GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,499
- Points
- 960
I suspect you'd like the Hawk 100 it was dedicated CAS bird used by both Indonesia and Malaysia ....I think ......... I'm working from memory here so please be gentle ???Inch said:
Best Air Support ?
- Thread starter toglmonster
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Perhaps a newer version would do the trick, like a Hawk 200, but it's still sticks out to me as a trainer and not a combat aircraft. That's just my opinion though, I am a rotorhead so I'm more partial to attack helicopters.
By the way, we have Hawk 115's.
http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp
By the way, we have Hawk 115's.
http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp
The last dedicated CAS aircraft that we had was the CF5. Like Hawk, it was also used as a fighter lead-in trainer as well.
It was described as "an excellent aircraft for bombing the end of one's own runway".
Like many "cheapo" aircraft, what it carried was a compromise between enough fuel to get where it needed to go and enough weaponry to do a useful job once it got there.
Hawk and similar aircraft would suffer likewise.
The CF5 was, payload/fuel limitations (and lack of all-weather and night capability) aside, a nifty little jet and the guys did phenomenal work, though. The latter was due to their dedication, specialization, and more frequent role-specific training. As an airborne FAC in my Kiowa, I usually got several opportunities annually to do live runs with them, and loads more dry. They were very good to work with and had a high success rate even in the days where every single run was a talk-through and nothing was guided - no laser designater or GPS at all, just map, protractor, compass on the instrument panel, radio, and smarts.
Today, due to technology and permissive environment, almost anything can drop precision ordnance from a safe altitude and expect an accurate hit. The bigger it is, the more weaponry and fuel it can carry.
Modern combat aircraft can refuel in flight, too, whereas training aircraft cannot. You'd also need more pilots to place as much ordnance on target or hang around as long in aircraft with less endurance and there's a world-wide shortage of those.
Infantrymen could carry far more .22LR than 5.56mm and the .22LR bullet launcher would be significantly cheaper than a C7/C8. A Lee-Enfield No. 4 would be effective at longer ranges and be simpler to maintain in harsh environments. Ludicrous, yes - but the same arguments that are being proposed for aircraft here.
And if it wouldn't be effective against the Chinese Army when Cold War II begins, then I'm even more disinterested.
It was described as "an excellent aircraft for bombing the end of one's own runway".
Like many "cheapo" aircraft, what it carried was a compromise between enough fuel to get where it needed to go and enough weaponry to do a useful job once it got there.
Hawk and similar aircraft would suffer likewise.
The CF5 was, payload/fuel limitations (and lack of all-weather and night capability) aside, a nifty little jet and the guys did phenomenal work, though. The latter was due to their dedication, specialization, and more frequent role-specific training. As an airborne FAC in my Kiowa, I usually got several opportunities annually to do live runs with them, and loads more dry. They were very good to work with and had a high success rate even in the days where every single run was a talk-through and nothing was guided - no laser designater or GPS at all, just map, protractor, compass on the instrument panel, radio, and smarts.
Today, due to technology and permissive environment, almost anything can drop precision ordnance from a safe altitude and expect an accurate hit. The bigger it is, the more weaponry and fuel it can carry.
Modern combat aircraft can refuel in flight, too, whereas training aircraft cannot. You'd also need more pilots to place as much ordnance on target or hang around as long in aircraft with less endurance and there's a world-wide shortage of those.
Infantrymen could carry far more .22LR than 5.56mm and the .22LR bullet launcher would be significantly cheaper than a C7/C8. A Lee-Enfield No. 4 would be effective at longer ranges and be simpler to maintain in harsh environments. Ludicrous, yes - but the same arguments that are being proposed for aircraft here.
And if it wouldn't be effective against the Chinese Army when Cold War II begins, then I'm even more disinterested.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,900
- Points
- 1,160
I seem to remember that the USMC used the F-18 in the CAS role. I have no first hand knowledge of how well it did, but the umpires said that they did a pretty good job at wiping us from the face of the earth every once in awhile. Needless to say, we got better at hiding from their aircraft and FACs in a hurry.
Can anyone tell me what is different about their aircraft and training to allow them to perform in the CAS role (apart from every pilot and aircrew going through Boot Camp, of course)?
Can anyone tell me what is different about their aircraft and training to allow them to perform in the CAS role (apart from every pilot and aircrew going through Boot Camp, of course)?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Daftandbarmy
The reason the Marines are better at CAS with their Hornets is because they do it alot more, everything in the USMC revolves around supporting their guys on the ground. That's not to say that they don't do air to air or air interdiction but they spend alot more trg in the CAS role than we do. It should also be noted that the Marines could have probably had any a/c they wanted for this task and they still picked the Hornet, interesting huh ? They do still use AV-8s as well but not too sure for how much longer.
