CF-156B for light attack role?

[DerKaiser]

Canada don't have medium UAV like the MQ-12 "sky warrior" , Raytheon have an aviation branch called Beechcraft offers now a version of the CT-156 Harvard II (T-6 Texan II  variant) called AT-6B with 6 wing pylons (Fuel, gun pods, rockets and guided munitions) and for sure a electro-optical turret for day/night observation and targeting. Raytheon offers for U.S.A.F a light attack role for escort his troop in Iraq/Afghanistan. Did Canadian forces should modernized his CF-156B for a combat variant ?...remember Canadian forces don't have attack helicopter/aircraft in Afghanistan..only lease Mi-8 and "MAYBE" a CH-146 armed version "6x Packs" but isn't for now. For my part i guess is a good idea for a light attack aircraft, we can't sending CF-18 in Afghanistan ,so why not a more lighter aircraft ? .

 

[aesop081]

Did Canadian forces should modernized his CF-156B for a combat variant

Just in case you are not aware, the CF do not own the CT-156 aircraft.

 

[George Wallace]

DerKaiser (AKA  jimderfuhrer)

Not to sound harsh, but reviewing your posts, I would like to ask what is your field of expertise?  If you are, as I suspect, a 'young' student; then please refrain from posting what you imagine on this site as legitimate military data.  We are not a Gamers site, and do not appreciate their fantasies of reality.

 

[DerKaiser]

Canadian training aircraft fleet :
- CT-156 Harvard II
- CT-155 Hawk
- CT-114 Tutor

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/15wing/aircraft/ct156_e.asp canada don't have CT-156?

 

[aesop081]

Not to sound harsh, but reviewing your posts, I would like to ask what is your field of expertise?  .

In one of his previous profiles he was a former CF reservist trying to get into the RegF this year.

canada don't have CT-156?

We have them, but we do now OWN them. They are leased .

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I sincerely hope you are not trying to pass this off as your idea???As seen in the link below its not a new topic...We take a dim view on those who steal from other websites or sources and try to pass it off as their own without proper credit.

http://www.casr.ca/mp-army-aviation-coin.htm

 

[DerKaiser]

Bombarider last years autorized the modernisation of his mid-life CT-156...who care about a lease or not? i mean...look the Leopard 2A6M is a German one but Germany authorized the modernization , this is for why we have a version called "2A6M Can" because Canadian forces install a Slate armour...this is completely idiot to lease a aircraft but a our own constructor (Bombardier) refused the modernization of his aircraft. The Mi-8 who Canadian forces lease this years can be modernization because is a 40years old helicopter ,and we can install better equipment on it...this is a completly non-sense to claimed the CT-156 can't be modernized on a AT-6B...and anyway canada need a attack helicopter and aircraft in afghanistan , for many reason :
- Beligum have F-16
- Czech Republic have helicopter
- France have helicopter and aircraft
- Germany have helicopter (Attack,Transport) and Aircraft (cargo,fighter/bomber)
- Netherlands have lot of attack heliocpter and aircraft
- Norway  have helicopter
- Poland Mi-8
- U.K attack/bomber/cargo aircraft and helicopter (attack/cargo)
- U.S the same like U.K
- Canada only CC-177 and CC-130...and lease Mi-8 (not attack helicopter)...

Canada is alone with sometime help from Netherlands/U.k and U.S but not everyday...Canada need a light attack aircraft we can't send our CF-18 since the Canadian invasion isn't authorized to send CF-188 for escort our troops (Don't know why). Its only a idea don't panic man...

 

[aesop081]

HMCS Chicoutimi

I'm still waiting..........

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Canada is alone with sometime help from Netherlands/U.k and U.S but not everyday...Canada need a light attack aircraft we can't send our CF-18 since the Canadian invasion isn't authorized to send CF-188 for escort our troops (Don't know why). Its only a idea don't panic man...

