Views on air force modernization and capabilities expansion

[Good2Golf]

Roger, Aesop.  Actually my tone on the CSAR bit wasn't aimed to ding you, but indicate to some of the folks who may ding me for having the nerve to touch the Sacrosant halls of SAR.  That fact that there happen to be three letters in an acronym that are similar lends some folks to think they should be doing it before they actually conduct a mission analysis and see what's required. 

Interesting question for those here that are in the know, do you think a SARTECH should form the basic pool of PJs or should they come from para units more attuned to the combat side of the AF PJ's task?

Cheers,
Duey

 

[aesop081]

Duey,

Roger, you pose an interesting question reference SAR.   But you do agree that CSAR is something severly lacking in our AF ?

And re-reading things , i think we have the exact same concept for a SAR / CSAR division in this country,  Putting a flame suit on as well, national SAR should, IMHO, be cut to the CCG.  This would leave the AF to concentrate on CSAR, fitting this into the expeditionay concept. Perhaps something we could call HH-148 pave low III ?

 

[aesop081]

Duey,

Re maritime patrol:

Overland ops, C4I are all things being considered for MPAs.  I think this is a big mistake ( but thats only the opinion of a guy who still has 3 weeks left to the aurora course).  This is why i proposed  the Bombardier Sentinel R.1.  If the air force is to support ISTAR, we need a dedicated capability not some ad-hoc system.  I feel that the E-8 is out of our reach but the RAF's solution to ground surveilance and battlefield management could work for us.  This could be a joint venture between the army and the air force, the airvracft being crewed by personel from both services as the USAF is doing in the E-8.  I was surprised to see no comments on this or on AWACS

 

[Good2Golf]

Aespon, I'm with ya!  Both on the AWACS elem fitting in to part of C4ISR and on the CSAR thing...yup, I'd figure that either HH-148 "Pave-clone"  ;D or the HTH MH-##E/G bristling with M134's, IFR boom and kick a$$ DEWS gear.  Sign me up... :threat:

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Zartan]

What about the Saab Gripen, instead of the JSF?

 

[aesop081]

What about the Saab Gripen, instead of the JSF?

Well, i think the JAS 39 is a fine design that has had some commercial success ( Hungary, South Africa).  But is is a very lightweight aircraft and single-engine.  When its all said and done, it could be considered but i put alot more faith in F/A-18E and Raffale.

 

[aesop081]

For those not familiar with the Sentinel R.1 i refered to earlier:

 

[aesop081]

As well, here is the Embraer AEW&C :

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Would the Phalcon system be an effective solution (both operationally and cost-wise: certainly the range of possible airframes is plentiful and cheap)?  (Note: this is a question rather than a suggestion) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/phalcon.htm

 

[Cloud Cover]

Last time I saw that pic it was confidential- [not the aircraft, the runway].

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Last time I saw that pic it was confidential- [not the aircraft, the runway].

Do you mean the Phalcon I just put up?  I found it on FAS and Global Security has the exact same one ... hmmmmm.

 

[aesop081]

Certaily looks like an interesting system.  I chose to concentrate, for the AWACS role, on the Embraer system as it is a smaller airframe, requires smaller crews and has already proven itself wothy in multi-national exercies.  I keep all that in mind trying to keep it in the perspective of an airforce short of air and ground crews and financialy limited.  As has been mentioned before, the E-2 Hawkeye would also constitute a good option for us as well.  The newest model, the E-2D, is ecpected to reach initial operational capability ( IOC) in 2011.  That being said, we could benefit from a larger, more complex system, but i think that is beyond the reach of the CF and beyond our politicians will to make the funding available.

Maybe if we were to  buy the Sentinel R.1 for JSTARS and get the systems from the Embraer AEW&C mated to the same airframe, we could convince the politicians to buy both as they would be built by Bombardier in "la belle province" ?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Was a while back anyway, and it was part of a compilation. Open source is open source, so no worries. 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Certaily looks like an interesting system.  I chose to concentrate, for the AWACS role, on the Embraer system as it is a smaller airframe, requires smaller crews and has already proven itself wothy in multi-national exercies.  I keep all that in mind trying to keep it in the perspective of an airforce short of air and ground crews and financialy limited.  As has been mentioned before, the E-2 Hawkeye would also constitute a good option for us as well.  The newest model, the E-2D, is ecpected to reach initial operational capability ( IOC) in 2011.  That being said, we could benefit from a larger, more complex system, but i think that is beyond the reach of the CF and beyond our politicians will to make the funding available.

Maybe if we were to  buy the Sentinel R.1 for JSTARS and get the systems from the Embraer AEW&C mated to the same airframe, we could convince the politicians to buy both as they would be built by Bombardier in "la belle province" ?

I'm not sure if you've accounted for this already, but while the pic is of a 707, the Phalcon can supposedly* be 'mounted' (obviously it is a permanent modification) on a C-130 airframe, among others.

*according to FAS

 

[aesop081]

I'm not sure if you've accounted for this already, but while the pic is of a 707, the Phalcon can supposedly* be 'mounted' (obviously it is a permanent modification) on a C-130 airframe, among others.

*according to FAS

I have learned to take FAS with a grain of salt over the years.  As for the C-130 mod, even though i chose the C-130J for TAL, i am still not confident in the latest herc model's capabilities.  The RAF is looking at getting rid of at least 5 of its Hercules C.5 ( short version of the C-130J) in order to expand its fleet of C-17s to seven aircraft. There are reports in some aviation press that there is talk of canada leasing/purchassing those aircraft so maybe the Phalcon is a possibility but i highly doubt that if we were to get 5 C-130Js from the RAF, that they would go to anything else that TAL.  I would not invest that kind of money into the CC-130E/H.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Fair enough ... thanks (now I can be the smart guy at the Air Show tomorrow!)  ;D

 

[Zoomie]

Those have got to be the ugliest planes in existence - it makes the veritable CC-115 look pretty...

Oh, and by the way - I think you guys are way out to lunch if you think the service that the CF provides in SAR could be outsourced to the CCG.  It would be akin to saying that DFO should take over the MP community - and why not, they pretty much do the same thing (minus the whole sub-hunting smozzle).

 

[Good2Golf]

Those have got to be the ugliest planes in existence - it makes the veritable CC-115 look pretty...

Oh, and by the way - I think you guys are way out to lunch if you think the service that the CF provides in SAR could be outsourced to the CCG.   It would be akin to saying that DFO should take over the MP community - and why not, they pretty much do the same thing (minus the whole sub-hunting smozzle).

Zoomie, you mention that DFO could not do the ASW things but could do other stuff that MP does (SOVPAT, etc...) and I agree with you on that. 

Now could you tell me what NSAR does that specifically could not be done by CCG? 

Cheers
Duey

 

[Zoomie]

Now could you tell me what NSAR does that specifically could not be done by CCG?  

Where shall I begin?  Keep in mind that most things I will mention are skill based, which can be easily countered with a retort such as "...they can learn to do that.."

CCG does not practice the following NSAR skillsets:

- SAR Tech - no such creature outside of the CF - you can't just hire them off the street you know
- helicopter hoisting
- para insertion of supplies, equipment, personnel - akin to Buffalo skills - if CCG can do this, why not let them do TAL too?
- overland Search and Rescue - CCG is water based

We are basically examining a fundamental role of the CF and trying to think of ways that we can farm out the service to our civillian breathren.  I concede that NSAR could be outsourced, it would be a very expensive and foolish foray - why not do the same for the entire CF.

I submit that Tac Hel duties could be just as easily tasked to CHC - they have the ability, why not let them?  Operational duties(ie overseas, domestic Ops, etc)  do not preclude a civilian from taking over - please rememeber that the most operational unit in the CF are our SAR squadrons.

 

[Roy Harding]

... please rememeber that the most operational unit in the CF are our SAR squadrons.

Zoomie:

As much as it pains me (as an "Army Guy") to say this - you're right.  Back in the early '90s I endured a mutually unsatisfactory posting with 440 Sqn.  In retrospect, I failed to "adapt and overcome" - the result was a train wreck, and I accept 60% of the fault for that particular wreck.

However - while I was there, I gained a level of respect for the SAR Techs which has never lowered.  These guys are outstanding soldiers (and I know they are Airmen - it's a mark of my respect for them that I include them in the pantheon of "soldier").

Having said that - when I left (or perhaps was booted from) the SAR world, there was much debate regarding the concept of "Combat SAR".  I wonder how that debate has got on.

Civilian SAR is one thing, but Cbt SAR is a whole different kettle of fish.  For the record, I do not doubt that a single SAR Tech I was ever acquainted with was capable of "Cbt SAR" - they were, for the most part, folks I'd known or heard of in the Airborne Regiment, BUT, has the Air Force hierarchy seen the need for such a change in role?