As for our guys(AF), well they are really starting to get on board with the CAS thing, before it maybe wasn't "sexy" enough and they didn't dedicate too many hours to it, now, they are utilizing all trg opportunities to get up to speed and really are not too bad at all.
One other side note that should be brought up to is that CAS a/c don't usually just loiter over the AO waiting for something to shoot up, they usually work out of a "stack", so when the FAC/JTAC does call them up they might be 10NM back, who do you want then, the slow guy or the guy with 2 GE's strapped on,anyhow food for thought.
The reason the Marines are better at CAS with their Hornets is because they do it alot more, everything in the USMC revolves around supporting their guys on the ground. That's not to say that they don't do air to air or air interdiction but they spend alot more trg in the CAS role than we do. It should also be noted that the Marines could have probably had any a/c they wanted for this task and they still picked the Hornet, interesting huh ? They do still use AV-8s as well but not too sure for how much longer.
As for our guys(AF), well they are really starting to get on board with the CAS thing, before it maybe wasn't "sexy" enough and they didn't dedicate too many hours to it, now, they are utilizing all trg opportunities to get up to speed and really are not too bad at all.
One other side note that should be brought up to is that CAS a/c don't usually just loiter over the AO waiting for something to shoot up, they usually work out of a "stack", so when the FAC/JTAC does call them up they might be 10NM back, who do you want then, the slow guy or the guy with 2 GE's strapped on,anyhow food for thought.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
I wonder if their decision to pick the Hornet was not more based on the fact that they would require a plane that could be "Carrier Based"?
A
aesop081
Guest
George Wallace said:
The USMC has a long history of using the same aircraft as the Navy ( A-6, F-4, F-8, etc....) and the Hornet, IMHO represented a good choice for them. The combination of the AV-8 and F/A-18 offered the USMC a flexible CAS capability. The Marines by nature of course required something that could be carrier-based.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
cdnaviator said:
Along those lines, was the Hornet not choosen to replace the Navy's Tom Cats?
What is important is that the right weapon strikes the right target at the right time. That does not require "Low & slow + linger time over objectives", and while those things may work in Afghanistan today, they may not work there in the future or in other conflicts yet to come.geo said:
One does not have to hang around low over one's target area to be able to strike it quickly, while drawing attention - and, should somebody start supplying Mr Taliban with modern MANPADS in quantity, something even less desireable.
Fighter/attack aircraft can remain aloft far beyond one fuel load thanks to aerial refuelling, and can react quickly and effectively from some distance away due to their speed. There is no need to be low to strike a target accurately, unless a gun is required. They are also more flexible in their employment than A10 is - although forced specialization has its benefits, mainly in crew skill and interest.
The equivalent in land capability to what you want is having your artillery located in with the infantry, 19th-century style, rather than somewhere in depth and able to shoot for 30-40 km in any direction as modern technology now permits.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,900
- Points
- 1,160
We used to have our artillery co-located. It was called the mortar platoon.
But I have to agree with Loachman. I don't care if there's a Brylcreemed wonder doing barrel rolls over my head or not. I just want them to blast the bad guys as and when required. I seem to remember that the USMC F18s that greased us on a semi-regular basis (albeit only on exercise) were never seen or heard by us. Rather unsporting, but effective nonetheless.
Now, just what will it take to get our F18s up to the same standard as those used by Uncle Sam's Misguided Children? I assume we'll need some new ammo natures, a few more expensive cockpit gizmos, and a few new courses in some cushy places like Hawaii (where the US practises CAS) for our pilots.
But I have to agree with Loachman. I don't care if there's a Brylcreemed wonder doing barrel rolls over my head or not. I just want them to blast the bad guys as and when required. I seem to remember that the USMC F18s that greased us on a semi-regular basis (albeit only on exercise) were never seen or heard by us. Rather unsporting, but effective nonetheless.
Now, just what will it take to get our F18s up to the same standard as those used by Uncle Sam's Misguided Children? I assume we'll need some new ammo natures, a few more expensive cockpit gizmos, and a few new courses in some cushy places like Hawaii (where the US practises CAS) for our pilots.
A
aesop081
Guest
daftandbarmy said:
Try places like Twenty-nine Palms, California.....where the USMC puts its forces through their paces for pre-deployement certification.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,900
- Points
- 1,160
Excellent. Great golfing and even better rock climbing nearby at Joshua Tree.
Do we practise CAS there now with our F18s?
Do we practise CAS there now with our F18s?
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,499
- Points
- 960
[
The equivalent in land capability to what you want is having your artillery located in with the infantry, 19th-century style, rather than somewhere in depth and able to shoot for 30-40 km in any direction as modern technology now permits.
[/quote]Perhaps what we need is a return the proposed pre/early WW II Cannon Company. What killed it will be quite familiar to us. A preexisting shortage of personnel within the infantry Battalions.
