Author Topic: Apaches  (Read 37154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Apaches
« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2008, 12:42:20 »
Ahhhh..... There's the rub !!

That's the problem with all these "lets buy this, lets buy that" threads and posts.........it takes allot of people and resources to sustain the equipment and missions. We are desperately short on people as it is now, adding something new just increases the pressure on the existing structure.


Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 175,467
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,498
Re: Apaches
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2008, 12:47:07 »
Ummm yeah... but once they had the Super Cobra, they never bothered with the Apache

No, because they had already adopted a "navalised" (to a limited degree) J-model Sea Cobra which continued to evolve.

The Marine and Army missions are different, and they employ their helicopters differently as well - or at least did. I would expect that Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred the lines considerably.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • I can count to potato!
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 174,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,299
Re: Apaches
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2008, 16:22:42 »
Let's face it..... if we have Chinooks & intend to move personnel and material via those means.... we need something to ride shotgun!
If we have trucks that are following highways that run through "Injun country" we need something to ride shotgun!

I believe that is already being looked at, from a conversation I had with a couple of fellas from the TacHel world a few months ago while they were in town on RUET.
"Stop telling everyone I'm an *******; I like to see the look on their face when they realize it for themselves..."

Offline FoverF

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,813
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 259
Re: Apaches
« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2008, 21:46:48 »
Sure.......but whos going to fly them and fix them ?

From the Griffon fleet.
 - Chinooks will allow us to reduce airframe (and crew, and tech) numbers, without losing lift capacity
 - Apaches would take the surveillance workload
 - Apaches will replace Griffons that will need to be dedicated to the Chinook escort role
 -One Apache in theatre is worth HOW MANY Griffons that are at home because it is too hot/too high/too wet/too high a threat level to deploy them?

From the Herc fleet.
 - we are replacing many airframes (-E/-H) with few airframes (-J/C-17)
 - those fewer airframes have smaller crews
 - those fewer airframes require a fraction of the maintenance
 
From the Sea King fleet
 - being replaced (some day) by a machine with (hopefully) fewer maintenance requirements

From the recruitment benefits we get from having bad-*** helicopters like Apaches
 - everyone in the world knows Apaches are bad-***
 - everyone in the world thinks it would be cool to fly or probably even just fix Apaches

From Army trades.
 - if the Army wants them, then they're going to have to make sacrifices
 - fewer Leo IIs?
 - Eryx/Javelin/ADATS/others retired without replacement?
 - No new M777s/Excalibur?

If the CF decides that this is a priority, then it can be done, and done handily. Its not as if the Canadian Forces as an organization is incapable of mustering the resources to buy and fly a limited number of Apaches, especially given the ridiculous economies of scale we can take advantage of from our neighbors. The only question is, what  are you willing to give up to see Apaches overhead?

I can think of worse things to spend the money on (had a large list here, but elected to erase it), but I can probably think of better things too (had an even larger list here).
Plan B is just to keep on givin' er

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Apaches
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2008, 21:52:55 »
FoverF,

I was born at night......not last night. I know full well that it can be done, i've figured that much well before this thread started. My point is this : What are we willing to give up ?

Increased recruiting alone will not make up the shortfalls. Something will have to be given up to bring something like an AH-64 into the fleet.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,319
Re: Apaches
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2008, 22:59:36 »
FoverF,

I was born at night......not last night. I know full well that it can be done, i've figured that much well before this thread started. My point is this : What are we willing to give up ?

Increased recruiting alone will not make up the shortfalls. Something will have to be given up to bring something like an AH-64 into the fleet.

Downsize NDHQ by 10%....that'd be an easy 2,000 salaries right there.  I still can't believe there are 20,000+ people "administrating" what is a VERY small armed force.


Matthew.    :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,474
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Apaches
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2008, 23:22:11 »
To paraphrase Churchill: Every (modern first world) country has attack helicopters, it's own or someone else's.

If we continually go cap in hand to the US and others to beg for basic assets to transport and protect our own troops, what does that mean for our long term claims to self-reliance and, by extension, sovereignty?

AH are basic tools of the trade these days. We've proved that we know this by trying to Jury Rig our Griffins to be gunships.

Let's by some Apaches and stand on our own two feet Canada! (Cue national anthem)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
Re: Apaches
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2008, 23:37:33 »
...  I still can't believe there are 20,000+ people "administrating" what is a VERY small armed force....

- Where did you get this figure of 20,000?
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 175,467
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,498
Re: Apaches
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2008, 23:39:10 »
Downsize NDHQ by 10%....that'd be an easy 2,000 salaries right there.

And how many of them are pilots (let alone rotary-wing) or techs?

