Back to news

August 2, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

444 Combat Support Squadron: Combat support from above

By Ben Forrest & Mike Reyno

On a given day in the remote, sparsely-populated terrain over Happy Valley-Goose Bay and rural Labrador, it is often cloudy or snowing, or both. The winters are brutal and long; the summers are warm and wet, and militaries from all over the world have used this rugged patch of land for austere weather training.

If something goes wrong in one of these training exercises–an injury or any other kind of disaster–the pilots and medical technicians from 444 Combat Support Squadron are there in a hurry. This small but effective crew of 35 military personnel and five civilians provides rapid response during training exercises at 5 Wing Goose Bay using three CH-146 Griffon helicopters. On occasion, aircrews also perform utility transport and secondary search and rescue (SAR).

“We try to have a real team-oriented atmosphere,” said Maj Ryan Snider, commanding officer of 444 Squadron. “You're not two ships passing in the night, as many other squadrons and Wings are. You get a chance to interact with people on a regular basis, and get to know them far better than you would at a normal [posting.]”

The squadron, one of three Combat Support squadrons in the Air Force, draws a mix of new recruits and pilots and technicians with previous Griffon experience. Postings usually last three years, and they can be an effective way for new pilots to get their feet wet.

“I love it,” said Capt Marc Saucier. “The area can be really challenging, just because everything's so remote. I don't think you find terrain like this anywhere else in Canada, where everything's so far apart.

“But it's been really good. There's not enough people in Labrador to necessitate us being called out that often in the first place, but what we do, it's pretty different each time.”

Pilots in 444 Squadron average about 300 flying hours a year, and the posting can also be a refreshing change for seasoned pilots who transfer from other bases.

“This is nice with the family, because I'm home all the time, other than the odd night,” said Capt Neil Gabourie, a Griffon pilot who has also spent time with 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ont.

444 Squadron traces its history to 1947, where it was originally activated in Rivers, Man. It later transferred to St-Hubert, Que., where it operated the Sabre fighter jets, and then moved to Baden-Soellingen, Germany as part of Canada's commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The squadron disbanded in 1963, but was stood up about two months later and equipped with the CF-104 Starfighter, which it operated until 1967 before being disbanded again. Five years later the squadron was re-activated and renamed 444 Tactical Helicopter Squadron flying the CH-136 Kiowa. Stood down on Apr. 1, 1992, the squadron was reactivated in Goose Bay in 1993, now equipped with the CH-135 Twin Huey in a rescue and support role. The CH-135 was replaced by the CH-146 in 1996.

Today, the squadron operates out of two large hangars that make up a fraction of 5 Wing's massive infrastructure footprint, supporting NORAD's North Warning System radar sites on utility missions and supporting SAR efforts in the area when CH-149 Cormorant helicopters from 9 Wing Gander are not available.

“JRCC (Joint Rescue Coordination Centre) Halifax will call upon us from time to time,” said Snider. “They understand we're not a Cormorant ... there are limitations. But they still give us a call and say, ‘What can you provide?' And then we'll do our best.”

A major development at 444 Squadron over the last year has been the ongoing replacement of SAR Technicians with Medical Technicians on Griffon flight crews. The transition began in 2018 and once complete, Griffon crews will have two pilots, a flight engineer and a med tech on board. Similar transitions are taking place at 417 Combat Support Squadron at 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alta., and 439 Combat Support Squadron at 3 Wing Bagotville, Que.

“The med techs will come to us having already undergone their medical technician training,” said Snider. “We'll top up that training to give them familiarization ... to operate at the back of the cabin of the aircraft. We'll train them on spotter duties, and then we'll also train them on how to function on the hoist.”

Whereas SAR techs can jump out of helicopters to perform rescues at sea, med techs are not trained in skydiving or water diving and are geared toward land-based operations, said Sgt Adam Blackwell, a med tech. They also use specific hoist, insertion and extraction methods for land-based operations.

Med techs are trained as primary care paramedics and have diverse backgrounds that make them extremely versatile. “We also do a lot of clinical and hospital kind of work–not just emergent care, not just tactical care,” said Blackwell. “We are jacks of all trades in the medical field, and used as such in different postings.”

Instructed originally by SAR techs during the initial transition, med techs at 444 Squadron have now reached a point where there is a senior lead med tech able to train the more junior members.

Recruiting med techs to the relatively isolated community of Goose Bay can be difficult, but many are quickly attracted to the squadron's warm, tight-knit culture once they arrive.

“It's a bit different,” said Blackwell. “But honestly, it's pretty fun. If you are an outdoorsy person, this is the place to snowmobile or have an ATV. The fishing here is pretty amazing, too.”

The squadron may have experienced a shift in focus in recent years, but its core mission remains the same. “It's that standby response to military operations,” said Snider. “Different customers, different tactics, but the same purpose.”

https://www.skiesmag.com/features/444-combat-support-squadron-combat-support-from-above/?utm_source=skies-daily-news-top-story

On the same subject

  • Erratic flight path: Canada’s fighter procurement plan

    October 4, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

    Erratic flight path: Canada’s fighter procurement plan

    by Alan Stephenson The path towards procuring a replacement fighter for the CF-188 Hornet has been one with many twists and turns due to political gamesmanship and strategic business marketing, causing much public misunderstanding. This short article aims to put a few things into perspective as the competitors complete their analysis and response to the government's request for proposal (RFP) issued July 23, 2019, for the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP). Eligible suppliers Of the original five qualifying suppliers, only the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III, Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II, and Saab Gripen E fighters remain in the competition. The Dassault Rafale and Airbus Eurofighter Typhoon were both pulled from consideration, with company officials citing “that NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] security requirements continue to place too significant of a cost on platforms whose manufacture and repair chains sit outside the United States-Canada 2-EYES community.” Given that the Canadian government identified the first two principal roles of the Canadian Armed Forces as ensuring Canadian sovereignty and the defence of North America, the requirement to be fully functional and integral within NORAD is mandatory. The reality today is that fighters are not simply weapons platforms, but flying computers that also function as airborne sensors that are designed to be integrated into command and control computer networks. Thus, the challenge for non-American manufacturers is to overcome both sensitive commercial and U.S. national security concerns when they are required to integrate and support U.S. information-sharing equipment in their platforms. A second reason given for Airbus's departure was the eleventh-hour modification to the RFP that relaxed the expected industrial technological benefits (ITB) obligations. To attract more than three suppliers and ensure a competition, the government originally stuck to its standing ITB policy of “requiring the winning supplier to make investments in Canada equal to the value of the contract.” However, this effectively eliminated the F-35 due to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program agreement – signed by Canada – that forbade such a demand. To provide latitude to all bidders, the final RFP was modified into a two-phased proposal to allow non-American companies to address 2/5-EYES challenges up front, while also applying rated criteria for economic offset potential of stated ITB requirements, to keep the F-35 within the bidding process. Additionally, five per cent was shifted from cost to economic criteria to compensate for changes in the original draft ITB policy. The proposals will now be assessed on 60 per cent technical merit, 20 per cent cost and 20 per cent economic benefits. Current bidders In recent years, the Saab Group expanded globally by offering industrial partnerships that combined local production and capital-heavy ventures with national customer partners. Saab's approach with the Gripen E bid in Canada follows this successful formula of maximizing national economic benefits with an economical product; however, Saab also faces the challenges that Airbus determined to be too difficult to overcome. Additionally, the Gripen E is still in development; its first production flight occurred on Aug. 26, 2019, meaning issues of proven performance and systems maturation need to be factored in during bid evaluation. According to the firm, this first fighter will be used as a test aircraft in a joint Swedish/Brazilian test program, the only two customers for the Gripen E to date. Given that the Eurofighter bid was sponsored by the U.K. government, a member of the 5-EYES community that decided it could not meet the information-sharing requirements, Saab will need to be innovative and cost-conscious in its proposal if it is to surmount this mission-critical criteria. As for the Super Hornet, Boeing promised to invest $18 billion in ITBs under the failed 2017 purchase agreement for 18 fighters, and it is anticipated that the company will follow its established approach to investing in Canada as per previous ITB commitments. Concern over the so-called Boeing Clause, “to allow only companies that it deems ‘trusted partners' to bid on major capital programs,” has faded away and Boeing is confident that it can mount a competitive bid, particularly now that the U.S. Navy's (USN) commitment to future purchases will keep the production line open until 2033. By incorporating leading-edge technology into the Block III to meet adversarial advances, Boeing has ensured the Super Hornet will meet Canadian requirements. Although still in development as well, a major question for government decision-makers has to do with sustainability. At present, only the USN and Kuwait will operate the Super Hornet Block III, while Australia has plans to upgrade their Block II version. As Australia expects to retire its fleet in the early 2040s and the USN in 2045, the challenge for Boeing will be in meeting the stated lifecycle expectancy of Canada's future fighter in a cost-effective manner. Since 2015, the much-maligned F-35 has proven itself in combat and counts Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the three U.S. services as customers. As the only fifth generation fighter, it contains technological advances that are designed into the aircraft and cannot be replicated