( CSAR) squadrons based in Both 3 & 4 wing equiped with Merlin HC.1 / S-92 with modifications similar to the MH-53E/HH-53.   This would provided Canada with its own organic CSAR capabilities and would give of greater freedom of action during a crissis. Additionaly, 444 sqn, currently based at 5 wing Goose Bay would convert from the CH-146 to the new CSAR aircraft and move to cold lake to become the CSAR OTU after 5 wing closes.

Once a new strateic airlifter has entered service with 437 sqn, all of the CC-150 Polaris aircraft woud convert to full-time AAR and remain in trenton with that sqn.

In order to provide greater support the land operation i propose the establish a sqn   ( 6 aircraft) whos role would be similar to what the E-8 JSTARS is doing for the USAF.   As this aircraft is large and expensive, i propose to take a similar approach to what the UK Royal air force is doing.   They have decided to put in service the Bombardier Sentinel R.1, the first deliveries of which will begin next year to RAF Waddington's 5 sqn.   This would give the air force a true capability to support ISTAR for the army. This unti would be most likely based in trenton or Winnipeg.

I would also like to see the air force aquire an AWACS capability.   I beleive that the E-3 is far too expensive for us so options would be the E-2C Hawkeye ( proven design) or even the Embraer 145 AEW&C which has proven itself rather surprizingly during exercises such as CRUZEX 2004.   It is employed in that role by the Brazilian AF.   We could even benefit by using the same airframe for bot JSTARS and AWACS role by going with Embrarer's entire ISR line based on the EMB 145 airframe. AWACs would operate out of Cold lake where it would be in a good position to work directly with the fighter community and participate in MAPLE FLAG.

Thats as far as my thinking gets me for now.   Its a bit to ask but is more realistic for canada than some other options i have heard floating around.

Start flaming away troops......

 

[Sf2]

myself being a TACHEL guy, I'll stay in my lane.....

If you put the TacHel sqns under OPCOM to the brigades, you'll have to enhance the ALO positions BIG TIME.  The whole point of maintaining the wing structure as it stands is so the tasks are stemmed from those who know how to employ the equipment. 

Also, giving command to the brigades, yet maintaining standards, airworthiness etc with 1CAD is much, much easier said than done.  Army will want different levels of standards that Air Force will be unwilling to provide, or give up, depending on the case.  Army has no idea what is required for daily training of a tachel pilot.  That's like asking a ship's captain to provide daily training plan for Sea King crews.  Just ain't going to happen.

Merlin/S92? WHy those?  What about Chinook?

What about SOG?  No mention of anything in that department.......

 

[aesop081]

myself being a TACHEL guy, I'll stay in my lane.....

If you put the TacHel sqns under OPCOM to the brigades, you'll have to enhance the ALO positions BIG TIME.   The whole point of maintaining the wing structure as it stands is so the tasks are stemmed from those who know how to employ the equipment.  

Also, giving command to the brigades, yet maintaining standards, airworthiness etc with 1CAD is much, much easier said than done.   Army will want different levels of standards that Air Force will be unwilling to provide, or give up, depending on the case.   Army has no idea what is required for daily training of a tachel pilot.   That's like asking a ship's captain to provide daily training plan for Sea King crews.    Just ain't going to happen.

Merlin/S92? WHy those?    What about Chinook?

What about SOG?   No mention of anything in that department.......

I understand you points on all counts.   As i said this wasnt perfect or anything.   I just think that the army should be given greater control of TAC Hel.   But i do see what you mean and i also dont see it as insurmountable.   However, i yeild to the tac hel types there.

I chose to center on the merlin HC.1 / S-92 as both airframes will already be in canadian servise ( CH-148/CH-149) and i am weary of adding airframes if other options are available, even thought i personal like the Chinook.

And yes, i did not mention Special ops as i am still thinking that one over.  I would say that i am leaning towards 1 sqn ( based near JTF, probably Petawawa or maybe somewhere's else) equiped with special ops variant of Merlin HC.1 or S-92  capable of those missions ( akin to the MH-53E or MH-60 ), cpmprised of about 12 airframes. Aircrew/ground crew training could be carried out at the CSAR OTU in Cold lake for on-type training and Spec ops specific training could be doe at the unit itself.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Fighter aviation:

Even with the current modernization, the CF-18A/B airframe is getting seriously old.   I realize that Canada is , at first glance anyways, waiting for JSF to come to production but, IMHO, this is somewhat of a long way off and will be a very expensive option.   I propose to replace the CF-18s sooner rather than later with the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Raffale.   personaly i favour the Raffale but since the Typhoon already has several custumers there could be economies of scale to be had there.

