CF-18's not being replaced???

[Sheerin]

i know this is splitting hairs, but weren't there special operations teams on the ground in Kosovo?

 

[JBP]

i know this is splitting hairs, but weren't there special operations teams on the ground in Kosovo?

That's more than splitting hairs! Lol...

If there was, it was probably all "black ops" type stuff that isn't suppose to really be known. I wouldn't doubt it though... Regardless, it's been stated before and in many other places that the Kosovo conflict (for sake of simplicity) was the only war ever won by tactical airpower alone.

Maybe someone else knows if there was a substantial special forces group(s) there?

 

[Infanteer]

Well, if you look at the Kosovo conflict from the standpoint of "action taken", not words, it was the only war that ever ended (a better way to put it?) from air strikes alone. No land invasion did happen, even if their was a highly anticipated/perceived threat of a land invasion.

Umm, what are you talking about?  I've got some friends in 1VP who were in Kosovo and would say that you're talking out of your hat.  Kosovo was (and still is) occupied by NATO soldiers - if thousands of troops marching into your state and setting up their own system of governance doesn't constitute an invasion, I don't know what does.

Diplomatic pressure is what really stopped it, but again, in terms of sheer action, it was airpower.

Funny, that's not what most of the literature says.  The fact that NATO stacked troops up on the borders, ready to invade Yugoslavia, is generally regarded as the reason that Milosevic through the towel in.  The effects of the airpower against Serbian forces in the rugged and socked in Balkans was (as usual) grossly over-exaggerated.  Infact, I've seen arguments that the projection of Airpower without a credible land-based threat simply accelerated the Serbian actions against Kosovar Albanians.

 

[Blue Max]

When the Serb army left Kosovo, it was noticed that they left with most of their amour intact, and not severely decimated and left burning in the fields as the air force claimed. Apparently many more tank decoys had been destroyed than real armour.

Within this context it is hard to buy that airpower allone forced the Serbs to leave Kosovo.

 

[JBP]

Umm, what are you talking about?  I've got some friends in 1VP who were in Kosovo and would say that you're talking out of your hat.  Kosovo was (and still is) occupied by NATO soldiers - if thousands of troops marching into your state and setting up their own system of governance doesn't constitute an invasion, I don't know what does.

Didn't that happen after Milosevic quit/surrendered though?

I've got some friends in 1VP who were in Kosovo and would say that you're talking out of your hat.

Just say it, not hat, A$$! 

 

[Infanteer]

Didn't that happen after Milosevic quit/surrendered though?

Yes, but Milosevic wasn't bothered by the Air Campaign until NATO began building up forces on his border.   From what I understand, the physical affects of the bombing were quite minimal on military targets - once he was sure that international opinion would support a full scale invasion by NATO formations, he backed off.

A case has been made that the Air Campaign was responsible for increased pressure from the populace on Slobo's regime, but authoritarian war-criminals usually don't care about the attitudes of their citizens.   I seem to remember the bombing as having the opposite effect (like it did in Germany) of solidifying support for the regime against outside aggression.   From my experience in the Balkans, I'm willing to bet that the Serbians were more then happy to put up with having their civil infrastructure pounded to dust if it meant that they could wipe out a good chunk of the other ethnic group.

Like other air strikes/missile attacks during the century, it appears that the bombing campaign had a limited effect.   Air power (like Naval Power) is a very useful tool for strategic projection of force and for supporting the war aim but when it comes down to it the only real determinant of National Will is land power.   Machines, be it a boat or a plane, don't march into cities, bayonet the bad guy, and plant the flag; armies do.

 

[1feral1]

I heard a rumour that said the CF-18 was not going to be replaced at the end of their service life.   The rumour went on to say that Canada had decided not to have fast air anymore, and was going to concentrate on Hercs as most of our airforce.

Anyone hear anything about this or is this rumour just another story?

Just remember what happened to New Zealand's Air Force. They don't have fast air anymore, as their US made Skyhawks are long gone. So anything is possible.

Regards,

Wes

 

[JBP]

Like other air strikes/missile attacks during the century, it appears that the bombing campaign .  Air power (like Naval Power) is a very useful tool for strategic projection of force and for supporting the war aim but when it comes down to it the only real determinant of National Will is land power.  Machines, be it a boat or a plane, don't march into cities, bayonet the bad guy, and plant the flag; armies do.

Very interesting indeed, makes sense too. Frightening when you think that the bombing sequence actually sped up the slaughter, I suppose NATO thought they would have to send in land forces en masse so they decided a huge bombing campaign would soften things up? Less friendly casualties??? Glad it didn't happen that way, but as you stated, we've been there on the ground and we're still there...

