Author Topic: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement  (Read 46531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 181,791
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,794
  • OBEY!
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2013, 08:44:44 »
Why is that B.S? Is it inconceivable that I would have a friend at the hill?  That's a typical BS rebuttal! Still you failed to address why the Hill would have been using Russian and American choppers in stead of Griffon's. 

From what I understood there were problems with integrating the dillon system in to the Griffon and even then they could on mount it out of one side of the chopper where as with a Blackhawk they could mount them port and starboard.
All Canadian troops on operations in Kandahar used a variety of helicopters from a variety of nations.  Last I checked, Russia wasn't part of ISAF.
As for taskings of theatre assets, the way it works is based on capacity and capability, with national caveats sometimes used. Mostly not. Heck, I tasked a company of Royal Marines on Canadian chinooks.  Why? Because that's what Air Ops allocated for that mission.
And you offered up that JTF 2 used other birds exclusively, not me. So, the onus isn't on me to defend your assertion.
So, there I was....

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 161,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,639
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2013, 08:46:32 »
Quote
From what I understood there were problems with integrating the dillon system in to the Griffon and even then they could on mount it out of one side of the chopper where as with a Blackhawk they could mount them port and starboard.

You understood wrong.

1.  The only reason there was ONE Dillon on the Griffon in theatre us because it also had ONE .50cal high-rate (1200 rd/min) GAU-21 on the OTHER side.

2.  Yeah, the Griffon was crappy enough that it earned the nickname "Allah's Breath" from the Taliban, a mark of respect for a formidable foe.

3.  NO OTHER helicopter is/was as fast as a Chinook in theatre.  The Griffon was actually faster than pylon-carrying shooters like Apache and Cobra.

4.  The Griffon's side-mounted weaponry was actually far better suited for intimate, top-cover/overwatch fire support than nose-shooters that would have to stand-off to get suitable depression angle or run-in lines for that's...not so with Griffon.

5.  Operator will use best tools at hand.  If you're moving troops as the primary role and you can't get Chinooks, you probably go with the next best thing, like a Black Hawk or Hip, as that's what they were made to do. There is a difference between troop transport and light utility, like the Griffon, that you take what you can get, when you can get it.

Nothing to do with helicopters, but more your incessant "I have a friend at, blah, blah, blah..." -- there are many many people here on Army.ca who "have a friend" at all sorts of places, DHTC included, but they respect the nature of those personal relationships and don't go blabbing about things that most likely are mentioned in relative confidence.  Whenever someone starts to yap about "my friend at DHTC (or wherever)" they actually devalue whatever comes next...if there was any value at all.

Why don't you do us a favour, and stick to your own lane for a bit?

Back to on topic, an SH-60R / UH-60M mix wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure that would ever happen. 

Regards
G2G
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 08:50:45 by Good2Golf »

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 467,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,802
  • The only solution for some people is <ignore>
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2013, 09:25:20 »
Why don't you do us a favour, and stick to your own lane for a bit?
   :nod:

Yep; once again, there are opinions and there are informed opinions.  With every post, it's more obvious where some people fit into the spectrum.
I even read works I disagree with;  life outside  an ideological echo chamber.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 85,409
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,426
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2013, 09:33:37 »
You understood wrong.

1.  The only reason there was ONE Dillon on the Griffon in theatre us because it also had ONE .50cal high-rate (1200 rd/min) GAU-21 on the OTHER side.

2.  Yeah, the Griffon was crappy enough that it earned the nickname "Allah's Breath" from the Taliban, a mark of respect for a formidable foe.

3.  NO OTHER helicopter is/was as fast as a Chinook in theatre.  The Griffon was actually faster than pylon-carrying shooters like Apache and Cobra.

4.  The Griffon's side-mounted weaponry was actually far better suited for intimate, top-cover/overwatch fire support than nose-shooters that would have to stand-off to get suitable depression angle or run-in lines for that's...not so with Griffon.

