Close Air Support in the CF: Bring back something like the CF-5 or introduce something with props?

[aesop081]

CA

What I'm trying to say is that with those threats on the ground that the F-35 is probably going to have to come low,

I'm from a different mind then. I dont see the F-35 coming down significantly. I see the F-35 staying high and out of AAA range. With its advanced DEWS and LO technology, it is , IMHO, better for the JSF to stay above the expected threat and drop JDAM/SDB. Leave the down low CAS to AHs that can operate closer to the fight than even the A-10 can.

he can't just hang out up top, not with the SA threats in a modern conventional war, thats why we have things like SEAD.

Yes and it is this very SEAD that can allow the F-35 to hangout high and drop JDAM/SDB. SEAD eleiminates the SAM threat with HARM ( or similar system) and JSOW/SLAM-ER ( or the likes) allowing you bomb truck to stay high and respond. Combination of hard-kill and soft-kill will enable the JSF to stay where it wants. I would rather be high and deal with a SAM in this kind of environment then to be down low within range AAA.

I don't think collectively as a group we can say that the planes discussed will be useless in a conventional war

Not useless but certainly nothing more than a limited "niche" role ISO things like SF operations and most likely limited to night ops.

 

[rampage800]

Yea

Fair enough, I can't comment much further on the F-35 without straying waaaaay out of my lane, it was never my intent to talk about a particular a/c's capes anyhow.

We obviously have a couple differences of opinion, nothing wrong with that, thats what makes this Forum what it is in the first place.

Have a good night.

 

[aesop081]

We obviously have a couple differences of opinion, nothing wrong with that, thats what makes this Forum what it is in the first place.

Agreed. I could talk all day and night about this stuff so thanks for joining in. Wish this kind of talk was more prevalent within the AF.

Have a good night.

You too.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Yes and it is this very SEAD that can allow the F-35 to hangout high and drop JDAM/SDB. SEAD eleiminates the SAM threat with HARM ( or similar system) and JSOW/SLAM-ER ( or the likes) allowing you bomb truck to stay high and respond. Combination of hard-kill and soft-kill will enable the JSF to stay where it wants. I would rather be high and deal with a SAM in this kind of environment then to be down low within range AAA.

This is a very optimistic evalutation of an enemy's Air Defence capabilities. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Bird Gunner:  Every battlefield is different and strategies and tactics will depend on what the enemy has and what we have.  I'm sure the Command has a good idea of what's within enemy lines before they launch the fleet.

 

[McG]

This is a very optimistic evalutation of an enemy's Air Defence capabilities. 

Regardless, we have doctrine, procedures & tools to bring the fast movers in low and close when required or desired.  Alternately, when it is more appropriate they can operate from high & far. We can be adaptable to the intensity of the conflict and the capabilities/limitations of our enemy.

This adaptability would not likely be true of a limited one trick pony (like a fixed wing prop-driven CAS aircraft).

 

[aesop081]

This is a very optimistic evalutation of an enemy's Air Defence capabilities.

That may be but it is no less valid than anyone else's assesment when not discussing a specific threat.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

As an Air Defence guy, I think I'd rather stay low and fast and take my chances with a tired gunners luck of hitting me with a finger guided/laser riding MANPAD/35mm configured gun than up high dealing with radar/thumb driven missiles.  Air Defence always deploys in depth, mutual coverage, and in a layered approach. The best option, IMHO, is an armed UAV, and the F35 doing the HARM missiles for it. Much cheaper, and with the person handling the weapon out of harms way, likely more accurate... can't say for sure since I'm not AF.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Air Defence always deploys in depth, mutual coverage, and in a layered approach.

In an ideal world, with all the ressources readily available to you.

EDIT:  For example, Canada.  We have a very extensive Air Defence weapons inventory, don't we

 

[aesop081]

As an Air Defence guy, I think I'd rather stay low and fast and take my chances with a tired gunners luck of hitting me with a finger guided/laser riding MANPAD/35mm configured gun than up high dealing with radar/thumb driven missiles. 

Speaking as the target of SAMs and AAA i prefer to have altitude in order to engage my defensive systems/countermeasures to deal with a missile i can see coming. If for some reason, the unfortunate happens and we get hit, higher altitude gives us more options for saving the aircraft and crew and deal witht he damage done to the aircraft.. We may be able to glide/limp it towards freindly airfields or at the very least towards friendly lines so that we can crash land it and avoid being placed in a SERE situation. I'm sure a fighter guy would rather eject over freindly territory rather than be on the run or get captured.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

If for some reason, the unfortunate happens and we get hit, higher altitude gives us more options for saving the aircraft and crew and deal witht he damage done to the aircraft.. We may be able to glide/limp it towards freindly airfields or at the very least towards friendly lines so that we can crash land it and avoid being placed in a SERE situation. I'm sure a fighter guy would rather eject over freindly territory rather than be on the run or get captured.