in fourth generation platforms. The overall architectural concept regards the F-35 as more than just a weapons platform, but also as a forward sensor that is fully integrated into the developing multi-domain command and control system. Initial airframe costs have been significantly reduced and early sustainment issues are being resolved; however, the F-35 remains the most costly platform to own and operate at the moment. With a projected lifetime production run of over 4,000 fighters, lifecycle support is guaranteed, and Canadian industry stands to gain substantially from Canada's early investment in the co-operative JSF Program. However, according to reports, manufacturers will lose points in the ITB element formula scoring system if they do not make a 100 per cent commitment to the contract value, which Lockheed-Martin is prohibited from doing by JSF contractual agreement. Arctic Interestingly, all remaining competitors can lay claim to being Arctic platforms. Canada has already proven the F/A-18's credentials in the high North, the U.S. will base two combat F-35 squadrons in Alaska, and Sweden has developed the Gripen with Arctic operations in mind. The issue of one versus two engines has never been a significant issue for Arctic operations except in Canada. Originally, two engines was one of the many discriminators used in choosing the F/A-18 over the F-16 in 1979. Recently, the Standing Committee on National Defence's shaping of the narrative in 2016 to promote the sole-source purchase of the Super Hornet reintroduced the idea that operations in the Arctic demanded two engines. As with commercial aviation where transatlantic flight once required four-engine passenger planes, the advancements in engine technology have led to standard two-engine models today. Engine reliability is not a concern with any of the competing fighters. However, operations in Canada's Arctic are unique and risky in an inhospitable region that is 11 times the size of Sweden. Other discriminators, such as continuous communications and tracking, become equally or more important to survival. Stealth One of the unfortunate aspects of American F-35 global marketing efforts with respect to the FFCP is the issue of stealth technology. Although the idea of penetrating, first strike operations sells well in the U.S., stealth is a much maligned and misappropriated concept in Canada. Stealth technology is all about maximizing self-protection and increasing survivability by disrupting the ‘kill-chain' through low observability. This concept is no different from the tactical advantages that I used while flying the CF-104 in Germany during the Cold War. The Starfighter had a one-square-metre cross-section nose-on, making the adversary's initial radar detection difficult and target acquisition and identification questionable, delaying force commitment to the target. This complicated the decision and order to attack the target, and finally upon weapons release, the low radar cross-section shrunk the available radar weapons envelope needed for destruction of the fighter. The CF-104's speed significantly exacerbated the adversary's kill-chain difficulties. The CF-188 Hornet I flew later required a Defensive Electronic Countermeasures suite that masked the larger aircraft radar cross-section, and electronically intervened and complicated a more advanced kill-chain. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) will significantly decrease ambiguity and decision-making time in the near future. Whether built into the design or strapped on later, some form of self-protection is required to protect the pilot and the fighter asset that will either be defending Canadian territory or operate in foreign contested airspace when the government commits its fighter force. The question is one of application and the cost effectiveness of self-protection measures used by each platform and how they are expressed in the bid proposal. Costs Costing is a nebulous exercise outside evaluation of the final bids due to the many variables. Although airframe costs are most often thrown around, the government must consider the airframe, operating, infrastructure, sustainment and other related costs as a package, balanced against the capability being purchased. A good example of the intricacies involves the way the fighter fleet is bought. The Super Hornet must be purchased through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, where the U.S. government acts as the broker. Generally, a 30 per cent mark-up is charged for research and development (R&D) and administrative fees. In the case of the F-35, as a JSF partner, these costs are reduced for Canada through common funding. The costs for R&D have already been shared by the membership pool, and partners pay the same price for the weapons system as the U.S. services. Future upgrades become additional FMS expenses for the Super Hornet, whereas upgrade developments are shared by JSF members. Each of the competitors is being asked to provide 88 fighter aircraft within the $19 billion funding envelope and the old adage of “you get what you pay for” is very applicable. Each of these platforms brings a different level of current and future combat capability that needs to be judiciously weighed. If the fighter is to reach the government's goal of flying until 2060, each needs to be flexible and adaptative to evolving technology. More significantly, 70 per cent of lifecycle costs are in sustainment and therefore the fighter chosen must be cost-effectively supported for the next 40 years. The next leg In the lead-up to the RFP, it has been evident that national security factors have been competing with economic benefit interests. With the election this fall, the next government (whatever form this takes) will no doubt want to review the project and put its own stamp of approval on the process that it has inherited. Hopefully this will not further delay the decision on the replacement of the CF-188 fleet and the Royal Canadian Air Force will finally be able to move ahead with the best fighter aircraft Canadians can provide to the women and men who are putting their lives in harm's way. https://www.skiesmag.com/features/erratic-flight-path-canadas-fighter-procurement-plan