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 175,467
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,498
Re: Apaches
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2008, 23:42:50 »
From the Griffon fleet.
 - Chinooks will allow us to reduce airframe (and crew, and tech) numbers, without losing lift capacity

Much as I am not a fan of the Griffon, we are already below the number of that type (ie utility, not Griffon specifically) that we should have.

It's more than straight lift capacity.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Apaches
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2008, 23:47:42 »
From the Griffon fleet.
 - Chinooks will allow us to reduce airframe (and crew, and tech) numbers, without losing lift capacity

We are already criticaly short of crews an technicians. Reducing one fleet while introducing another will not increase the number of personel available. It just maintains the status quo

Quote
- Apaches would take the surveillance workload

Take the surveillance workload away from what ? Right now surveillance is done by UAVs and LRPAs how would the Apache take over from that ? The key to surveillance is persistance. The AH-64's endurance (or lack of) does not make it a surveillance platform.

Quote
-One Apache in theatre is worth HOW MANY Griffons that are at home because it is too hot/too high/too wet/too high a threat level to deploy them?

Again, showing your ignorance. CH-146s are in fact going over, thats why we are buying miniguns for them. Loachman can talk about the aircraft's performance figures for over there.

Quote
From the Herc fleet.
 - we are replacing many airframes (-E/-H) with few airframes (-J/C-17)

How does that make more personel available ?

Quote
- those fewer airframes have smaller crews

Those new airframes dont have Navigators and FE. Those people will go to other airframes that are short Navs and FE.........Both trades are short.

Quote
- those fewer airframes require a fraction of the maintenance

But that does not equate to a requirement for less technicians. Oh and did i mention that we are criticaly short of technicians ?
 
Quote
From the Sea King fleet
 - being replaced (some day) by a machine with (hopefully) fewer maintenance requirements

See above
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 00:10:37 by CDN Aviator »

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,319
Re: Apaches
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2008, 08:35:38 »
- Where did you get this figure of 20,000?

My recollection is I got the number from I report I read by Dr Geoffrey Shaw of the American Military College on the Unification of the Canadian Military .


Matthew.   :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline FoverF

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,813
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 259
Re: Apaches
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2008, 15:54:34 »
Quote
How does that make more personel available ?

I never recommended buying Apaches as the solution to the CF-wide personnel shortage. In fact, I never recommended buying them at all.

I was just saying that if the CF decides that flying Apaches is an operational priority (and some people seem to think it should be), then there are more than enough bodies in the CF to make it happen. Other things would have to give, but that's what prioritizing is about.

We are already criticaly short of crews an technicians. Reducing one fleet while introducing another will not increase the number of personel available. It just maintains the status quo

If we could maintain the status quo in terms of personnel shortages, and get Apaches, I'd take that deal. But while I was simply giving examples of where we may be able to free up some personnel in the next 5 years or less, there are lots of other options too. Lets not forget about all the people sitting in the backlogged training system (crews and techs), who are essentially doing busy work. If we bought Apaches, a good chunk of those people could simply hop onto the US army's training system along with the initial cadre. Or we could send them to civvy trade schools to learn to fix things while waiting for the obligatory extensive upgrades to be completed. Or sink more money into paying for techs. Headhunt from civilian companies. Maybe even headhunt from foreign militaries. I have yet to see a problem that can't be solved by the prudent application of some currency.

There's also the option of.. wait for it... wait for it... enlisted flight crew. One (or god forbid, even both) of the crew could be army NCOs, and trained in the US. That would go a long way towards addressing the aircrew problem, and with a minimal burden on our training infrastructure.

The bottom line is that if the CF decided it really needed to get some Apaches, solutions would be found.

So the impetus is on those who want Apaches to make the case that they are needed, and needed more than something else that's on the table right now. I think it could be very hard to make that a convincing case.




Plan B is just to keep on givin' er

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 149
Re: Apaches
« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2008, 23:03:36 »
How many armed Griffon's in CAF service, how many Griffon's being sent to Afghanistan if any?
Canadian Apaches pilots any CAF exchange pilots ever fly Apaches with any of are NATO partners?

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 57,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,204
Re: Apaches
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2008, 23:14:57 »
Griffon numbers in A Stan may be OPSEC
I don't think we have any exchanges with Apache crews but that's out of my lane so I won't commit to that.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 130,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,848
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Apaches
« Reply #40 on: June 15, 2008, 00:31:21 »
There's also the option of.. wait for it... wait for it... enlisted flight crew. One (or god forbid, even both) of the crew could be army NCOs, and trained in the US. That would go a long way towards addressing the aircrew problem, and with a minimal burden on our training infrastructure.