Fighter aviation would be concentrated around 4 Wing in Cold lake ( 416 & 441 sqn) and 3 Wing in Bagottville ( 425 & 433 sqn) and of course 410 sqn as the fighter OTU.   Cold lake ( 410 sqn) would assume the duties of center-of-excellence for all fighter aviation in similar fashion to what the army is doing.

Hope you don't mind me straying from my usual lane.
I am a Typhoon fan myself, but how many fighters would you be looking at?

[quote[Maritime patrol

IMHO, the current incarnation of AIMP is a complete disaster.   I feel that the CP-140 has to be replaced in the medium-to-long term.   Prospective candidates include the US MMA and the British Nimrod MR.4.   There are not very many options for replacements in this role.   One option would be to seriously accelerate the AIMP program.   14 Wing Greenwood would be the COE for maritime aviation. 405,415 and 407 as the operational sqns and 404 as the OTU.   MP&EU and 14 SES would remain in place to rpovide support the maritime patrol operational community.[/quote]
Agreed. Do you think we should look at some C27s for coastal patrols as well?

Tactical airlift

I propose the replacement of CC-130 E/H employed in the TAL role with the C-130J for 429 & 436 sqn ( 8 wing trenton) and 435 sqn (17 wing Winnipeg).

Agreed

[quoteStrategic airlift

I propose the purchase/lease of 6-8 C-17/A400M to be based at 8 Wing trenton ( 437 sqn)[/quote]
Can't fault your logic there

Search and rescue

Purchase/lease 16 C-27 and equip 442(Comox), 413(Greenwood), 429(Trenton) and a new sqn in Winnipeg for the current "coast guard-type" SAR

Agreed, but will these C27s be armed or be fitted with hard points?

Snowbirds

I would like to see the current aircraft replaced by Hawk ( lease or purchase)

What about using CF18s?

Now for some other stuff:

1 Wing would lose 408, 427 and 430 qns as those would fall directly to the army brigades.   They would remain air force, responsible directly to 1 CAD for the airworthiness of the aircraft and crew currency but would report directly to the brigade commanders for training and day to day operations.   1 wing would concentrate around 400, 438 and 403 sqns to provide CH-146 initial training, augmentation fro the line sqns and deployable capabilities for "air force only" ops.

I am kind of surprised you would keep the Griffon in service as a Tac Helo.

I would also like to see the creation of 3 dedicated combat SAR ( CSAR) squadrons based in Both 3 & 4 wing equiped with Merlin HC.1 / S-92 with modifications similar to the MH-53E/HH-53.   This would provided Canada with its own organic CSAR capabilities and would give of greater freedom of action during a crissis. Additional 444 sqn, currently based at 5 wing Goose Bay would convert from the CH-146 to the new CSAR aircraft and move to cold lake to become the CSAR OTU after 5 wing closes.

I think this is a much neglected capability that we should have invested in a long time ago. Would the SAR Techs be trained to the same standards as the PJs of the USAF?

Once a new strateic airlifter has entered service with 437 sqn, all of the CC-150 Polaris aircraft woud convert to full-time AAR and remain in trenton with that sqn.

That would bring us to 5 tankers?

In order to provide greater support the land operation i propose the establish a sqn   ( 6 aircraft) whos role would be similar to what the E-8 JSTARS is doing for the USAF.   As this aircraft is large and expensive, i propose to take a similar approach to what the UK Royal air force is doing.   They have decided to put in service the Bombardier Sentinel R.1, the first deliveries of which will begin next year to RAF Waddington's 5 sqn.   This would give the air force a true capability to support ISTAR for the army. This unti would be most likely based in trenton or Winnipeg.

I am wondering if modified CP140s or the Acturus could be used in this role? Especially with the AIMP upgrades?

I would also like to see the air force aquire an AWACS capability.   I beleive that the E-3 is far too expensive for us so options would be the E-2C Hawkeye ( proven design) or even the Embraer 145 AEW&C which has proven itself rather surprizingly during exercises such as CRUZEX 2004.   It is employed in that role by the Brazilian AF.   We could even benefit by using the same airframe for bot JSTARS and AWACS role by going with Embrarer's entire ISR line based on the EMB 145 airframe. AWACs would operate out of Cold lake where it would be in a good position to work directly with the fighter community and participate in MAPLE FLAG.

Another capability we need but I think we should lean towards E2C. I wonder do they still make it?

 

[Sf2]

Going to defend the Griffon here.....

Amazing machine for domestics and limited out of area ops.  Awsome IFR platform, lots of variety in mission kits.

This bird could be used extensively for C3, VIP, Lightweight logistical. 

People put the griffon in a bad basket, mainly because it had to replace 3 different types of choppers, but as a direct replacement for the twin huey, while being supplemented by say, a Chinook, isn't a bad choice at all.

 

[aesop081]

Going to defend the Griffon here.....

Amazing machine for domestics and limited out of area ops.   Awsome IFR platform, lots of variety in mission kits.

This bird could be used extensively for C3, VIP, Lightweight logistical.  

People put the griffon in a bad basket, mainly because it had to replace 3 different types of choppers, but as a direct replacement for the twin huey, while being supplemented by say, a Chinook, isn't a bad choice at all.

Agreed.

I decided to stay with the CH-146 mostly for budget reasons as i waht i am proposing would not come cheap.

Ex-D,

Fighters: I am looking at 12 aircraft per sqn with 16 for The OTU

MPA: I dont think that the C-27 would make a good platform for this role.

SAR C-27: I would not arm them as i see these employed in their current planned role of the more " civilian rescue"   but if we were to expand CSAR in the future, we could benefit by adding these in the inventory in a more military version

SAR tech: Yes, pers employed in CSAR units would receive training relevant to their employemne ( i.e. USAF PJ)

JSTAR: i dont beleive that the AIMP aurora will ever live up to what it is intended to be much less as a ground surveillance platform. Plus i see the issue of too many roles there. The sentinel R.1 that the RAF is introducing offers better capabilities and is cheaper to buy and operate that US systems.

AWACS: Yes the E-2C is still available for purchase and is a viable candidate but when cost becomes a factor ( due to the lenght of this shopping list, i think embraer is a better solution to bring us this capability and the valuable experience that comes with it.

On the subject of the Arcturus...kiss that airframe goodbye...so no issue there.

CF-18 for the snowbirds ?  I would rather not.  As i said the airframes are getting old and being subjected to that kind of flying for protracted periods wont help much.  They are also more expensive to maintain and operate.  The Hawk presents, IMHO, a cheaper, more viable option to replacing the tutor.


I would also like to see an AEW variant of the S-92 come to light ( such as the RN's sea king AEW3. these could be based on the 280s at the center of a naval task group at sea

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Would you look into increasing the Cyclone order...ideally to give the 280s or replacement 2 helos and the AORs and replacements 3-4 helos?

 

[Jungle]

Going to defend the Griffon here.....
Amazing machine for domestics and limited out of area ops.   Awsome IFR platform, lots of variety in mission kits.
This bird could be used extensively for C3, VIP, Lightweight logistical.
People put the griffon in a bad basket, mainly because it had to replace 3 different types of choppers, but as a direct replacement for the twin huey, while being supplemented by say, a Chinook, isn't a bad choice at all.

It's a nice aircraft from an Air Force perspective; but try loading 8 troops on it, with full winter kit... real Army helicopters can do that. The green-painted civilian CH-146 cannot.
The Sqns had to improvise a way to protect the cargo compartment floor, because they were being destroyed by kit, notably the C7 flash suppressor; so they put plywood on it... PLYWOOD, on a 6.2$ million aircraft !!!
The CH-146 may be good for C3, VIP, Lightweight logistical tasks, but that's about it...

 

[aesop081]

Would you look into increasing the Cyclone order...ideally to give the 280s or replacement 2 helos and the AORs and replacements 3-4 helos?

I think that the current order of 28 aircraft is inadequate as it replaces the CH-124s we have left but we started with, if i'm not mistaken, 41.  I think that this would be an adequate number of cyclones to put into service.  an AEW version would be over and above of course.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would lean towards the Cyclone as your CSAR platform as well

 

[aesop081]

I would lean towards the Cyclone as your CSAR platform as well

I am torn between the two ( 148/149) as we already operated both ( mistake number 1 in my mind) and that the RAF is already using the Merlin HC.1.   regardless i'm more interested in brigning that capability to the air force than to which type as we will already have a mixed fleet in service


Could we dispense with the griffon bashing on this one.....its getting old. I made a concious decision to stick with it due to cost and the fact that the CH-146 has alot of airframe life left to it.