  • Canadian Forces selects Sig Sauer P320 as its new pistol

    October 7, 2022 | Local, Land

    Canadian Forces selects Sig Sauer P320 as its new pistol

    The Canadian military will be getting new pistols to replace its Second World War-era handguns.

  • Military expert suggests Canada may want to consider its own space force

    January 7, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

    Military expert suggests Canada may want to consider its own space force

    By Peter Rakobowchuk MONTREAL — President Donald Trump's push to create a U.S. space force is being welcomed by military experts in Canada, and the executive director of one defence think tank says Canada should consider following suit. "At some point we might like to think about a space force," Matthew Overton, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said in an interview. "Thinking about space as a separate entity in itself that deserves attention and expertise, I think is a good idea." But it is not something that needs to be done immediately, he added, suggesting Canada should first develop a centre of excellence on space knowledge. Last month, Trump took a first step toward a space force when he signed an order to create a U.S. Space Command, which pulls together space-related units from across military services into a co-ordinated, independent organization. The move comes amid growing concerns that China and Russia are working on ways to disrupt, disable or even destroy U.S. satellites. The U.S. air force has operated a space command since 1982, and its mission is "to provide resilient, defendable and affordable space capabilities for the air force." It also operates the mysterious X-37B space plane, known simply as its orbital test vehicle. The unmanned plane has already completed four clandestine missions, carrying classified payloads on long-duration flights. Overton, who served in the Canadian Forces for 39 years, noted that Canada's Air Force already has a space component. It is led by Brigadier General Kevin Whale, Director General Space. Its mission, a spokesman said by email, is "to maintain space domain awareness, and to develop, deliver and assure space-based capabilities." Overton said Trump's space force makes a lot of sense, but he expects there will be tension as the new entity gets down to work with other branches of the military. He gave the example of the GPS network, which is crucial for land, air and sea forces, but could become a space force responsibility. "What is the relationship with other forces? How do you work out that dynamic?"" Wayne Ellis, who served in the Canadian military for 20 years, agrees that a U.S. space force is a good idea. "I think there's enough activity and potential activity to concentrate resources in that domain, which probably merits a separation from the air force," Ellis, a past president of the Canadian Space Society, said in an interview. "Perhaps now is a good opportunity to look at a totally separate branch — at least for the U.S." He noted that Canadian military personnel have worked side by side with the U.S. military for decades. "A lot of these positions are actually space positions at various bases so, at some point, our posted personnel are going to be interacting with the U.S. space force as it gets set up," he added. James Bezan, the Conservative defence critic, said he wants to see more details about the space capabilities Americans envision. "For Canada, my sense is that we need to watch this and see how it evolves," he said. Before Canada considers creating its own space force, Bezan added, it should focus on making Norad — the bilateral North American Aerospace Defence Command — more effective. "I would think that any co-operation that we do with the States as it relates to North American defence, as it relates to aerospace, should be part of the Norad discussions," he said. Randall Garrison, the NDP defence critic, criticized Trump's plan to launch a sixth branch of the U.S. military. "New Democrats are fundamentally opposed to the militarization of space and believe that space should only be used by all of humanity for peaceful purposes," he wrote in an email. "New Democrats urge the government of Canada to uphold the principles of peaceful space exploration and to engage with our allies on a renewed call for the drafting of an international treaty aimed at the prevention of an arms race in space." Overton pointed out that space has long been exploited for military purposes, and there's no way it can be avoided. "Communications satellites, GPS and intelligence communications, you name it — all that is there," he said. The office of the Minister of National Defence noted in a statement that "space-based capabilities have become essential to Canada's operations at home and abroad. "That is why Canada's defence policy ... commits to investing in a range of space capabilities such as satellite communications, to help achieve global coverage, including the Arctic." The statement goes on to say that "Canada will continue to promote the peaceful use of space and provide leadership in shaping international norms for responsible behaviour in space." — With files from The Associated Press. Peter Rakobowchuk, The Canadian Press https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/01/05/military-expert-suggests-canada-may-want-to-consider-its-own-space-force-2

All news