Having an officer or an NCM pilot/nav won't add any new members to the system; you're just robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.  Even in the US Army, where Warrant Officers are Apache (and other) pilots, it's not *exactly* the same as our definition of Warrant Officer. 

Just my $0.02
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline JimMorrison19

  • New Member
  • **
  • 720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 47
Re: Apaches
« Reply #41 on: June 15, 2008, 02:00:18 »
All of these crew/tech shortages really make me wish there were more of me... there are so many CF jobs I'd love to sign up for.

From a civvy point of view, considering what has been read, getting some apaches and doing some headhunting for pilots might not be a bad thing at all - it might actually help bring in more people to the forces. I can remember when I was a kid, the coolest things in the army to me were the attack helicopters, the aircraft carriers, the jet fighters, and the tanks, and I wanted to be a driver/pilot for one of those. Even when you grow up and get some common sense/reality knocked into you, it's still nice to know that all of those things you thought were totally cool as a kid are there in your military and you could potentially be a pilot for one. It's not a matter of coolness or having something for every situation of course (we'd last REALLY long if we were worried about how cool our military was :P) - you guys have already made it clear it's a matter of necessity and proper support.
Long way down/I don't think I'll make it on my own

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 98,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,653
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Apaches
« Reply #42 on: June 15, 2008, 02:41:05 »
Griffon numbers in A Stan may be OPSEC
I don't think we have any exchanges with Apache crews but that's out of my lane so I won't commit to that.

I don't remember us actually sending any over?

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 175,467
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,498
Re: Apaches
« Reply #43 on: June 15, 2008, 12:18:51 »
Griffon numbers in A Stan may be OPSEC

I can neither confirm nor deny that we have any Griffons in Afghanistan, but if we had, there's no way that it could be kept secret.

I don't think we have any exchanges with Apache crews but that's out of my lane so I won't commit to that.

Yes, we have. and for amusement, the first guy that we sent many years ago was allowed to fly the real machine but could not fly the simulator, as that had a "US Eyes Only" security rating at the time.

I have posted before about the wisdom of employing NCO pilots in Tac Hel (I'm all for it), and methods of simplifying the training system: eliminate the degree requirement and return to the sanity of OCTP for officers, and remove Moose Jaw for helicopter pilots (or at least Tac Hel) and put them through the same training programme that we use for Jamaican pilots. Put them through at least Infantry Officer Phase II or whatever it's called now prior to any pilot training, too.

And ultimately remove Tac Hel from the life-sucking grasp of the a** f**ce and put it back into the Army where it originated and rightfully belongs.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 103,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,297
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Apaches
« Reply #44 on: June 15, 2008, 15:38:35 »
Quote
And ultimately remove Tac Hel from the life-sucking grasp of the a** f**ce and put it back into the Army where it originated and rightfully belongs.

But that's crazy talk.  The very next thing you will be suggesting is giving MH back to the Navy!  Heresy!   ;)

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: Apaches
« Reply #45 on: June 15, 2008, 17:31:56 »
I don't remember us actually sending any over?

Look out, look out... some griffons are going over.  How many is anyone's guess but - there will be Cdn Chinooks with Griffon escorts (?)  I thought the Chinook was a lot faster ???
Chimo!

Offline armoured recce man

  • New Member
  • **
  • 250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 41
Re: Apaches
« Reply #46 on: June 15, 2008, 18:17:43 »
it is a lot faster but than again it is also a lot faster than a apache....
get some.......

Offline thunderchild

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 131
Re: Apaches
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2011, 23:07:31 »
i think that our 15 new very expensive CH-47F's Had better be very well escorted because inside thoes helicopters are our kids. I say that if we didn't get rid of the GST, just froze it and chaneled it into northern development and military spending we could afford what we needed.  Attack helicopters are essential, I'd rather not have to keep saying to other countries 'CAN WE BORROW, DO YOU HAVE, WE CAN'T AFFORD' the basics.  When it comes down to it if country A needs the capability that is theres and we need the same and dont have it we wait, Is that worth a life to save face in Ottawa?

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 57,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,204
Re: Apaches
« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2011, 23:10:43 »
That's what the Griffons are for.  Dedicated support.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 236,542
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,359
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Apaches
« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2011, 23:47:47 »
i think that our 15 new very expensive CH-47F's Had better be very well escorted because inside thoes helicopters are our kids. I say that if we didn't get rid of the GST, just froze it and chaneled it into northern development and military spending we could afford what we needed.  Attack helicopters are essential, I'd rather not have to keep saying to other countries 'CAN WE BORROW, DO YOU HAVE, WE CAN'T AFFORD' the basics.  When it comes down to it if country A needs the capability that is theres and we need the same and dont have it we wait, Is that worth a life to save face in Ottawa?

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker