BAe Hawk as supplement to CF-18 Hornet

[Garry]

Duey,

Point well taken (on doing the job). Right now it's A'stan- and it was a political decision not to spend the $$. I do NOT know, but I'm wondering if the USAF was able to devolve some NORAD commitments onto the CAF, thereby freeing more of it's forces to deploy to A'stan..?? Economy of effort, etc..??

The Fighter Force has also deployed without the Army (Gulf War 1, Serbia from Aviano) and no one complained.

Sure don't want to go down the road of knifing each other to gain a little more for ourselves....heck, I'm out, it's no longer personal

In much the same way that, when asked, I argued in favour of keeping the MBT role...and the AD role....and the SP Arty role....and the Recce role for Tac Hel......Lord, I even argued to keep the Bonny...imho, it will save lives, and THAT'S the right thing to do.

We're downsizing, and specialising, and maybe that's ok.....and maybe I oughta stay out of "what if's" on a cosmic level, as I still remember (and believe in) a combined arms heavy fighting force.

Cheers-Garry

 

[Armymatters]

Lots of good ideas Armymatters...  But if we are looking for a cost-effective CAS aircraft and commonality when it comes to parts and training why not look at Raytheon's T-6B http://raytheonaircraft.com/government/t_6b.shtml#main

Pilot training for these support aircraft could be stream straight out of Moose Jaw, avoiding the costly trip to Cold Lake and the Hornet's altogether.  Drop tanks extend the range for Littoral patrols and FFAR pods add the needed punch for ground support.

I am thinking that the airplane should have some point defense capability to do NORAD patrols over our cities. The jets I have mentioned have the ability to fire AIM-9 missiles at airplanes, plus have some form of radar to help spot them.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

While I don't question the capability of the '18's, do we really need an platform that can carry ordinance, then fight its way out from wherever it's dropping its stuff?  It would have to be escorted in, anyway (not much of a dogfighter loaded down with bombs and rockets).

I think we can all agree that northern patrols can be completed by less capable aircraft, and in the ground support role there are very capable, and cheaper airframes available.

The CF18 initial purchase price was the same as the cost of 20 tanks would cost.  Then they cost much, much more to fly and maintain.  More modern airframes cost even more.....I guess what I'm saying is, are we getting the most bang for our buck with the CF18's?  Should we replace them with something like the BAE Hawk 200?

 

[Good2Golf]

Garry, I concur that there will always be a need to have fast air capability.  The question effectively is what specific capabilities will fast-air have to provide.  The "in what form/type of aircraft" question then will flow from the chosen capability set.  Although many sverdrup's under the bridge, I think that back in the NFA project days (79-82), there might have been better choices made than the CF-18.  I personally think that, although more expensive, we should have procured a much smaller fleet (like 60 or 72 compared to the 138 CF188s we acquired) of CF-15s for NORAD DCA-role and looked at whether close air support, offensive air support and battlefield air interdiction were going to be supported by the air force.  If the answer was to have been yes, then continue to use the CF-5 in that role as flown by 10 TAG and FG, or update with something geared more to the OAS/CAS role...A-10's anybody?

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Garry]

Hey Duey,

I'm not sure we need fast air- in all honesty, the case has been (well) made that since we've pretty much tied oursleves to the US, we're never going to go to war alone, that maybe we should specialise- Recce, Light Infantry, heck, pick one of whatevver, and be the best in the world at it. Not sure that point is wrong. Guess the point I'm trying to make is that if we (we as taxpayers, we as Canadian Citizens) are going to ask you to defend our countries interests,. then we owe it to you to train, equip, lead, and support you to the best possible standard available.

F-18 is a simply outstanding CAS platform. It will hit what it wants, every time, with a wide variety of weapons. Yes, even better than an A-10.

Lance- No need to escort- it fights as very well loaded.

Loads more I could argue on behalf of the F-18, but not necessary- the concept of the best, or none, is, imho, the salient point.

Cheers-Garry

 

[Bert]

We're downsizing, and specialising, and maybe that's ok.....and maybe I oughta stay out of "what if's" on a cosmic level, as I still remember (and believe in) a combined arms heavy fighting force.
Cheers-Garry

Just a few thoughts.

The CF is a relative small force combined.  The air force itself is small and the funding is not
significant.  Canadian deployments typically are not large and utilize systems within a NATO
or UN coalition.  Rarely, unless its the Brits or the US, complete combined arms is not seen. 
Since the CF doesn't deploy in large combined numbers in coalition scenarios typically,
theres little resources for aircraft specializations of air superiority, air to ground support, or
interception. 