5.  Operator will use best tools at hand.  If you're moving troops as the primary role and you can't get Chinooks, you probably go with the next best thing, like a Black Hawk or Hip, as that's what they were made to do. There is a difference between troop transport and light utility, like the Griffon, that you take what you can get, when you can get it.

Nothing to do with helicopters, but more your incessant "I have a friend at, blah, blah, blah..." -- there are many many people here on Army.ca who "have a friend" at all sorts of places, DHTC included, but they respect the nature of those personal relationships and don't go blabbing about things that most likely are mentioned in relative confidence.  Whenever someone starts to yap about "my friend at DHTC (or wherever)" they actually devalue whatever comes next...if there was any value at all.

Why don't you do us a favour, and stick to your own lane for a bit?

Back to on topic, an SH-60R / UH-60M mix wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure that would ever happen. 

Regards
G2G

I think it is about time to bring out the spongebob video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQHYy0TaYg

Ref the Mi-17's that have been brought up in this thread, here is a picture:



My understanding is these were leased following the release of the Manley Report which highlighted lack rotorary-wing assets as a critical shortfall in the mission.  I think it had to do more with the fact we had no helo's in theatre and needed some real fast.  Not because they were any more favourable to SOF Ops like X_para76 suggests.




Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,653
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2013, 10:35:50 »
These were Polish helicopters as I understand it on lease. I wonder if any of the pilots are free to talk about their experiences with them?

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 390,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,946
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2013, 11:08:45 »
My understanding is these were leased following the release of the Manley Report which highlighted lack rotorary-wing assets as a critical shortfall in the mission.  I think it had to do more with the fact we had no helo's in theatre and needed some real fast.  Not because they were any more favourable to SOF Ops like X_para76 suggests.
These were Polish helicopters as I understand it on lease. I wonder if any of the pilots are free to talk about their experiences with them?
A bit more backstory on this in another thread here.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 11:17:39 by milnews.ca »
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,653
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2013, 11:37:00 »
This one appears to be armed, so unlikely a "skylink" leased one.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 85,409
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,426
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2013, 13:04:06 »
This one appears to be armed, so unlikely a "skylink" leased one.

Plenty of other contracted companies used armed helicopters so I don't see any reason why we wouldn't arm the helicopters we were leasing?

Who knows what the actual specifics of the lease were or who flew them.... at the end of the day it is all ancient history at this point  :)

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,653
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2013, 13:07:56 »
One that would be worthy of a book I say. It's remarkable that we were able to jump out of our boxes in this regard. Imagine telling someone that Canadians would be flying armed Mi-17's in Afghanistan during combats ops with tanks in support in Apr 2001, you would have been laughed out of the room and likely taken for a drug test.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 85,409
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,426
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2013, 13:18:58 »
One that would be worthy of a book I say. It's remarkable that we were able to jump out of our boxes in this regard. Imagine telling someone that Canadians would be flying armed Mi-17's in Afghanistan during combats ops with tanks in support in Apr 2001, you would have been laughed out of the room and likely taken for a drug test.

An interesting book on the use of contracted helicopters in recent conflict is one written about Neall Ellis, one of South Africa's most prominent "gun's for hire"

It is called "Gunship Ace:  The Wars of Neall Ellis, Gunship Pilot & Mercenary" and is written by A.J. Venter.

See it here:  http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11426131-gunship-ace



I own the book and it is very interesting, the final few chapters are dedicated to the extensive work Ellis did in Afghanistan flying contracted Mi-17's for ISAF and US Forces.  It also goes into great detail explaining other AO's he worked in including:  "South-West Africa, Angola, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Afghanistan".  He was the guy that flew the contracted Mi-24 Gunship in support of British Forces during Op BARRAS in Sierra Leone when they took out the West Side Boys and rescued a bunch of POW Royal Irish Regiment soldiers.  If any of you are interested in learned more about PSC's and how they work this is one book I would suggest picking up.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 13:21:38 by RoyalDrew »

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,681
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2013, 13:24:22 »


Back to on topic, an SH-60R / UH-60M mix wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure that would ever happen. 