Yeah, if you're not blown up in the initial explosion.... High altitude air defence missiles tend to have a large warhead as opposed to small MANPAD warheads, and even smaller AHEAD rounds.

 

[aesop081]

High altitude air defence missiles tend to have a large warhead as opposed to small MANPAD warheads,

Yup but they also tend to operate by proximity rather than direct impact. They are also more likely to be guided by radar and those radars are the target of SEAD and our own DEWS/SDS. More time to detect the threat, more time to employ countermeasures and more time to deal with any damage.

Just my 2 cents.......as a target.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Yup but they also teand to operate by proximity rather than direct impact.

Same with most IR Guided missiles.  Both a proximity and an impact fuse.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well if Afghanistan has taught anything, it is that when predicting what the next mission for the Canadian military is, all bets are off! Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have learned that Canadians will accept causalities and a warlike mission depending on the reason. This opens us to a much broader global role in the future. It could be our next mission will be without the US and possibly against an opponent with a more sophisticated AD. We may be called on to provide either CAS or Air superiority, even both for the mission. 

 

[McG]

In an ideal world, with all the ressources readily available to you.

When doing an estimate, you want to ensure that you at least look at the enemy's most likely and the enemy's most dangerous potential courses of action.  If we're trying to crystal ball the future threat that our aircraft may have to fly through to support ground forces, then shouldn't we give some consideration to the large competent enemy with a layered air defence network and some ability to deny air superiority to our side?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Yup but they also tend to operate by proximity rather than direct impact. They are also more likely to be guided by radar and those radars are the target of SEAD and our own DEWS/SDS. More time to detect the threat, more time to employ countermeasures and more time to deal with any damage.

Just my 2 cents.......as a target.

I understand your thinking, and ironically, I think our opinion of the F-35 (I think that's the right numbering for the JSF) is the same... I am a believer in low and fast, but the best aircraft we can get for CAS, aside from something unmanned, is a system that can go high or low. does the JSF do HARM?

 

[SupersonicMax]

When doing an estimate, you want to ensure that you at least look at the enemy's most likely and the enemy's most dangerous potential courses of action.  If we're trying to crystal ball the future threat that our aircraft may have to fly through to support ground forces, then shouldn't we give some consideration to the large competent enemy with a layered air defence network and some ability to deny air superiority to our side?

Sure, if we had an unlimited budget, we could get everything we needed against a perfectly equipped enemy (Air Superiority Aircraft, Strike Aircraft, SEAD Aircraft, EW Aircraft, CAS Aircraft, ect).  However, as we all know, our budget is quite limited, therefore we need to compromise on some things. 

To win a war, you need to obtain Air Superiority.  Without it, you cannot do anything without a constant Air Threat (both to air and ground troops).  You can eighter destroy every fighter aircraft they have or deny their use.  Unless the enemy is pretty close to you in terms of technology and quantity, it will be possible to get it (Gulf War 1 & Kosovo are good examples)

In the Balkans War, the Serbs had a very sophisticated Air Defence system.  Nonetheless, the first thing the Allied did was to disable it as much as possible.  It was the very first thing to do, in order to obtain Air Superiority.  Even with that sophisticated, mobile Air Defence system, there was no loss of life in the whole Air Campaign (sure some people got shot down, but they eventually made it.  Getting shot down doesn't always equal a dead crew).  After that, the allied aircraft had the sky almost to themselve and could strike tactical and strategical targets pretty much at their will.

I doubt Canada will ever engage in an Air Campain by itself, and will always eighter be a support element of a bigger coalition or have support from allies.  We will never, in the medium term, have a big enough quantity to do it, so to speak, by ourselve.

 

[McG]

Sure, if we had an unlimited budget, we could get everything we needed against a perfectly equipped enemy (Air Superiority Aircraft, Strike Aircraft, SEAD Aircraft, EW Aircraft, CAS Aircraft, ect).  However, as we all know, our budget is quite limited, therefore we need to compromise on some things.

Assuming away the threat is a stupid & dangerous way to do an assessment and determine one's requirements (unless maybe you like to be caught with your pants around your ankles when it is time to sprint for your life).  We might not be able to afford everything, but we need to be ready for whatever is conceivably probable in the next foe.

Our limited resources don't mean that a capable enemy does not exist.  Our limited resources mean that we don't squander dollars and effort into a one trick pony (like a "COIN fighter") when a capable modern aircraft can fill that role & the high intensity fight against a competent foe. 