I suspect we might also have a bit of trouble finding 3.7 " Infantry Guns as well
The equivalent in land capability to what you want is having your artillery located in with the infantry, 19th-century style, rather than somewhere in depth and able to shoot for 30-40 km in any direction as modern technology now permits.
[/quote]Perhaps what we need is a return the proposed pre/early WW II Cannon Company. What killed it will be quite familiar to us. A preexisting shortage of personnel within the infantry Battalions.
I suspect we might also have a bit of trouble finding 3.7 " Infantry Guns as well
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Precisely. - and that time and place is when and where the troops on the ground tell you, if we are speaking of CAS.Loachman said:
The mission right now requires loiter time to acquire objectives and sometimes use multiple wpns on them, a bird that is only on station for 15 mins prior to calling BINGO is not all that useful, especially when it takes you 10 mins to talk him onto a tgt.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I think we are all singing the same song.
One thing apparent is that, for umpteen years, the CF has not spent a whole olt of time practicing CAS with the zoomies. End result, neither had much experience at it when our mission to Kandahar started. Is that shortcoming being adressed?.... yup... about time.
One thing apparent is that, for umpteen years, the CF has not spent a whole olt of time practicing CAS with the zoomies. End result, neither had much experience at it when our mission to Kandahar started. Is that shortcoming being adressed?.... yup... about time.
I am an air weapons controller, I can assure you that CAS is a major priority. The prob here has nothing to do with CAS not being sexy, or zoomies not interested in supporting the army. It is about very, very limited resources being used for way too many tasks.
We only have 80 F18s in 3 sqns, 1 training sqn in Cold Lake, and 2 ops sqns, 1 in "The Lake" the other in Bagtown. The role of the training sqn with their 24 or so jets is to train new F18 pilots, they do not hold NORAD alert, they do not deploy to support overseas ops, they train pilots. The two ops or "Gun Squadrons" with approx 24 jets each (48 total for operations at home & abroad) are required to provide NORAD alert fighters, conduct air to air training, BAI (battlefield Air Interdiction) training, CAS training, and any other task thrown their way. Keep in mind that if a fighter sqn "owns" 24 jets, not all of those jets are avail each day. Some are on NORAD alert, some in depot maint (long term maint), some are in sqn maint. Pilots are also in short supply. One day they hold NORAD alert, the next day they fly a CAS training sortie, the next day a 2 vs 2 air to air training mission, back on NORAD alert again, on & on.........
The USMC F18s are primarily tasked with CAS. It is their main mission, as are their Harrier pilots. USAF A10s are dedicated CAS units, they do nothing else.
Back 25 years ago we had Voodoos for NORAD, that's all they did, F5s for CAS, that's all they did, and F104s for CAS & BAI, that's all they did. They were very good at 1 or 2 main mission types, they did not have to cover the entire spectrum of fighter ops.
My opinion, we do not have nearly enough fighters. In the short term we have to make do, NORAD & CAS are the priorities today, train for them. In the future we need to expand our fighter force to more than 80 jets. Have dedicated Air Defence sqns, on for both eastern & western Canada, and have dedicated CAS/BAI sqns to support army ops, IMHO.
We only have 80 F18s in 3 sqns, 1 training sqn in Cold Lake, and 2 ops sqns, 1 in "The Lake" the other in Bagtown. The role of the training sqn with their 24 or so jets is to train new F18 pilots, they do not hold NORAD alert, they do not deploy to support overseas ops, they train pilots. The two ops or "Gun Squadrons" with approx 24 jets each (48 total for operations at home & abroad) are required to provide NORAD alert fighters, conduct air to air training, BAI (battlefield Air Interdiction) training, CAS training, and any other task thrown their way. Keep in mind that if a fighter sqn "owns" 24 jets, not all of those jets are avail each day. Some are on NORAD alert, some in depot maint (long term maint), some are in sqn maint. Pilots are also in short supply. One day they hold NORAD alert, the next day they fly a CAS training sortie, the next day a 2 vs 2 air to air training mission, back on NORAD alert again, on & on.........
The USMC F18s are primarily tasked with CAS. It is their main mission, as are their Harrier pilots. USAF A10s are dedicated CAS units, they do nothing else.
Back 25 years ago we had Voodoos for NORAD, that's all they did, F5s for CAS, that's all they did, and F104s for CAS & BAI, that's all they did. They were very good at 1 or 2 main mission types, they did not have to cover the entire spectrum of fighter ops.
My opinion, we do not have nearly enough fighters. In the short term we have to make do, NORAD & CAS are the priorities today, train for them. In the future we need to expand our fighter force to more than 80 jets. Have dedicated Air Defence sqns, on for both eastern & western Canada, and have dedicated CAS/BAI sqns to support army ops, IMHO.
Similar threads