We've seen the US's/British deployments to Iraq in the 1990s.2003 and Afghanistan, and and
the resources each put into ground forces, air forces, intelligence gathering, combat controllers,
and AWACs to name a few.  The level of integration was amazing and comparatively Canada
lacks the resources to have something of everything.

The CF acquired the F-18 back in the 80s and had phased out the specialized CF-5 and CF-104
for reasons the wheel is being revisited here.  Though the reasons are documented, the CF-18
provided a viable multi-role platform and simplified the training, logistics and maintenance systems,
and focus on a specific airframe.  It may not have been the right  solution, but given the
deficiencies, the bang for the buck, and the route the government at the time wanted to go, it may
have been the best balanced decision.

The operational CF-18 squadrons today often share/rotate duties that takes them to various
locations and undertake many roles within a joint ops, CEF, NORAD, and NATO context.  Aircraft
like the F-16 or A-10s are fantastic weapon platforms, but are too specialized for general roles
the air force finds itself in.

The concept of specialized F-16 types, A-10s, or "less expensive to deploy alternatives" are a
good idea and would provide a tactical advantage to the army.  Without increasing the air force
budget and altering the current transformation, acquiring these airframes in relatively small
numbers will dilute resources from the air force's bread and butter and further stress our
ability to do any job well. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Garry, any reasons why the 18 community appears unable to deploy to AFG?  Hillier has been pushing the air force for some time, both on CAS and C4ISR (MX-20 and radar on CP-140), but to no avail.  It seems the air force is unable or, for some widely unknown reason, does not want to deploy either Hornets or Auroras (the two fleets with huge capital investments recently). 

I don't get it.  ???

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Garry]

Duey,

No idea.

I will point out, however, that at some point in time Rick will remember that one of us is a full general, and the rest of us aren't

From what I remember of him, if he really wanted fast air or naval air anywhere, they'd be there already.

Now, for something really important- why don't we have LOH's in theatre???  :crybaby:

Cheers

 

[aesop081]

Garry, any reasons why the 18 community appears unable to deploy to AFG?  Hillier has been pushing the air force for some time, both on CAS and C4ISR (MX-20 and radar on CP-140), but to no avail.  It seems the air force is unable or, for some widely unknown reason, does not want to deploy either Hornets or Auroras (the two fleets with huge capital investments recently). 

I don't get it.  ???

Cheers,
Duey

Duey, i will disgree with you in the case of the CP-140 for reasons i cannot mention here.  I'll PM you with my DIN adress if you want details

 

[a_majoor]

Some further perspective on this topic: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352.0.html

And for the really ambitious, some proposals that "could" be revived: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352/post-365751.html#msg365751

Not sure you would want to go this way, though: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352/post-365772.html#msg365772

 

[Kirkhill]

I am going to stick this in here to attract fire.  ;D

http://army.ca/deleteme/AirBombardment.zip

I have been working on a project that some have had the misfortune to be exposed to.  (To which some have had the misfortune to be exposed?)  This is one section.

It deals with a neophyte's view of the kit currently available to the air force and how it might be beneficially employed. It is a simpleton's view and it is presented for simpletons (None of whom reside on these boards I am sure.)

However it does address some of the issues being discussed on this thread and others and I offer it on the chance it might advance the debate a bit.

If some note that the ideas aren't new, that some of them are even their own, that some of the pictures are familiar --- all true.  This is a work in progress.  Attributions and accreditations have yet to be made. It is a draft.

Anyway....

Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

airforcematters has just had occasion to correct me on the origin of the P3/CP140 airframe.  I look forward to more corrections.

Thanks airforcematters.

Cheers.

 

[JBP]

Although I do agree with most of you folks ideas and purpose behind simply downgrading to a cheaper, not so super-speedy and sexy airframe and generally an older design, I do not agree that in reality this would be a good option... Sure it would save us a lot of money, but for example, someone mentioned an airframe that could still tag an enemy aircraft with AIM-9 Sidewinders and detect enemy aircraft on Radar... That's nice.. Too bad the AIM-9 is a short-range weapon only and all modern aircraft already have weaponry that can reach out and spank you from farther away, and with the advent of advanced missle technology (AMRAAM an example) , super-cruise and even somewhat stealthy characteristics in all the new state of the art aircraft, we'd be lost. Our crappy little ancient two bit airframe would be obliterated before we even knew what was going on or that we were on a mission basically...

This has been proven by the USAF and USN aircraft engaging older airframes and weaponry in any of the battles they've been in since Desert Storm. You don't downgrade to something even less capable than what you already have, especially when everyone else keeps moving forward! If we were to purchase some cheap aircraft like that we'd be taking 2 generations back in terms of fighters and flying technology.