I doubt Canada will ever engage in an Air Campain by itself, and will always eighter be a support element of a bigger coalition or have support from allies.  We will never, in the medium term, have a big enough quantity to do it, so to speak, by ourselve.

There have been Canadian politicians of more than one party floating the idea of Canada as the heavy lifter in Sudan.  There is both an air and an AD threat in that theatre.  Sure, it is not the most dangerous senario, but don't fool yourself into thinking it can never happen.

 

[aesop081]

does the JSF do HARM?

Thats a good question. i'm not sure if the internal weapons bays of the F-35 can accomodate the AGM-88 or succesors. If they are large enough, with the required electonic systems, i cant see why it wouldnt be able to employ it.

Further to the AD discussion, another ace in the F-35 may be the MALD-J ( Miniature Air-Launched decoy-Jammer) being developed. It is basicaly a cruise missile-like system that acts as a decoy with a jammer package and stays close to enemy AD. Combine this with a Stand-off jamer- equiped B-52......

 

[Infanteer]

This page is like the "Infantry Support Gun" page where everyone except the infantry is making recommendations on what the Infantry needs. 

Oh well, the thread is interesting, despite routine static, for the amount of thought going into tactical and strategic requirements for Canadian air power.

A few questions/points from the peanut gallery:

1.  Interesting debate on threat assessments, and one that must go with any argument to by any piece of hardware.  What's the threat?  People have a good bogeyman in China, but guys like Thomas Barnett make good cases against that scenario.  White Paper material.

2.  What can be assumed?  Some hard assumptions have to be made - we simply don't have the resources to cover all eventualities (or tailor forces for every niche conflict).  Will we always have air superiority?  My initial thought is that we can count on air dominance, or at least air superiority, for the next decade or so - we don't really go anywhere without the US.  Can we afford to plan against a relatively thin enemy air defence in the near and mid-term future?  Some have made relatively convincing arguments that we can.  Again, White Paper material.

3.  MCG mentioned Sudan, but should we really be basing our force structure planning off of preparing for abjectly poor strategic decisions?  Canada deciding to unilaterally sort out the Sudan, or pretty much in any real contested idea, is – at this point in time - poor, any way you cut it.  Look at the effort made, with superb overwhelming American support, to pacify a single province in Afghanistan.  Yet again, White Paper material.

4.  That being said, I think the F-35 is (for all the right reasons) a given.  It can cover off enough vital roles to hit those baseline Air Force requirements (patrol Canadian skies, contribute to allied ops, drop a bomb on something, intercept something) that we can’t avoid getting it.  This thread shouldn’t be an either/or argument, but rather on how to effectively augment the capabilities of this airframe that we will undoubtedly acquire in limited numbers.

5.  This mention of a COIN fighter is silly - I'm unsure of how it has come to dominate this thread.  Dropping bombs and strafing does not constitute "COIN" anymore than a rifleman using a rifle means he is a "COIN Policeman" vice soldier - why should we define a fighter by an operational construct?  This thread is on the verge of creating a false dichotomy of HIC/LIC airpower – that if something is good at dropping bombs on bad guys it is a “COIN fighter”.  How about just a “warfighter” airplane – something that drops bombs on bad guys regardless of what sort of uniform they put on.

6.  I think the crux of what some on this thread were aiming at was an airframe that dealt with two major issues with deploying airpower; the footprint it requires to operate it (airstrips, control towers, etc, etc) and the maintain it (mechanics, vehicles, etc, etc).  This makes employment of the vehicle more likely as it is easier to deploy and sustain on operations.  The “low-tech” solution was put forward, and was intriguing, as a solution to meet these demands; however others may be more feasible/palatable – such as armed mini-UAVs launched from LAVs or something.  Either way, I think the discussion of “Green Airpower” should focus on footprint vice capability to put lead on a target (as most airframes can do so, especially with a good JTAC).

7.  The other is cost - I once read an interesting article somewhere that measured the cost and time to produce a modern fighter and how if two guys went at it with similar machines that attrition would soon render all super high-tech models obsolete as there is no way they could replaced in good order.  Do an experiment and picture what would happen if we got in a fight with country "X" and 23 CF-18s were shot down in the first week or two of conflict?  How the hell would we replace those?  How long does it take a factory to spit out an F-22 or an F-35 to replace it?  Interesting thought experiment anyways, and something the "low tech" crowd may be right in bringing up?

Anyways, just my 2-non-wedge-wearing-cents.

PS.

We aren’t the only one’s discussing these general concepts – many good threads (with real good articles) over on the Small Wars Council:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7603&highlight=Airpower

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2357&highlight=Airpower