Also , so everyone knows, i am working on re-organizing 1 CAD and the various standards orgs like MPSET, MHSET, TRSET, TASET, CFS and such

 

[aesop081]

Just thought of something reference CSAR:

The CSAR OTU, rather than be located in cold lake, could be located in Comox so that it is in the same spot as CFSSAR.  This may maximise training oportunities for both SAR techs and aircrews. The operational CSAR sqns would still be in cold lake and bag.  All SAR tech would receive the training they do now and those selected for employement in CSAR would then proceded to the CSAR course at CFSSAR for the more " combat" skills required.

 

[mover1]

Before you go out and scrap the F-18 fleet. I would take the remaining few and and have them put them permanently at the Q locations in the north and on both coasts. Reservists can do the maintaining and flying in them. Logistically having them already there and on location would make sense. Three or so planes per location would mean we would be using a maximum of what? 18 planes. The rest in moth balls or for parts.

Next I would would be putting funding into...OK here is where everyone says Im stupit and dum wif no gud idears.... One really bad assed prop driven (yes I said prop) close air support airplane. One that can land in a field without breaking. Loiter over an area for a very long time and carry a payload with enough variety and venom that would intimitate anyone around.  I say prop because everyone is going high tech.  when low tech can be an option. Cost, ease of maintenance and flexibility of roles. 

Fix it with a hammer.

Another thing I would get is smaller transport planes for PAX duty only. IE a DC-9 or a 727. The airbus is nice but its big too. A lot of air ports do not have the equipment for loading and off loading them. Having a smaller jet for this type of duy would take the strain off the airbus fleet. Again the pilots could be reservists who fly for west-jet by day and DND by night. (hey the US does it).

Here is one to get me hated.......

Abolish the Sqn system as we know it.  SQN's would consist soley as aircraft and pilots and aircrew. Maintence would be divided into other organisations.

 

[aesop081]

Before you go out and scrap the F-18 fleet. I would take the remaining few and and have them put them permanently at the Q locations in the north and on both coasts. Reservists can do the maintaining and flying in them. Logistically having them already there and on location would make sense. Three or so planes per location would mean we would be using a maximum of what? 18 planes. The rest in moth balls or for parts.

Next I would would be putting funding into...OK here is where everyone says Im stupit and dum wif no gud idears.... One really bad assed prop driven (yes I said prop) close air support airplane. One that can land in a field without breaking. Loiter over an area for a very long time and carry a payload with enough variety and venom that would intimitate anyone around.   I say prop because everyone is going high tech.   when low tech can be an option. Cost, ease of maintenance and flexibility of roles.  

Fix it with a hammer.

I see your point but i structured my idea to keep it as close to realistic as i could.  I think that operating a multi-type fighter fleet is beyond our reach considering the limited funds we have and the number of commitments we have and capabilities we should have.  I could have made this into a "my dream air force" thread but i sort of wanted to stay withing the boundraies of the near possible.  That is why i stuck to a multi-role fighter.  I could easily have added CAS fighters and EW aircraft along with ELINT aircraft and PSYOPS birds, but that would have defeated my intention.

Another thing I would get is smaller transport planes for PAX duty only. IE a DC-9 or a 727. The airbus is nice but its big too. A lot of air ports do not have the equipment for loading and off loading them. Having a smaller jet for this type of duy would take the strain off the airbus fleet. Again the pilots could be reservists who fly for west-jet by day and DND by night. (hey the US does it).

Once again i would agree, however i see this as a very low priority at best as this type of work can very easily be contracted out as light passenger duties are usualy away from tactical areas.  Even the USAF uses the Civil air reserve in times of war to ferry troops around the globe.  I think we should concentrate our limited funds towards other things than passenger transport.

Here is one to get me hated.......

Abolish the Sqn system as we know it.    SQN's would consist soley as aircraft and pilots and aircrew. Maintence would be divided into other organisations.

Not realy my area or what my objective was but from all i hear from techs i know is that units like 14 AMS are an affront to god.  I feel it is better if both air and ground crews are integrated in the same units.

 

[mover1]

I made most of my points from what I saw as wrong with the Airforce from My own point of View. I went to Aviano in 1999 and saw a dysfunctional task force because of the mixing of 3 wing and 4 wing personel  (ok 3 wing and 441 Sqn and once the Bagotville crew left we got along fine). If the support organisations were a blob then there wouldn't be so much childish in fighting going on. The same thing happend on roto 0 of Op Apollo.

The Air bus is a big bird. Airlift is a problem thats why skimmed it on my thoughts of what I would change.

