Preserving capacity, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, Keys to Canadian SAR
Issue link: http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/103039
s Air Force A On his immediate agenda: We've worked for the last five years on developing a plan on the capabilities we are going to need for the next 20 years. I need to review those capability requirements because the environment has changed. The economy has put pressure on the government and every department is being asked to figure out a new plan. I don't necessarily see this as a problem. I've got a chance to question some of the programs that we are looking at, to look at what is available out there and say, maybe this is not the way I want to do it, maybe I would like to go 10 degrees right with this one and change some things. I see us taking advantage of technology and being able to still delver the same capabilities, but do it differently, do it cheaper, and still maintain operational excellence. On potential programs for review: Fighter training is one. At the moment we are 10 years into a 20year contract with the NATO Flying Training Centre, which takes us to 2021-22. That's about the time when we expect to have the Next Generation Fighter (NGF). So this is an opportunity to look at that training and do it differently to better train for the NGF. The way we train now for the F-18, once pilots finish their generic pilot training I send them on the fighter lead in trainer on the CT-155 Hawk – Bombardier does this in Cold Lake – for about four months. They learn the basics of flying a fighter but not necessarily the tactics because I don't have the radar systems on the Hawk; they have to learn those tactics on the F-18. They do seven months of training on the F-18, about three learning to fly the airplane and about four of tactical training, learning to use the airplane now with the radar to be able to do intercept, bombing runs, air-to-ground deliveries. With a NGF, training is going to be different. That three months of training that we now do on the F-18 with an instructor flying with you, that will be done in a simulator. The tactical training part with NFTC will be coming to a close about the same time. If I had a Hawk-like airplane, not necessarily with the radar systems but with emulators and a NGF cockpit, I could do my tactical training on that smaller platform and not have to do it on a more expensive NGF platform. The course would be a bit longer but not more expensive because more of it would be in simulators. So with the same kind of airplane for about the same relative cost and the same operational hours, I can have a pilot who is trained tactically for fighters, very familiar with the NGF cockpit, who learns to fly the airplane in a simulator, and knows the fundamentals of how to fly it tactically during the first solo flight. That then raises the question, do I need an operational training unit? Of my 77 F-18s, I have an operational capability of only 5051 airplanes because 27 are on the OTU. If I didn't need airplanes for training pilots because I could do most of it in simulators, then my requirement would be less or I'd have more of an operational capability. It opens opportunities. My intent is to go away from operational training units and create virtual training units. When pilots finish today on the OTU, they go through a three-month period of combat ready training to gain some seasoning, some experience. We can use the same concept with the future fighter. The original plan for the 65 F-35s was to have 13 airplanes for training, either in the States or by building an OTU in Canada. With this concept, I could spread my 13 airplanes within the operational squadrons and have airplanes to use for the combat ready training. It would be a bit of a load passed to the squadrons but it would certainly give me greater capability. This technology gives me a better operational training asset in the end, so I want to pursue this. I need to start now on a new way of training and adapt this to the way I want to train 10-15 years from now. Another example is the CP-140 replacement. We've had a big, four-engine plane because it needs range, it needs to fly for 12-14 hours, it needs to carry people in the back, it needs to carry torpedoes and all the sensors. Does the replacement also have to be big? If you look at what is available, you've got the Boeing P-8 and Lockheed Martin's C-130J adapted for maritime operations, but all of these are big airplanes that cost a lot of money. And that puts pressure on the entire air force. What if I could do business differently in 20-30 years? What if I could use a smaller, cheaper airplane to carry just a few people with some equipment in the back, and combine it with a UAV, or even a couple of UAVs, controlled by the mother ship, that would be carrying the torpedoes and the sensors. We can see this coming on our horizon. The technology is not there yet but it may be there in 20-25 years. And if I buy a big airplane now to perpetuate the way I am doing business, I may not be able to take advantage of this. If I could extend the Auroras for another 15-20 years and maintain the capability I have, that would buy me time. I want to turn this into an opportunity to look at concepts for the future. Photo: DND www.vanguardcanada.com DECEMBER 2012/JANUARY 2013 17