Have you been there on the ground when air cover was denied to our forces by the Dutch, US or the UK?

 

[aesop081]

CT-156 what they can does in 2007 bombardier authorized modernization of his mid-life.  

Modernization in order to maintain the level of training that is contractualy required is one thing. A complete re-roling and dispatch to a combat theatre is another.

HMCS Chicoutimi, c'mon man, i dont have all night, i have to go play war.

 

[DerKaiser]

Have you been there on the ground when air cover was denied to our forces by the Dutch, US or the UK?

No but my cousin is a canadian soldiers in 408 Squadron , he was sent by three time in Afghanistan for control the CU-161 Sperwer. First time he was sent in Afghanistan that was in 2002-2003 in Kaboul he was a military police , but in 2003 after Canadian forces received his first Sperwer he changing his carer for air forces in the 408 for controled the CU-161 and he saw by some time F-15/F-16 droping bomb during operation zahar , archer and many another huge canadian missions. he send me some footages in Afghanistan http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iXCNQ30L3d8 this is for why i made some Canadian forces footages , you can see some awesome footage with CU-161 in Afghanistan. So i guess i know what is the situation in Afghanistan, soldiers died by IED and UXO , Talbian don't use AA system since they still hidden in mountains... and i said , why not a light attack bomber?

 

[DerKaiser]

Modernization in order to maintain the level of training that is contractualy required is one thing. A complete re-roling and dispatch to a combat theatre is another.

HMCS Chicoutimi, c'mon man, i dont have all night, i have to go play war.

What ? HMCS chicoutimi?

 

[aesop081]

What ? HMCS chicoutimi?

You posted this :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69452/post-763292.html#msg763292

I asked you to show me proof that HMCS Chicoutimi indeed sank. You have so far refused to adress that question.

 

[DerKaiser]

Ok man youre very away from the conversation , talk about a cheap submarines to a idea for CT-156...did you snif some Agent Orange in Gagetown or what?...

 

[gwp]

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iXCNQ30L3d8 this is for why i made some Canadian forces footages ,

You may want to check the copyright law with regard to the unauthorized use of the Canada Wordmark and the CF badge and Canadian Forces at the end of your production.   I don't expect the Directorate of Intellectual Property or Treasury Board would be very happy with this video being represented as an official production.  

 

[George Wallace]

You posted this :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69452/post-763292.html#msg763292

I asked you to show me proof that HMCS Chicoutimi indeed sank. You have so far refused to adress that question.

And while you are at it, please clarify where you are coming up with all these factoids.  Your profile is empty. 

 

[aesop081]

Ok man youre very away from the conversation , talk about a cheap submarines to a idea for CT-156...did you snif some Agent Orange in Gagetown or what?...

Its your credibility, not mine.

I take it you wont answer me then ?

 

[DerKaiser]

You may want to check the copywrite law with regard to the unauthorized use of the Canada Wordmark and the CF badge and Canadian Forces at the end of your production.   I don't expect the Directorate of Intellectual property would be very happy with this video being represented as an official production.  

Read in right, the autorization :

Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that: * Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; * The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and * The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.

is a non-commercial reproduction and anyway the TV ad its from 2000's not a new one and i link the canadian forces website (www.dnd.ca)  so i'm in right mate...good try but not a good try in same time

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ok man youre very away from the conversation , talk about a cheap submarines to a idea for CT-156...did you snif some Agent Orange in Gagetown or what?...

maybe if you answered his point in the other thread he would not have had to bring it up here....

 

[muskrat89]

Derkaiser - You need to just chill out. We have had thousands (literally) of enthusiastic posters come here and basically regurgitate what they have read in Jane's or Defence magazines. It is an insulting over-simplification of the mammoth tasks of choosing the best available kit in the world, on a finite budget, to meet our country's specific operational tasks and doctrine.

I strongly encourage you to read more and post less. We will have little patience with your current posting style and content.

Army.ca Staff