Multi type fighter and the F-18 bit is within reach. We kept the T-bird in the air for 50 years. Why not the F-18 in less demanding roles. Why not start funding research into defence sytems that may find a niche thats missing in the world. (I was trying to satisfy the Attack helicopter  lets support the army cronies with this one.)

I would support a 500 series restructure program. Take the techs and stop trying to make them super techs that are supposed to know everything about the a/c. Bring back the specialty trades. Yes it means more people .  Training time is less and I bet the level of service and the servicability rate would go up. just through job knowledge

 

[aesop081]

I would support a 500 series restructure program. Take the techs and stop trying to make them super techs that are supposed to know everything about the a/c. Bring back the specialty trades. Yes it means more people .   Training time is less and I bet the level of service and the servicability rate would go up. just through job knowledge

I couldn't agree more with that.

 

[Sf2]

It's a nice aircraft from an Air Force perspective; but try loading 8 troops on it, with full winter kit... real Army helicopters can do that.

So can the griffon, we do it every day.  I've personally flown 12 troops, in light fighting order, on a hot day, out of a confined PZ and took him over 50 miles.  Not bad for a civvie chooper.  I'm sorry if your experience was bad and your aircrew weren't able to meet your needs.  All it takes is planning.

The Sqns had to improvise a way to protect the cargo compartment floor, because they were being destroyed by kit, notably the C7 flash suppressor; so they put plywood on it... PLYWOOD, on a 6.2$ million aircraft !!!

What other material would you suggest?  Plywood is cheap, light, and notably, solved the problem.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Fighter aviation:

Even with the current modernization, the CF-18A/B airframe is getting seriously old.  I realize that Canada is , at first glance anyways, waiting for JSF to come to production but, IMHO, this is somewhat of a long way off and will be a very expensive option.  I propose to replace the CF-18s sooner rather than later with the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Raffale.  personaly i favour the Raffale but since the Typhoon already has several custumers there could be economies of scale to be had there.

In view of the USAF's reduced commitment to buy F-22s, I wonder what the incremental cost of adding to the back-end of their order would be (e.g., with fixed costs already absorbed by the USAF, and the production line ready to go, how much would Lockheed be willing to deal?) ... (one can dream  :blotto.

Speaking of costs, I don't think that "will be very expensive" is much of an argument against the JSF: IIRC, even the latest highest) estimated $50million unit cost is less than that of either the Typhoon or the Rafale (they are all pretty close, at any rate).

 

[Good2Golf]

Aesop, not a bad first cut.   I would make sure that first and foremost, all options consideration was with a "capability-based view in support of operations" and go from there, what you fly and how the various assets are grouped and tasked should fall out naturally from your definition of the principal missions and tasks.

Ooops...this is starting to look like battle procedure...     Commander's intent, mission, groupings and task, coord instr....eek, imagin the logic in that!  


Fast air - definitely still valid to think multi-role, the execution must be smoothed out so CAS, BAI and Atk isn't just paid lip service as it is today.   Call me crazy, but I'd actually consider Super Hornet (E/F's) for bang/buck ratio...if not I'd take a Rafale before Typhoon, and if it were JSF, I'd seriously consider at least the STOL variant if not prefer the STOVL.   The overall thought is that the boys need to get in tight with troops on the ground, in addition to the much vaunted NORAD DCA role.

Tpt - Strat, yeah we need something there...lease 17's and get on with life...look how long it took Airbus yapping about the 380...at least 8-10 years after they said it would originally be delivered...I see nothing different about the A400M.

Tpt - Tac, hmmm the 130-J isn't the Panacea, some guys would actually lean towards redone H's (I yield to some of the TAL guys on this one, I tend to agree FWIW about H's vice J's)

Maritime Patrol - yeah, this one definitely needs work!   I'm tempted to jump out of the box on this one and consider something like a Bombardier Global Express with a big ISAR radar (seems that lots of folks are pushing MP's as C4ISR machines) and look to technology to address the ASW role with newer SB processing systems beyonf the -504 CDC systems curently in use.   This beast can then also do SOVPAT's a bit more efficiently, with the need for half a football team in the back.

MH - ASW (still boats out there, how much effort to spend though?   not sure.) and Littoral Sp ops - generally nothing to add about CH148 Cyclone except that we must also look at mission kit and TTPs for this thing to go ashore (as the SK boys did in Somalia) to support troops and other aviation assets as part of the SCTF.   I'm talking EO-IR sensors linked to precision munitions and M134 7.62mm miniguns sticking out both sides!   Hel Det structure and two coasts is good IMO...wouldn't mess with it.