Regards
G2G

From the Cyclone thread... courtesy of Milnews.ca and CBC

Quote
CBC News has learned the government is considering a major rethink of how the military uses its helicopters at sea. The change, if implemented, would spell the end for a five-year-old, $5-billion contract with Sikorsky to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea Kings, instead opting for smaller, cheaper helicopters.

Maybe the Blackhawk/Seahawk speculation might be appropriate to the Cyclone discussion.

New combinations:

MH-60R + MH-60S
MH-60R + Cormorant/Merlin UTTH
MH-60R + Chinook

Wildcat + Cormorant/Merlin UTTH
Wildcat + Chinook

NH-90 (Nahhh)

Any and all of the above in combination with Firescout B and C
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline X_para76

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 256
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2013, 14:59:21 »
An interesting book on the use of contracted helicopters in recent conflict is one written about Neall Ellis, one of South Africa's most prominent "gun's for hire"

It is called "Gunship Ace:  The Wars of Neall Ellis, Gunship Pilot & Mercenary" and is written by A.J. Venter.

See it here:  http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11426131-gunship-ace



I own the book and it is very interesting, the final few chapters are dedicated to the extensive work Ellis did in Afghanistan flying contracted Mi-17's for ISAF and US Forces.  It also goes into great detail explaining other AO's he worked in including:  "South-West Africa, Angola, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Afghanistan".  He was the guy that flew the contracted Mi-24 Gunship in support of British Forces during Op BARRAS in Sierra Leone when they took out the West Side Boys and rescued a bunch of POW Royal Irish Regiment soldiers.  If any of you are interested in learned more about PSC's and how they work this is one book I would suggest picking up.

He was also interviewed in a documentary called "Shadow company" which is about the rise of PMC's post 911.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 16:13:01 by X_para76 »
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,364
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2013, 21:08:52 »
One that would be worthy of a book I say. It's remarkable that we were able to jump out of our boxes in this regard. Imagine telling someone that Canadians would be flying armed Mi-17's in Afghanistan during combats ops with tanks in support in Apr 2001, you would have been laughed out of the room and likely taken for a drug test.

I was just thinking the same thing when I saw the above picture. Just shows you how things can change in just a short time.

Quick question: Who were the pilots? Canadians? Poles? Other?
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,074
  • Freespeecher
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2013, 21:32:52 »
It is very dissapointing that the Cyclone project has gone so far off the rails, but another alternative might be to look at the "commercial" S-92, since they are in service and in general use as utility helicopters (offshore oil rig contractors use these to transport men and equipment). There is a lot of space to carry pers and equipment:

Quote
The utility transport version has 22 side-facing seats with a full cabin width rear ramp. The 733 ft³ interior cabin area can also be configured to accommodate up to three airline-style LD3 cargo containers. Additional stowage space is available in the 140 ft³ area located in the aft ramp compartment.

This would certainly qualify as a medium lift helicopter, although it would not have the same versatility and logistical benefits as buying a fleet of Blackhawk/Seahawk helicopters to replace/suppliment the Griffon and Sea Kings. Given the oft stated desire to have AH class helicopters in the inventory, or at least the capability, Blackhawks can be fitted with various weapons kits, up to the "Battlehawk" faux AH.

If we really want to go that route, we should also seek to include other potential users like the Coast Guard, air ambulance operators, Provincial Ministries of Natural Resources etc. to get a real bulk purchase and economies of scale.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,074
  • Freespeecher
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #39 on: December 23, 2013, 15:37:14 »
Long and interesting article about the US Army's program to develop replacements for the Blackhawk and AH-64 series of helicopters. Given the age of these platforms, now is probably a good time to start looking, and given the usual time frame of these progams, we could "look in" as well, since they will probably have something ready just in time for us when we want to replace the Griffon.

Most interesting is the various companies have split between tilt rotor and compound helicopters to meet the various performance demands. Long article, follow the link for the detailed breakdown of the various offerings:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jmr-fvl-the-us-militarys-future-helicopters-014035/

Quote
JMR-FVL: The US Military’s Future “Helicopters”?

Oct 22, 2013 11:38 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff

Oct 16-17/13: Bell V-280. Bell Helicopter announces that GE is joining its V-280 Valor tilt-rotor team as its engine supplier, while GKN will manufacture the rear V-tail structure.

GKN’s expertise is in metalworking and composite construction. GE’s engine isn’t specified, and remains ambiguous. GE is developing the 7,500 shp GE38 for the CH-53K helicopter program,... {click to expand +}

Keep reading for the whole story with recent events put in context
 
The JMR-TD program is the science and technology precursor to the Department of Defense’s estimated $100 billion Future Vertical Lift program, which is expected to replace between 2,000-4,000 medium class UH-60 utility and AH-64 attack helicopters after 2030.

In reality, FVL will fall far short of that number if it ever goes ahead, but those figures are the current official fantasy. While they’re at it, the Pentagon wants breakthrough performance that includes the same hovering capability as smaller armed scout helicopters, and a 100+ knot improvement in cruising speed to 230+ knots. That’s almost certainly achievable, thanks to new developments that involve very different helicopter designs.

The JMR-TD Precursor Program

We’ll begin with the Army’s core justification for FVL, and its Joint Multi-Role Technology Development precursor:

“Recent study findings concluded that the DoD rotary wing aviation fleet is aging and upgrades to current fleet aircraft will not provide the capabilities required for future operations. Additionally, because of the time in service for currently fielded helicopters, many of the decision points for the future fleet will occur within the next 10 years. The Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was, and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is, five times that of peacetime, and much higher than the design usage spectrum, further taxing the already aging fleet. The current fleet of DoD rotorcraft cannot continue to be incrementally improved to meet future operational requirements. Significant improvement in vertical lift, range, speed, payload, survivability, reliability, and reduced logistical footprint are all required to meet future needs and can only be achieved through the application of new technologies and designs. Operational costs must be reduced to a fraction of those for the current fleet.”

This combination of significant improvements and much lower operating costs is almost always asked for. It almost never happens. The request is akin to demanding a major-league baseball player who hits 30+ home runs per season, with under 50 strikeouts. New technologies and designs mean risk and added complexity, both of which tend to increase maintenance and operating costs. They also tend to lower mission availability percentages.

On the other hand, profoundly new helicopter technologies are now in development for civilian as well as military applications, and new onboard monitoring systems and vibration control promise big improvements in maintenance and operating costs. There’s also a potential promise of significant parts commonality, and the US Marines’ UH-1Y/ AH-1Z program indicates that this is achievable in a utility/ attack helicopter pair.

So why not try? The point of JMR-TD, Phase 1 is to investigate some of the new technologies and configurations that are maturing, test metrics like weight and performance, identify performance and manufacturing risks, and improve analytical tools to deal with the new technologies.

Key Phase 1 criteria include a design that can perform medium utility or attack missions, a 230+ knot cruise speed (which stretches compound helicopters if you want them armed), the ability to hover out of ground effect at 6,000 feet in 95 degree temperatures, and a low noise level. That last item is a much-delayed but welcome recognition, and comes from hard experience in theater where loudness equals enemy warning time. Airframe life for Phase 1 prototypes need only be 200 hours or so, though it’s an advantage to be able to last longer.

Can these new technologies be brought to a high enough Technology Readiness level for use in a defense Program of Record, while meeting performance goals? The Army is betting that they can, and 1st flights are expected in Summer 2017.

The original target was 2 award winners, but the solicitation acknowledged that 3 winners were possible, and there are indications that the Army is pursuing that path. From FBO.gov:

“It is possible that, given multiple meritorious proposals and proposed work that offers the potential for significant improvement to the Government’s best available knowledge in the first nine months, more than two initial selections will be made. In that case, the number of participants may be reduced after the initial design and risk review to match available funding or to minimize program risk.”

JMR-TD Phase 2 will develop mission systems that can be common to utility and attack helicopters. This phase is much closer to present reality. Bell Helicopter’s UH-1Y and AH-1Z already have a substantially common mission system, and Sikorsky is fielding “armed MH-60S” kits that are being installed by the US Navy in their maritime utility helicopters, as well as Battlehawk kits to arm the UAE’s UH-60Ms. Sensors and equipment are also keeping pace. There have been battlefield instances of AH-64 Apache attack helicopter pilots asking the UH-60 Black Hawks they were escorting to use their onboard sensor turrets, because they were more modern and more capable than the Apache’s.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 69,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,554
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2013, 20:21:50 »
My take on it: 1 type for everything, for medium-size helos (i.e.: Heavy lift excluded):

UH-60 Black Hawk - Utility
SH-60 Sea Hawk - Ship-Borne
HH-60 Pave Hawk - (C?)SAR

1 Supply Chain
Common general training
Common Technicians
Proven Airframes

Convert the Griffons for Portage.

That's in my simple mind though...

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 361,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,534
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2013, 20:58:56 »
Can we trade in the CF-18s used for ground attack for Herc gunships as well?  Common platform for air transport and for air to ground attack, common supply chain, common training, common technicians, proven airframes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • I can count to potato!
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 174,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,299
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2013, 21:17:16 »
The difference being the multi-role helo 'makes sense' and could possibly work whereas your *idea* couldn't.





"Stop telling everyone I'm an *******; I like to see the look on their face when they realize it for themselves..."

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 361,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,534
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #43 on: December 23, 2013, 21:29:08 »
Proven ground attack aircraft (AC-130) vs developmental program with lots of cost and schedule overruns - the F35.

From a ground support perspective, I know which one work better...

 >:D
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Quirky

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 169
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #44 on: December 24, 2013, 00:01:12 »
Proven ground attack aircraft (AC-130)

Ahh yes, those came in handy during the Libya campaign.

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #45 on: December 24, 2013, 09:16:38 »
My take on it: 1 type for everything, for medium-size helos (i.e.: Heavy lift excluded):

UH-60 Black Hawk - Utility
SH-60 Sea Hawk - Ship-Borne
HH-60 Pave Hawk - (C?)SAR

1 Supply Chain
Common general training
Common Technicians
Proven Airframes

Convert the Griffons for Portage.

That's in my simple mind though...

Canada is in no position to stand up a CSAR capability.

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 161,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,639
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Griffons weren't such a bad thing
« Reply #46 on: December 24, 2013, 10:48:51 »
In short, the Griffon may very well be 'replaced' with....a refreshed Griffon.

Some may recall when the H-90 was the preferred platform to replace the Twin Huey helicopter, prior to the Government's 1992 decision to buy the Griffon.  In retrospect, the Griffon procurement wasn't that bad a thing, as the Griffon substantively no less a machine than the Twin Huey and in many cases significantly more.  Most importantly, it reinforced the case for something more valuable to a Department than money...people.  With probably a fleet size of twice as many Griffons as we would have bought Blackhawks, the organization had to retain the people required to operate the Griffon fleet, even while other organizations within the CF were having forced reductions imposed upon them.

If one is looking for a practical/realistic 'replacement' for the Griffon, it may be a pragmatic, limited program to replace obsolescent components (old avionics, non-FADEC engines, etc...), and that's about it.  The actual replacement of the Griffon as an entire aircraft is likely not a realistic solution in these financially pressured times.  To refresh some systems on a 20-year old aircraft, yes. Whole new aircraft?  Unlikely.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,653
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #47 on: December 24, 2013, 11:11:42 »
I think the 412 is still in production? If so, we could do a slow moving replacement program, mid life low hour airframes in batches and slowly replace the higher hour ones with new versions.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,302
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,337
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2013, 11:11:58 »
Y model Duey? 
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2013, 11:14:16 »
Y model Duey?

Nope.  You'll see ours around 'till 2030 - albeit with some life-extension upgrades.  No Y's on the horizon.