Author Topic: Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship  (Read 5252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dan Fielding

  • aka. Reinhold Fielding Elmore
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 8,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 86
  • Yes, I eat chicken feet. And I *like* it!
Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship
« on: September 06, 2011, 20:52:46 »
I have a few questions regarding the Griffon:

Now that Griffons are being armed with M-134d's, how suitable/effective would they be in a gunship role? How would they compare to a Huey in this role, given that the Huey has been effectively employed as a gunship for ages now. Does the Griffon have any limitations or advantages that would impact it being an effective gunship? Does the Griffon itself allow for modifications that would improve its ability to deliver ground support (e.g. rocket pods) or would it be best for the CF to consider a dedicated heli for ground support?

Oh, just one thing, here's an EPIC vid of US close air support with MH-60L DAPs and Little Birds. I'm SO jealous that our Allies to the south get to play around with these wicked pieces of kit ;) !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcWFsXkdl4E
"Boy, this has been grand... but, uh, we have a clothing-optional RV show we have to get to."

"I have stood next to death, and people liked him better."

"Just like that? Wham, bam, thank you, Dan?"

Offline Kalatzi

  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 1,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 248
Re: Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2011, 21:07:03 »
I have no idea where I heard or read this, so treat it a a rumour. As follows. One reason that it usually didnt even carry C6 door guns is that that airframe was not strong enough. to absorb the recoilon a long term basis.

If that's the case they would have required a lot of mods - since the minigun puts out a LOT more recoil.

Too much stress on an airframe is not a good thing.

If we want gunships - I feel that we should get the real deal.  Don't hold your breath.

I expect other on here no better than I.





Best Wishes to Francois Hollande, France’s president nicknamed “Meccano-builder” for his ability to bridge the endless personal and ideological disputes, a process he once likened to

Offline HeavyHooker

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,584
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2011, 15:25:18 »
The Griffon did serve as a gunship up until our very recent pull out from Afghanistan (air assets only, not including the training cadre up north).  The Griffon is an adequate weapons platform to carry M134D and the GAU-21 .50 cal weapons.  Although there are limitations due to the extreme temperature ranges and relatively higher elevations they were quite effective in their role.  Although their primary role was CH 47 escort, the Griffons flew several convoy escorts, reconnaissance missions for the Army guys, as well as interrogating targets for JTAC ground controllers. 

In comparison to a "Huey" (I am thinking that you are referencing the UH-1 airframe), the CH 146 compares quite well although it does carry a considerably higher weight considering all of its avionics, radios, etc and this limits performance.  It does not stand up quite so well to the UH-1Y model of Huey as it is newer, more powerful, with better components with more redundancy built in for a fighting machine.  Same goes for the UH-60.  Those machines were built to carry weapons and troops in a war zone and we simply modified a Bell 412 to suit our needs.

That being said, the Griffon is a capable UH and considering what our budget is projected to do in the next little while, don't hold your breath for Yankees or BHs.  Especially considering that our new CH147s will start coming in the door next year.

HH

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 168,562
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,387
Re: Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2011, 16:08:31 »
Define "gunship".

If you mean attack helicopter, it does not come close.

If you mean armed helicopter, yes, it qualifies.

In a low-threat environment it has its uses - high-threat (real war) not so much.

For Kalatzi: The reason why neither Twin Huey nor Griffon didn't/don't "usually" carry door guns is because there is no need for most missions, more weapon maintenance would be required for no reason, and crews would frighten civvies at civ airports when they carry machineguns into terminal restaurants when they stop in for lunch. They are mounted for operations that require them, range practices, and some (but not all) exercises.