Tac Hel - there are really four capabilities here: M/HTH, ARUH, SOA and TUAVs (won't debate this one much, I think it should have been done more by the army with avn advice, but higher ups in the AF didn't see it that way, it is now what it is...marching fwd with our orders).   I'll expand most on this one since it's in my lane:

• M/HTH - I'm not fussed, I'll take MH47G or MH53E.   "Avoid another additional airframe" is noise.   Any EH-101 to meet this role would not be the CH149 Cormorant, it would look similar but be a different EHI product...plain as that.   Neither the 101 nor the CH148 Cyclone (S-92) can't lift enough IMO, an M777 lightweight 155mm field howitzer with limber, amoo and crew for light forsces, whether part of the SCTF or the MSTF is 14,000+ lbs -- that rules out both 92 and 101, point finale.   -47 or -53 are the only ones that can most combat effectively and cost efficiently do what is required of them.  
• ARUH - Armed Recce Utility Helicopter...the jack of all trades.   Take the lift-albatross from the neck of the Griffon, give it a decent EO/IR system like the USMC UH-1Ns, whack on some laser guided CRV-7s and you have a nice little niche-filler based principally on existing machine with a bit of add-on kit.   Very cost effective and fills holes in all the right places...that's why the USMC still has the UH-1N doing ARUH stuff.
• SOA - MH-47G and Griffon (to do Dom CT role).   Personal opinion on this one...   Long-range lift must have a refuel and all weather cap....
• TUAVs - well, I think the Army should have UAVs at the formation level and lower (Bde to sect) personally.   I think 1 Wing was made to eat a crap sandwich when the big talking AF said if it flies, we should operate it, then dumped it in 1 Wing's lap when they saw how badly they really DIDN'T understand TACTICAL UAVs.   :rage:   Oh well, tac hel princesses dried their eyes and got on with life...thanks AF! (not)     Oh, did I mention "give the Army Bde and lower UAVs"?

Note: Second only to spec ops in operating a gainst a threat -- CSAR is a combat task, plain and simple.   See here: NATO Joint Personnel Recovery - JWP 3-66.    Tpt to jump the PJ's under black silk (nylon) and Tac Hel (MH if operating from a sea-base) and CAS support packages should do this.   You don't do ladder or expanding square search patterns in enemy territory.   You don't jump guys in orange in enemy territory.   You do take perimiter force protection with you (Tier 1 SOF or Tier 2 - ranger-type guys)   to secure the PZ.      Combat task, by combat operators...period!   (see pic below)

National SAR (fixed wing) - it is what it is.   FWSAR is going the way it is, not bad to have a smaller platform than the 130 for most of the FWSAR-type tasks, although it would be nice to have faster, longer range stuff for MAJAID, but perhaps that can just be a non-dedicated task for Tpt as required.  

National SAR (rotary)   Well, I don't think it's overly broken.   I wouldn't touch it... except *puts flame suit on* consider cutting that capability to the CCG, it is not a combat capability.   The kindest I'll be militarily to the capability, is that it would provide a domestic breather for folks in the MH and TH worlds operating around the world.   I know folks will kick the crap out of me on this one and talk about positive image for the CF and helping citizens and recruiting etc..., well folks would be saved by Coast Guard provided sar   Hate to sound harsh about it, but that's how I see NSAR.

Mein 2 ¢

Cheers,
Duey

p.s.  081, the Merlin is the HC.3 Mk1 (HC2 being Chinook and HC1 was the Puma, ref: RAF website)

 

[aesop081]

Duey,

Yeah it was a first cut and i'm glad to see people bring ideas to the table.

I forgot to include the F/A-18 E/F model and onlyrealized it this am when i was reading an article on the BlockII program which will enter OPEVAL next year.  Could be a good candidate.

C-130J:  I know what you mean, i have a stack of papers here on the reported shortcomings of this perticular model...something to consider for sure.

Maritime patrol : In related news, the US Navy has officialy assigned the P-8A designation to the MMA on march 30th. Wind tunel testing has been conducted and 5 aircraft will be manufactured for the test and developement phase.  Still a long way off option considering that the RAF is much closer with the Nimrod MR4

Tac Hel/ CSAR : I think that i did not explain my concept of ops well enough and i will work on clarifying that

Merlin: Yeah, i noticed my error but it was too late to correct it.

more to follow....