I've heard now days it's not too bad a place to be for a tour etc? Is it relatively safe compare to Afganistan or vice versa? An old Mcpl (Acting Sgt at the time) for the PPCLI, who is now retired (rendered incapable of service due to wounds) was saying it was horrible back in the day, especially because of the ROE's in theatre and fact that the enemy knew how limited we were in regards to any use of force. Still touchy like that today?

Back on topic:
Regardless, we still need "fast air", to have any credible air power. Without it, it's as I've said, you cannot take control over the air in the battlespace, unless the enemy doesn't have any aircraft. In that case, who cares! Again, we could rely on allies for this support also, but we already rely on them for just about everything else!

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Back on topic:  Regardless, we still need "fast air", to have any credible air power.

Air Power for it's own sake is one thing, and this may be a stupid question, but (costs notwithstanding) what does Arty do that Fast Air can't do better, faster and with greater precision?  It seems to me that "combined-arms" discussions generally revolve around Infantry + Armour and/or Arty (and maybe helo support).  I can see weather occasionally being an issue, but with proper planning couldn't fast air be "on station" (i.e., airborne, seconds from the battlefield) just about 24/7, with the ability to deliver PGMs immediately?

What am I missing?  (Please note, this is a legitimate question: I'm not trying to start a flame war)

 

[a_majoor]

Air Power for it's own sake is one thing, and this may be a stupid question, but (costs notwithstanding) what does Arty do that Fast Air can't do better, faster and with greater precision?   It seems to me that "combined-arms" discussions generally revolve around Infantry + Armour and/or Arty (and maybe helo support).   I can see weather occasionally being an issue, but with proper planning couldn't fast air be "on station" (i.e., airborne, seconds from the battlefield) just about 24/7, with the ability to deliver PGMs immediately?

What am I missing?   (Please note, this is a legitimate question: I'm not trying to start a flame war)

John, airplanes don't work too well when the weather is bad, and you need the right type of airplane to get effective ground support. In the Viet-nam war, the ancient Douglas Skyraider (nicknamed "Spad" by the troops) was far more valuable for ground support than "fast movers" like the F-4, because it was slow enough to really see the target, could loiter over the battlefield for hours, not minutes, and deal out death to the bad guys with bombs, rockets and cannon fire, as opposed to a high speed bomb run.

Alas, the air forces of the world don't regard that as very sexy, and "Spad" replacements like the A-10 hasn't been in production for several decades (and the only way to get CAS in the future will be through JSF or other "fast movers").

Morters, Arty and other weapons like that provide the 24/7 firepower the troops on the ground need, with the zoomies providing invaluable services liike "deep strikes" into the enemy rear areas, or supplementing arty with PGMs, or allowing you to outrun your logistics train temporaraly (OIF).

 

[aesop081]

John, airplanes don't work too well when the weather is bad, and you need the right type of airplane to get effective ground support. In the Viet-nam war, the ancient Douglas Skyraider (nicknamed "Spad" by the troops) was far more valuable for ground support than "fast movers" like the F-4, because it was slow enough to really see the target, could loiter over the battlefield for hours, not minutes, and deal out death to the bad guys with bombs, rockets and cannon fire, as opposed to a high speed bomb run.

Alas, the air forces of the world don't regard that as very sexy, and "Spad" replacements like the A-10 hasn't been in production for several decades (and the only way to get CAS in the future will be through JSF or other "fast movers").

Morters, Arty and other weapons like that provide the 24/7 firepower the troops on the ground need, with the zoomies providing invaluable services liike "deep strikes" into the enemy rear areas, or supplementing arty with PGMs, or allowing you to outrun your logistics train temporaraly (OIF).

Now you are contradicting yourself.  In another thread you were saying that MANPADS were negated by bombing from 10k feet and now you are talking about aircraft ( spad and warthog) that operate near the ground, in range of those same MANPADS that you were previously discounting !!! Seems to me that you have either had an epiphany or your are still operating out of your league.

You do have a point about the effects of weather on CAS.  However, you should not limit yourself to the beleif that fighters are for deep strike only.

 

[Gill557]

Now you are contradicting yourself.   In another thread you were saying that MANPADS were negated by bombing from 10k feet and now you are talking about aircraft ( spad and warthog) that operate near the ground, in range of those same MANPADS that you were previously discounting !!! Seems to me that you have either had an epiphany or your are still operating out of your league.

