| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. |
 Author
|
Topic: Group question regarding Close Support Aircraft? (Read 942 times)
|
Dave Brydon
Veteran 100+ Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 193
|
I would like to pose a question to the group. I made a comment regarding the purchase of the Leopard Tanks, in that I would have seen better value in purchasing Attacking Helicopters, and felt that the tanks provided little more then visual support vice practical support.
Several weeks back I introduced my neighbor to this forum, and he has since browsed through some of the topics…to this end, he asked about my comment regarding attack helicopters. Essentially, he asked why we [Cdn Military ] do not have such close air support craft, such as the Attack Helicopters, or A10 Warthogs, as examples.
Well the only answer I could come up with was “I suppose it’s a question of money”. Well, my neighbor didn’t really agree with that statement to much, and the more I’ve thought about it, I’m not sure I do either. I know we send pilots down to the States to cross train on equipment, and I know we have/or had pilots trained in such helicopters. We could purchase second hand aircraft from the US, and/or other partners at a reasonable cost, and our pilots could train at US facilities to reduce cost…all of which makes sense.
I still like the idea of being able to provide very close support aircraft to our troops on the ground, and provide immediate overhead reconnaissance capabilities for our commanders. We did discuss the CF 18’s but we did not consider them providing the same value in the regard of this discussion as the close support aircraft mentioned.
Being such a small military, albeit a vital one to NATO and our partners, should we not be equipped with such tools that would allow us to provide immediate close cover support to our troops, without having to rely on other aircraft, from other nations in theater,…if available. Meaning they will support their own troops and mission goals first, before covering ours.
Therefore, my question is; why have we never had, nor proposed the purchase of such close support aircraft?
Cheers,
Dave
|
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."
-George Patton
Pro Patria
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2286
|
Hmmmm , a good poser Dave... my two cents...why have we not?? Why are we sitting and not saying, doing something about it? Are our superior leaders and planners not up on the needs of todays combat troops, methods of combat .etc?? It does seem like we have dropped the ball on this one... and i would ,if i was on the ground much prefer to have Cdn pilots flying the close combat support....i know i would trust them a whole lot more than ,say the US doing it.. and i do not want to seem to be down on the Yanks, but i think, the record speaks for itself....nuff said on that....so , i look forward to hearing comments from all you guys out there who DO HAVE the combat expertise , and do know what is needed...lets hear from you all.. good post Dave, dang good post... ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Brydon
Veteran 100+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 193
|
I appreciate the comments guys.
I was just talking to my neighbor across the street, I asked him and his wife what they thought, and his wife gave me her opinion. She feels that Canada is a nation of Peacekeepers, and that is what she considers the role of our military. True, many Canadian also feel this, but they seem to forget that we are soldiers first and peacekeepers second…in my opinion. She also suggested that for us to use attack aircraft/helicopters, would suggest that we are not peacekeepers, and more along the lines of the US.
Funny, I can understand her logic in this regard, but feel that it is a weak case, as all of our hardware, tanks, as an example is used for war. However, I understand the thinking behind this train of thought, and perhaps it’s a valid point for other Canadian’s…the perception of war mongers, vice peacekeepers.
|
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."
-George Patton
Pro Patria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
terry hanna
Guest
|
can i throw my 2 cents in.......its fine having cf 18,s in the FGA role,but,their time on target is very limited. a helicopter gun/wpns platform has more T.O.T. and does not have to leave the immediate area of ops to re-arm/re-fuel as the helo support units are mobile enough to move close enough to the area of combat and stay safe at the same time.As to cost what about purchasing all the wpns designed by the U.S. for their hueys during the vietnam era and prior to the intro of apache and cobra surely the yanks would sell them at low low cost.more of the CF'S roles are going to be peace making vice keeping.....the last 10 or years attest to that
|
|
|
|
|
hugh mackenzie
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 8
Pro Patria
|
to dave brydon, in order to have NATO properly equiped wouldn't it make sense for NATO as a whole to purchase the needed equipment, with each member nation paying a pro rated share. this would avoid the situation of having one nation providing for itself, and the other members purchasing similar equipment and not using it.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Brydon
Veteran 100+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 193
|
I fully understand and appreciate our Forces and the need/requirements for us to purchase multi-purpose hardware. However, with are fighting forces, not a political force...although that point I’m sure can be debated.
And you’re correct in that the CF 18 is a wonderful example of a multi-role “fighter”; however, it cannot provide the close support, necessary to meet the challenges our troops are facing, and have faced over the last decade, plus… We need aircraft, which can stay on site, and provide up-close and very personal firepower in direct support of our troops. The CF-18 cannot provide such dedicated support, as an attack helicopter. Additionally, an attack helicopter is the quintessential multi purpose tool for today’s battlefield. Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan are very good examples of where attack helicopters would have and could have played crucial roles, on several levels.
Attack helicopter are much easier to deploy then CF 18’s; in fact they would be able to deploy with any Battle-Group, and be on the ground ready to integrate into any number of key roles a battle Group commander so chooses. The CF 18, would have a limited, if any role in support of a BG.
As for our tanks…well, since Korea, when was the last time they have been used for any real purpose, and the cost to maintain those tanks over the years has been enormous.
I feel the Generals need to reevaluate how to better supply our forces with equipment that truly makes a difference on the battlefield; equipment, that is multi-purpose, yet provides true support for our troops, in a focused manner, vice equipment that provides support best suited for paper based reports and/or technical papers.
|
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."
-George Patton
Pro Patria
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Conway
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 82
|
I remember an exercise the Canadian Airborne did in Alaska in '70 '71 ? , it was -55c. I was a pathfinder for 2CDO, on that exercise, for some reason, the troops were dropped without their tent groups, which were to be dropped on a second lift, to our surprise the tent groups were dropped 5kms (klicks) away. After a night of re-organization, enough tobbaggans were recovered to advance on the US defensive position which, had been obandoned because of the temperature. BUT: The Warthogs had us, we would have been dead meat, the defence of Our North depends on air power first, then muckluks on the snow. Hugh Conway
|
1961 RCR Depot, 1 RCR '61 to '65 - Coy Sig & Sect Comd, '65 to '68 NZ Army Int Duties, '68 to '73 Cdn AB Regt Pathfinder, '73 to '75 C Int C 421 Ftr Sqn. '75 to '83 MWO L Edmn R, '83 to '91 commissioned.
|
|
|
Dave Brydon
Veteran 100+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 193
|
Hugh Mackenzie; very good point; there was some discussion within NATO in regards to this approach of outfitting NATO countries, but noting came of it.
I think at this juncture it would be a rather difficult sell. Each country has different needs, and based on the political party of the day, and their Foreign Affair outline/policies, I think would make it to hard to maintain.
We also need to keep in mind, that although we are part of NATO, as other countries are, our military is still required first and foremost to defend Canada, and it’s defined interest. To this end, our equipment and military policies must be geared to meet this primary role. I would think that is also the case for all other NATO countries, and therefore, each country’s military would be designed as a whole force, vice a sculpted force with selective tools to meet a projected outline defined by NATO Generals.
During the Cold War era, this concept may have proven more fruitful of an idea, but in today’s mixed environments, and fluid geography and local governments, I feel it’s time has passed. Individual Nations need to support comprehensive militaries, rather then pieces to fit into a collective group…if the group splinters, as has been the case over the past decade, well…your country and it’s military, would be ineffective, and hard pressed to rebuild to a modern force.
|
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."
-George Patton
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3437
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
Well, I have thought about your proposal for a few days now, brother.
What we need is an aircraft that has a multi-role capability, ie, something in the line of the Hind series of aircraft.
With high tech avionics, of course.
Certainly, the prospect of confronting a squadron of HInd-D's back in the days of detente was enough to make an mechanized infanteer's skin crawl, lets be serious, these choppers are warhorses which, equally important, can be used for roles other then attack helicopter missions.
For example, it has already been reported that Canada's new special forces regiment will require mission specific aircraft. What better platform then an aircraft that can deliver the commandos safely to the target then provide a plethora of offensive munitions in the combat support role. They would also look good on the deck of one of those Tarawa class vessels purportedly in the works and an excellent platform for the Marine element that may, or may not, be in the CAF's future.
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Brydon
Veteran 100+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 193
|
Fair enough comments; having such a discussion as this, is really all about getting the pros and con’s on the table, and sorting through them.
However, I would like to respond to a couple of points:
It’s not a question of our troops being killed or injured by IED, RPG, and/or any other type of firepower, nor is it as you state to provide a “false sense of security”. I cannot imagine Attack Helicopters being slated as providing a false sense of anything – they are as real as it gets, and are as ferocious as any killing machine on the battlefield.
Their value would be immediate to any engagement, as they would provide focused firepower when and where needed; it’s this very design, that I feel would save lives, and reduce the need to place our troops directly into the fire. Having an Attack Helicopter sweep through high profile area’s first would prove very beneficial to our soldiers, not to mention, would make the bad guys think twice.
As for being supported by our own pilots, I don’t see your issue here. Being trained by the US has no bearing on how our pilots will support our own troops. In fact, the Marines are a good example; each Marine regardless of rank or profession, i.e. soldier or pilot goes through the same training. They use Marine pilots to support the Marines on the ground, as they feel who could better support them, but one of their own. In fact, Marine pilots are integrated with ground forces to direct Marine aircraft on station in support of the troops in the front lines.
Essentially, Canadian Pilots, would indeed be more sympathetic to Canadian ground troops, then a pilot from another country, and certainly go the extra mile in that support; again, I don’t see the issue with your point.
NATO does work for the common goal as you pointed out, but that does not necessarily mean that other countries in the fight can or will supply supporting aircraft when we need them. Meaning, when the bullets are flying and our troops need air support, you would suspect that they need it immediately…makes sense. As it stands, there would be a lot of variables in play, depending on what each country has in theatre, where in theater they are, and what/how they are currently employed as, or doing…i.e. can they be released at that moment to support our troops. However, if we had are own, they would be deployed and in support of our own operations, and troops.
As for Canada and an independent army…I thought we had one <smile>.
After Afghanistan, I honestly do not see to many peacekeeping mission per say. I see the world as a much different place over the last decade, and the intensity of conflicts has grown 10-fold. The days of Cyprus and Peacekeeping are over, and we must remember that even Cyprus began in blood, but the Greeks and the Turks were willing to have a referee step in…. Now, conflicting countries sometimes do not wish for Peacekeepers…people perhaps, but not the warring armies.
The next conflicts are already on the world stage; Iraq (already in full swing), Iran, North K, China, Russia… who knows, and honestly, I don’t even what to think about it.
The point being I think – is; we need to develop a strong, self-supporting military, and cannot rely solely on others to support our own troops.
I’m not saying that Attack helicopters are the answer, I’m just throwing that out there as a tool we could use on many levels; command and control, close fire support, as examples. Lets not get hooked on a standard Gun-ship view, as Attack Helicopters can come in many shapes, and can fill many roles. As for how many would be feasible, well, that’s up to the planners…If I had to take a guess, I would say between 30 and 60.
The point here is to discuss the reasoning why the CF has certain equipment, or lacks certain equipment, and why we as soldiers see value in some, and little in others. Here I can use the purchase of 100 old Leopards as an example…where do they fit in…not peacekeeping; but there not meant for that are they?
I feel that we tend to buy junk, as what I consider knee jerk reactions. I thought our Generals were suppose to be far reaching, clear headed thinkers and planners. All I see is old zipper heads (No offence) saying get rid of them one minute, then saying lets buy some the next…but why, and what value will they supply.
Hell, you want another one to get me going…lets talk subs; four pieces of scrap metal, one just for parts…or is that two now.
Do we need subs…sure; great piece of kit, supports our coastal defence, supports our navy at sea, protects the North, keeps supply lines open, destroy the enemies supply lines, can attack land based targets, etc… Do we need the big puppies, or like the Tanks, do our boys at the top like to play and be like the Americans…perhaps, that’s were the problem lies.
I would have preferred the smaller Germany sub, the 212 A. The sub is only 56 meters long with a crew of 27, and equipped with a state-of-the-art systems, which convert water and oxygen into electricity that powers them to cruise under water for as long as three weeks…not bad. However, that’s another topic.
Cheers,
Dave
|
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."
-George Patton
Pro Patria
|
|
|
terry hanna
Guest
|
I agree with you dave brydon,you have it all down pat, we should be ''looking over the horizon'' just what conflict is coming next, and indeed there are numerous possibilities available. Any person who can't see that is deluding themselves,after afghanistan, learn the lesson's,prepare for the next phase...........and it won't be peace keeping!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3437
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
I think that horizon you would refer to , Terry, should be our own borders!
One has only to look at NATO's reluctance to engage in Afghanistan to realize the alliance is a paper tiger and that we had better damn well take care of our ability to defend the nation with a bunch of tokens as allies.
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
terry hanna
Guest
|
Thats so true Mike. and i agree 100%, the ''spooks'' in britain reckon that there could be as many as 4,000 ''sleeper's (islamic terrorists and supporters) here just waiting for the jihad.Makes you wonder how many are in Canada waiting. These religious nuts have no qualms about whom and what they attack, I sincerely hope that CSIS are on top of things. These terrorists will try to erode and demoralise the home nations morale and support for their front line troops, something that ALL Canadians must be prepared for.Is that sounding Alarmist (i hope so).People must be made to accept the fact that the ''days of wine and roses are over'' there is a new reality in the world.....and it will get worse before it gets better. Sorry for being so morbid Mike but thats my take on things.
|
|
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2286
|
Geez Mike , and Terry... you guys are painting an horrific picture of the future, its terrible, the outlook... but i have to agree with you both...i think youre hitting the nail right on the head ... and we had best get prepared..because we are not now...oh, the military are somewhat prepared, but only as far as our political leaders are allowing...its time , maybe to scare the hell out of our own folks , just to get their attention.....scary outlook....ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Logged