1st Generation of Jet Fighters: German Me.262, other misc...                                                                    ----> Are you kidding?!?
2nd Generation: F-104 Starfighter, F-? Vodoo etc, Mig-17                                                                          -----> Bloody ancient!!!
3rd Generation: F-105 Thunderchief, F4 Phantom, Harrier, Mig-21, Mig-31 Foxbat                                        ---->Older airframes *(what U want us to use)*
4th Generation: F-16, F-14, F-15, Mig-29, Su-27, F/A-18, AV-8B Harrier 2 etc...                                          ----> Recent Past/Modern
5th Generation: F-22, Su-34, Eurofighter 2000, JSF, X31 EFM, F/A-18 E/F Superhornets, Su-37, Mig-35 etc... ----> Now/Future

Any 5th generation aircraft could wipe it's tailpipes with a 3rd and even arguably 4rth generation airframe. The advances are just to great, if the CF Airforce fighter wing especially is ever going to revert that far back we might as well just drop out of having fighters altogether because they'd be as useless as kites...

I may only be your average aviation enthusiast but even I can see it's not a wise idea to punch back so far like that...

I'm sure you folks in the air force do agree that if it's possible we should step into the future with a JSF/equivalent, even in small EFFECTIVE numbers and not step generations past into oblivion no?

It's like asking the folks to keep flying the Sea Kings (no offence, just a point being made) for ANOTHER 20 years... They will be more than useless.


Also you folks are crunching ideas about how much a modern airframe cost. F/A-18 E/F Superhornet is approx 50 million/unit. Then you folks were mentioning maintainence, well, the F/A-18 E/F has 40% fewer moving parts then an F-14 for example and an much higher downtime due to that. Less moving parts means less breaks. Also, all the parts of an F/A-18 E/F are basically "plug and play" like the M1A1 Abrams Tank also. Inter-changable.

It is simply my (partially) informed opinion that it would be a grave error to step back and start flying steel buckets around...

Peace

 

[Armymatters]

What we are suggesting is that we purchase a low end fighter/high end trainer that is capable of waxing at least an airliner if needed, like a high end advanced trainer. The CF-18 will be relegated to the sharp end of the air force's offensive stick, while the proposed jet is more of a light attack jet, an all purpose cheap bomb truck that can if challenged, be more than a competitive fighter if needed. If the South Koreans, who have started to field such a jet, like the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle, to replace their F-5's and F-4's, decided that it was enough to be more than competitive compared to North Korea's air force, then it should more than sufficient for duties that are not as demanding, such as NORAD patrols or Afghanistan support duties.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So you are saying that the T50s can take on the MIG29s of the North Korean Air Force? I highly doubt that....

 

[Armymatters]

So you are saying that the T50s can take on the MIG29s of the North Korean Air Force? I highly doubt that....

It is more of the T-50's can take on the numerous MiG-17's, MiG-19's, MiG-21's and MiG-23's that the North Koreans have, as the North Koreans don't exactly have many MiG-29's (Global Security indicates they have around 20 MiG-29's compared over 300 of the other types). And remember, most of North Korea's military is heavily outdated.

 

[Bert]

Its a catch 22 again.  The CF-18 and the like, within a Canadian context, can perform the many tasks
given to it.  The T-50, light fighter/trainer, is not in the same category and is limited in weapons loadout,
avionics,  range, radar carriage,  and likely regulated to specific tasks.

The scenarios in which an aircraft will find itself in, NORAD, NATO, AFG patrols, and the Koreas as examples,
are multiroles.  Different in the hostiles they may encounter, the radar field detections, multi-national combat
support, SAM coverage, and number of interceptions the T-50 may have to deal with. 

Its not a bad idea considering the T-50.  The issue perhaps is can or should the Canadian air force in its current
context support a class of limited fixed wing aircraft.

 

[karl28]

First off I'm not an expert at any right on this subject .  I was wondering why consider buying a another aircraft? Wouldn't it be easier to just buy new F-18 they dont have to be super hornets just F-18 wouldn't that be easier ? My thinking is of the support system not sure if that is the right term but sense our mechanics are already used to the F-18 and the same for the pilots why switch to a different aircraft or add on for that matter wouldn't we have to spend millions more on training them to fix and fly this new aircraft ?

 

[aesop081]

First off I'm not an expert at any right on this subject .  I was wondering why consider buying a another aircraft? Wouldn't it be easier to just buy new F-18 they dont have to be super hornets just F-18 wouldn't that be easier ?

You do know that F-18 models A through D are no longer produced right ?

:

 

[karl28]

Actually no I didn't know sorry about that aesop081  . Like I stated I don't know much when it comes to military aircraft I can look at one and tell what type ie(Name of the aircraft) it is but that is about it  thanks for the heads up .