You do have a point about the effects of weather on CAS.   However, you should not limit yourself to the beleif that fighters are for deep strike only.

But is it worth using a 50 Million dollar fighter/bomber to try to take out a 2 Million dollar tank.  Besides think of what it costs to train a pilot as opposed to a tank crew. I dunno the math doesn't equal out.

 

[aesop081]

But is it worth using a 50 Million dollar fighter/bomber to try to take out a 2 Million dollar tank.   Besides think of what it costs to train a pilot as opposed to a tank crew. I dunno the math doesn't equal out.

Granted but IMHO you cannot look at warfare as an economical equasion.   Lets face it, we dont have much of an artillery anymore so it will place increased importance on our tactical fighters to support the troops on the ground.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

John, airplanes don't work too well when the weather is bad, and you need the right type of airplane to get effective ground support. In the Viet-nam war, the ancient Douglas Skyraider (nicknamed "Spad" by the troops) was far more valuable for ground support than "fast movers" like the F-4, because it was slow enough to really see the target, could loiter over the battlefield for hours, not minutes, and deal out death to the bad guys with bombs, rockets and cannon fire, as opposed to a high speed bomb run.

I meant it as more of a conceptual/future thing: specifically, I am wondering if the advances in "All-Weather Attack" aircraft and PGMs since Vietnam have/should give the Air Force a more tactical role ... moreover, with modern GPS guidance systems I don't think weather is half the issue it was 35 years ago (correct me if I am mistaken) ... I would think that from the position of the Infantry, there wouldn't be much better than laser guided missiles (in clearer weather anyway): basically, if you can see him, you can vaporize him.  Certainly I can still see need for mortars at the Infantry "level", but beyond those ranges/capabilities the advantage of Arty (vs. a combination of A-10s, AC-130s, F-18s, Harriers, etc.) is a little less clear (to me).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

But is it worth using a 50 Million dollar fighter/bomber to try to take out a 2 Million dollar tank.  Besides think of what it costs to train a pilot as opposed to a tank crew. I dunno the math doesn't equal out

Yes I can see the radio communications between a fighter on CAS mission and its controller.
" Are we going to get a value for our money if we take out those tanks coming at our guys on the ground"
"Negative RTB"

 

[aesop081]

Yes I can see the radio communications between a fighter on CAS mission and its controller.
" Are we going to get a value for our money if we take out those tanks coming at our guys on the ground"
"Negative RTB"

G-man is starting to sound like Robert McNamara.......

 

[a_majoor]

Now you are contradicting yourself.  In another thread you were saying that MANPADS were negated by bombing from 10k feet and now you are talking about aircraft ( spad and warthog) that operate near the ground, in range of those same MANPADS that you were previously discounting !!! Seems to me that you have either had an epiphany or your are still operating out of your league.

You do have a point about the effects of weather on CAS.  However, you should not limit yourself to the beleif that fighters are for deep strike only.

Ground attack aircraft like the SPAD or A-10 are heavily armoured, and I recall pictures of A-10s returning home from missions in the Persian Gulf War looking a lot like collanders. Pilots of F-16s, F-15Es and CF-18s are not so eager to try this out, hence the bomb runs from +10K feet.

Even in this age of GPS and other wonders, cloud cover does have an adverse effect. Many missions in Kosovo were apparently scrubbed if the pilot could not visually identify his target (presumably looking at it through some sort of zoom lens), even if it was quite clear on radar, thermal or identified through GPS coordinates. In an operation with tight ROEs, this could be a real problem. FACs can solve some of these problems the same way FOOs and FMCs do for artillery weapons.

The point I was trying to make is even having a fleet of CF-18 or other "multi role" aircraft isn't always sufficient, if you want ground support you need ground support aircraft!

 

[JBP]

I meant it as more of a conceptual/future thing: specifically, I am wondering if the advances in "All-Weather Attack" aircraft and PGMs since Vietnam have/should give the Air Force a more tactical role ... moreover, with modern GPS guidance systems I don't think weather is half the issue it was 35 years ago (correct me if I am mistaken) ... I would think that from the position of the Infantry, there wouldn't be much better than laser guided missiles (in clearer weather anyway): basically, if you can see him, you can vaporize him.  Certainly I can still see need for mortars at the Infantry "level", but beyond those ranges/capabilities the advantage of Arty (vs. a combination of A-10s, AC-130s, F-18s, Harriers, etc.) is a little less clear (to me).

