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

Who should own CAS & why it can't be trusted to an Air Force (from A-10 retirement thread)

I have argued from early on the Term CAS needs to reflect just that, close in traditional air support , with gun/rockets. What the drones and F-35 is going to do for us is "Air Support" which is using smart weapons (bombs) from altitude/distance to hit those targets. I would leave it up to the SME to define where the dividing line is. My guess is it will be rotary air for CAS and F-35 for Air Support once the A10 is gone.


Loachman
They already operate a Training squadron using Hawks, I would setup the Squadron adjacent to a fulltime one who is tasked (with extra resources) to ensure the squadron can run day to day at the admin level and maintenance level (not always flying day to day). Pilots could be regular force pilots rotating through and ex-reg force pilots that come back to keep their flight qualifications at regular intervals. This would also mean keeping links to pilots that you invested mega amounts of money in and getting some more return on that investment.


The concept is not new http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/air-reserve/index.page

also
No. 420 Squadron reformed at London, Ontario on 15 September 1948, and flew Mustang aircraft in a fighter role until the squadron disbanded on 1 September 1956. Re-formed during the unification period, No. 420 was an air reserve squadron based at CFB Shearwater and flew the CP-121 Tracker (Shared with No. 880).

How the US does it

Reserve categories

There are several categories of service in the Air Force Reserve. Most Air Force Reservists are part-time "Traditional Reservists" (TR) who serve in the Unit Program, in which they are required to report for duty with their parent Air Force Reserve Command unit, typically a wing, group or squadron, at least one weekend a month and an additional two weeks a year. However, many Air Force Reservists, especially those in an active flying status, serve well in excess of this minimum duty requirement, often in excess of 120 man-days a year.[3]

A smaller but equally important category of TR is the "Individual Mobilization Augmentee" (IMA). IMAs are part-time Air Force Reservists who are assigned to active duty Air Force units and organizations, combat support agencies, Unified Combatant Commands and the Joint Staff to do jobs that are essential in wartime and/or during contingency operations, but do not require full-time manning during times of peace. They report for duty a minimum of two days a month and twelve additional days a year, but like their Unit Program counterparts, many IMAs serve well in excess of the minimum military duty requirement.[3]

A small number of Reservists serve limited tours of active duty, usually at headquarters staff level, in the joint combatant commands, or in other special assignments. Their job is to bring Air Force Reserve expertise to the planning and decision-making processes at senior levels within the Air Force, other services and Unified Combatant Commands.[3]

Like the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve Command also requires two categories of full-time personnel to perform functions that require full-time manning. These full-time positions are filled via the same two programs as employed by the Air National Guard: the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) and Air Reserve Technician (ART) programs.[3]

Air Force Reservists who become members of the "Active Guard and Reserve" (AGR) receive full active duty pay and benefits just like active duty members of any branch of the armed forces. The majority of AGRs are former TRs and they serve four-year controlled tours of special duty that can be renewed. Many AGRs serve with operational AFRC flying and non-flying wings and groups; at active and reserve numbered air forces; on the staffs of other USAF Major Commands (MAJCOMs), Field Operating Agencies (FOAs) and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs); on the Air Staff at Headquarters, U.S. Air Force (HAF); on the staffs of Unified Combatant Commands; on the Joint Staff and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). AFRC Recruiting is another fields that employs AGR personnel. AGRs also have the option with good performance to serve 20 or more years on active duty and receive a retirement after 20 or more years, just like active members of the Regular Air Force.[3]

Another category of Air Force Reservists serving full-time are those in the "Air Reserve Technician Program" (ART). ARTs are accessed from either the active duty Regular Air Force, the AGR program, Traditional Guardsmen (TG) in the Air National Guard, or TRs in the Air Force Reserve. ARTs carry a dual status, working for the Air Force as both full-time civil service employees and as uniformed military members in the same AFRC units where they work as Department of the Air Force Civilians (DAFC), performing the same job duties. Although "technically" civil servants part of the time, all ART officers must maintain a reserve commission on the Reserve Active Status List as a TR and all ART enlisted personnel must maintain a current reserve enlistment as a TR as a precondition for both hiring and continued career employment as an ART. In addition, all ART officers and ART enlisted personnel wear their uniforms and utilize their rank titles at all times when on duty, regardless if they are in a DAFC status or in a drilling or active duty military status. Most ART personnel are assigned to operational AFRC flying wings, groups and squadrons in various operational flying, aircraft maintenance and other support positions and functions, up to and including wing commander. Because ARTs are not eligible for DAFC retirement until reaching age 60, and because a condition of their employment as an ART is contingent upon their maintaining an active reserve military status until reaching age 60, ARTs are not subject to the same maximum years of service limitations by pay grade that impact non-ART personnel. As such, ART personnel are permitted to remain in uniform until age 60, typically past a point that would otherwise require their retirement from military service based on rank, pay grade and years of service.[3]

Traditional Reservists (TR) are categorized by several criteria in either the Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, Inactive Ready Reserve or Retired Reserve:[3]
 
Colin,

Just to be clear, the CF does not operate the Hawk.

Bombardier aerospace provides them for use under the terms of the NFTC. There are no uniformed personnel anywhere in the maintenance chain.
 
Colin P said:
I have argued from early on the Term CAS needs to reflect just that, close in traditional air support , with gun/rockets. What the drones and F-35 is going to do for us is "Air Support" which is using smart weapons (bombs) from altitude/distance to hit those targets. I would leave it up to the SME to define where the dividing line is. My guess is it will be rotary air for CAS and F-35 for Air Support once the A10 is gone.

"Close" in Close Air Support refers, in doctrinal terms, refers to the level of integration required between air assets and ground forces, not to the proximity between air and lamd assets.  In operationnal terms, it means that when operating within the Land Component Commander's area of responsibility (between the FLOT and the FSCL) and in concrete terms, anytime the enemy is within the LCC's weapons effects (in horizontal range and altitude)  When those criteria are met, pilots need to talk to and be authorized by a ground commander in order to employ weapons and even fly in that airspace.

You can fly very effective CAS from a distance (and is even desired in some situations to keep an element of surprise).  Most often, the modern weapons will be 1000 times more effective than conventionnal weapons while minimizing risk to the aircraft and aircrew.  Not to say that risk cannot be taken (and we, in the cockpit sure don't make those risk decisions, we are given guidance from the theater and from the national political and strategic levels), but in all cases, I am confident that if allied forces need help, we will.  But if we can minimize risk and have greater effect why should we keep using archaic weapons and tactics?

Colin P said:
Loachman
They already operate a Training squadron using Hawks, I would setup the Squadron adjacent to a fulltime one who is tasked (with extra resources) to ensure the squadron can run day to day at the admin level and maintenance level (not always flying day to day). Pilots could be regular force pilots rotating through and ex-reg force pilots that come back to keep their flight qualifications at regular intervals. This would also mean keeping links to pilots that you invested mega amounts of money in and getting some more return on investment.

I doubt we will have Hawks past 2020.  They are not ours, but Bombardier's and maintenance is provided by them.  The contract is up in 2020.  On top of normal technicians, you'll need to train others specialties that involve using weapons on the Hawk (which we are critically short right now). The Hawk is the crapppiest design aircraft I have ever flown and is a difficult aircraft to use for dive deliveries (longitudinal instability).  Sound simple to do, when you get down to it, it makes no sense in today's reality.
 
Don't  forget North Bay.  It too has the runways, a tower, hangers and lots of land to the north.  And then, who could forget Goose and Gander.  Airports for training is one thing we have lots of.  That has never been the problem.  Getting someone to actually identify the solution and then spend the money to resolve it: that is a problem
 
As Max said, plus:

If you want to provide both friendly and enemy troops with an airshow, complete with flaming wrecks smashing into the ground in a most spectacular fashion, then "traditional" CAS is most definitely the way to go. As much of a case can be made for that as can be made for horse cavalry.

Battlefield conditions change.

The important thing is that the right things blow up, not how they blow up.

Helicopters do not provide CAS. Doctrinally, Attack Helicopter units are manoeuvre units - light on armour, lots of firepower, and rotary wings instead of tracks or big knobby tires.
 
A B-52 makes an excellent CAS platform in many cases.  For many, if not most of the JTACs on the ground, from what I heard from them, second to the A-10, the B-52 is a beloved beast since it can stay on station for half a day, before it heads back to Diego Garcia, and dole out tens of tons of PGMs.

:2c:

G2G
 
So how many SDBs could you load into a CP140 and how long could that stay on station?

Would that qualify as a Canadian CAS platform that was survivable?
 
I would have thought there still is ATC. My understanding is that it is still in use for cargo. But I haven't checked for a while.

Not much in terms of hangars, its a civilian airport after all, other than at the Bombardier plant's end, but tons of room to build them, and build them away from the Bombardier end. In fact, there will be even more room because ADM (The airport administration) has decided to demolish the huge central passenger terminal rather than continue to maintain it.
 
Good2Golf said:
A B-52 makes an excellent CAS platform in many cases.

They were being used as such on RV83 or RV85, which we thought was a bit silly.

Somebody in the CAS chain decided to play a prank on us one morning, just as we were preparing to change locations. My Observer and I had just left the treeline on our way to our mount, when we heard a singing, idling jet sound from the far side of the clearing. We were puzzled for a few seconds, then the biggest B52 that I'd ever seen rose up from behind the trees, rapidly growing larger. Just before daylight dimmed in its shadow, the bomb bay doors opened and we were staring straight up into enormous caverns as it floated right over top of us.

Freaky feeling, that. We knew that we could not outrun even notional bombs, so we just stood in awe.

We found some small comfort as we watched his wingman miss us, flying past almost a mile to the south.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Colin,

Just to be clear, the CF does not operate the Hawk.

Bombardier aerospace provides them for use under the terms of the NFTC. There are no uniformed personnel anywhere in the maintenance chain.

I know about that odd little bit of mercenary work, just like Africa, but without the bit of bombing the natives  8)

It would be really interesting to compare serviceability rates, repair times, part stocks of this system and the military
 
Colin P said:
I know about that odd little bit of mercenary work, just like Africa, but without the bit of bombing the natives  8)

It would be really interesting to compare serviceability rates, repair times, part stocks of this system and the military
Seems like a good source for best/worst practices, and likely to be somewhat more likely to try for "best possible" solutions without the various political and policy variables that might affect those issues in another military force.
 
Good2Golf said:
A B-52 makes an excellent CAS platform in many cases.  For many, if not most of the JTACs on the ground, from what I heard from them, second to the A-10, the B-52 is a beloved beast since it can stay on station for half a day, before it heads back to Diego Garcia, and dole out tens of tons of PGMs.

:2c:

G2G

But what would we do during a 'real' war when the B-52 would last about a minute and a half over the battlefield... if it got there at all?
 
daftandbarmy said:
But what would we do during a 'real' war when the B-52 would last about a minute and a half over the battlefield... if it got there at all?

Lot's of B-52's, volume, volume, volume
 
daftandbarmy said:
But what would we do during a 'real' war when the B-52 would last about a minute and a half over the battlefield... if it got there at all?

If a B-52 with Megawatts of electronic warfare jamming power isn't survivable, then an expensive jet with no or minimal active jamming gear won't be any better off...
 
MilEME09 said:
Lot's of B-52's, volume, volume, volume
Would assume, theoretically, also led, trailed, and intermixed with a variety of other fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, as well as whatever might be on the ground.
 
quadrapiper said:
Would assume, theoretically, also led, trailed, and intermixed with a variety of other fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, as well as whatever might be on the ground.

Unless you happen to be flying over Hanoi, of course  ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOCzMAKNwk
 
Loachman said:
They were being used as such on RV83 or RV85, which we thought was a bit silly.

Somebody in the CAS chain decided to play a prank on us one morning, just as we were preparing to change locations. My Observer and I had just left the treeline on our way to our mount, when we heard a singing, idling jet sound from the far side of the clearing. We were puzzled for a few seconds, then the biggest B52 that I'd ever seen rose up from behind the trees, rapidly growing larger. Just before daylight dimmed in its shadow, the bomb bay doors opened and we were staring straight up into enormous caverns as it floated right over top of us.

Freaky feeling, that. We knew that we could not outrun even notional bombs, so we just stood in awe.

We found some small comfort as we watched his wingman miss us, flying past almost a mile to the south.

It went right over 'D' Bty's 'hide'...................shook the ground, and probably showed that we weren't as 'hidden' as we thought.
 
daftandbarmy said:
Unless you happen to be flying over Hanoi, of course  ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOCzMAKNwk

Not enough volume, lets get a ole WWII style bomber formation going of just B-52's, one bombing run would keep the enemy down for awhile, and the resulting open ground created will make sure they can't advance on friendly forces.
 
MilEME09 said:
Not enough volume, lets get a ole WWII style bomber formation going of just B-52's, one bombing run would keep the enemy down for awhile, and the resulting open ground created will make sure they can't advance on friendly forces.

Or they woud all get shot down.  There is absolutely no reason to fly massive formations to a single target. 1 modern bomb has the effect of 5000 dumb bombs.
 
I will second the "volume, volume, volume" comment, but add the caveat that I would rather see PGMS of all sorts built on the sort of scale that the Willow Run plant built heavy bombers during WWII.

IF things like Excalibur rounds could be purchased for $7000 rather than $70,000 (and other systems like ATGMs, cruise missiles and smart bombs undergoing an order of magnitude price drop) then we would have a very interesting situation where we could saturate any conceivable enemy with PGMs (overwhelming attempts at dispersal, C-PGM or many other types of counter), not to mention having a huge number of rounds to train with. Quantity does indeed have a quality of its own, but I think having both quality and quantity would really have some revolutionary changes in the way we fight.

Yes there is also the issue of platforms to fire all these things from, but if modern technology and management techniques were being used for low cost PGM's, then I suspect they could also be applied to the business of building platforms. (Consider that SpaceX asks $50 million to launch a satellite into orbit, while Government contractor ULA charges $400 million to supply the same service [and the Delta and Atlas rockets used by ULA were designed back in the 1950's, so R&D costs were amortized long ago]. The primary reason for the price differential is SpaceX has a very streamlined management structure, which also helped them develop the Falcon rocket from a clean sheet of paper in an extraordinarily rapid time frame).
 
Back
Top