Put it this way, those Arty guys and thier "big guns" are say, anywhere from 10-20K away on avg? I'm not too sure, I'm a new recruit just off BMQ. But, thier on the ground, THEY are also within striking distance of enemy infantry, armour, arty etc. Enemy aircraft also. The good thing about an airplane, is that it flies, generally cannot get taken out by anything unless it's airborn (enemy fighters) or the enemy has dedicated air defence assets (even man-portable launchers {stingers}  or RPGs for example). Also it can strike deep into enemy territory or simply take out targets that would be too risky/hard for regular ground pounders to try. Also, with an airbase say, 100K from the front lines, the plane has a "safe haven" to land at. This way your ground attack weapon isn't at as high a risk of enemy action then your basic infantry or arty guys who are nice and close and snuggly. It just creates a whole new level to come from.

The USA has employed attack aircraft extensively in the current Iraqi theatre also, they have aircraft patrol certain areas, loaded up with bombs who wait for AWACS or other FAC (Forward Air Controllers) to alert and direct them to attack and support ground forces when needed. It happened in Falluja also, I remember watching one video (can't remember where I seen it from, link on here, TV, dunno) where a marine was mentioning it was too dangerous for his guys to go into this one booby-trapped building. What did he do? Called in close air support to bomb the place, he even gave the enemy a warning. They didn't want to leave, they died. That was his $0.02 cents...

Also, if your a boot on the ground in a operational theatre, think about how nice it would feel to know if sh*t hits the fan, you can have the support of a flying tank (example: CF-18...) that can arrive to your location within a short time (say, 10 mins even), loaded up with thousands of pounds of bombs, either "dummy" or lazer guided/TV guided munitions and blow the tard out of whatever it is you can't handle.

I hope that kind of opens the perspective up for your abit?

Joe - A new boot on the ground

 

[48Highlander]

eh, pst, Joe.  He was asking what the advantages of artilery are, not the advantages of aircraft.

 

[aesop081]

Ground attack aircraft like the SPAD or A-10 are heavily armoured, and I recall pictures of A-10s returning home from missions in the Persian Gulf War looking a lot like collanders. Pilots of F-16s, F-15Es and CF-18s are not so eager to try this out, hence the bomb runs from +10K feet.

Even in this age of GPS and other wonders, cloud cover does have an adverse effect. Many missions in Kosovo were apparently scrubbed if the pilot could not visually identify his target (presumably looking at it through some sort of zoom lens), even if it was quite clear on radar, thermal or identified through GPS coordinates. In an operation with tight ROEs, this could be a real problem. FACs can solve some of these problems the same way FOOs and FMCs do for artillery weapons.

The point I was trying to make is even having a fleet of CF-18 or other "multi role" aircraft isn't always sufficient, if you want ground support you need ground support aircraft!

Why do you feel the CF-18 is inadequate in the ground support role ?   I dont think that the Cf's financial future includes sufficient amounts of money to have a fleet of single-mission CAS aircraft.   The F-15E and F-16 are quite well equiped to operated   at very low altitude ( i.e. LANTIRN : Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting IR for Night) and their pilots are quite proficient at this mission profile. The fact that they were bombing at 10k feet has more to do with political reluctance to take casualty than any tactical soundness.   The IDF experience in the 1973 Yom Kipour war is a prime example of why modern air defences have force the air war at extremly low altitude.   The primary function of AAA and MANPADS is to force fighters to fly above their range and thus into SAM range ( such as SA-2/3/6....etc...) and the revers as well, SAMs force fighters to avoid them by flying lower and into the AAA/MANPADS envelope.   So basicaly   what you have is a lose/lose situation for an attacking air foce.   The A-10 has a remarkable survivability on the battlefield but is hampered in its mission by its lack of sophistication.   This has been, to a certain extent , rectified in recent years by updates and mods but the plane has its limitations (   combat radius of 402 km......maximum speed of 381 kts, restricted to VMC due to lack of radar) vice the performance of , say, the F-15E ( combat radius of over 2000 km.....radar for all weather attack, LANTIRN pod).   The fact that the CF-18 is not built as a dedicated CAS aircraft is in itself not that big a deal.   The USMC made very effective use of the A-6 intruder in viet-nam as a CAS machine ( the airplane was designed for all-weather strike not CAS).   You should also not discount the survivability of the F-18/F-15 types.   many of them have survived severe battle damage in the first gulf war and other types of similar aircraft have performed very well in other conflicts ( 1967 6-day war, 1973 yom kipor war, Falklands.....) and did not have the benefit of titanium armour that the A-10 has.