Author Topic: Griffon run down  (Read 28594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PMars

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14
Griffon run down
« on: March 09, 2007, 17:30:06 »
Speculation exists that the Griffon fleet will be reduced 20-25%.

Now, the AF site says 75 Griffs are in service; media reports generally say 85. The count should be 98 including stored machines (there were 100 purchased for the CF and two were lost.) So one argument is that the CF has already reduced the fleet by 25%.

However, if we take the 75 figure and subtract 20%, we end up with 60 machines.

Base support and SAR require 12 (four for Cold Lake [including one on det at Moose Jaw], three for Goose, three for 424 vice Cormorants and two for AETE) and that leaves 48.

Add nine to 439 for its new deployment role and there are 36 (three existing machines plus nine).

Reduce the two air res squadrons to five each and there are now 26. Assign ten to 403 for training and there are 16 left to divide between 408, 427 and 430.

That does not seem to leave enough machines unless each of the reg force squadrons get five each. That would leave one over for a spare. It would allow for a lot of folks to be detached for Chinook training in advance of the machines arriving, but that is at least three years out.


Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2007, 17:38:59 »
part of the argument for the reduction goes with the addition of the CH47 fleet.
do we need as many griffons if we have chinooks

Once we get the CH47s, will we need gunships Cobras or A10ish kinda vehicle to ride shotgun?

Does that mean the griffons will be sold off or does it mean that the Griffs will be transfered to such organisations as the CCG, the RCMP, OPP/QPF.....?
Chimo!

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2007, 18:18:28 »
439 new deployment role?

What does that mean?

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 201,681
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,469
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2007, 18:27:39 »
Moderator warning:

Lanes...stay in your lanes.

The Army.ca Staff
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Welshy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 12,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2007, 18:32:20 »
Your estimates seem a little extreme. Right now there are 67 aircraft under 1 wing doing tac hel. I really couldn't see them getting rid of any of those aircraft any time soon, because they are heavily used as it is. There will be a need for griffins as they perform as different role than the Chinooks, not to mention, it will be a quite a few years until the Chinooks squadrons will be fully operational

Offline Mortar guy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 478
  • Eating and drinking for peace.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2007, 18:37:03 »
WARNING - Following comments are not in my lane by G2G can correct me if I'm Ray Oliver

The Griffon fleet will stay steady at about 64 airframes in 1 Wing although there is talk of configuring the remaining a/c as I-BRUH or Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter (IIRC). They are to get sensors and weapons to enable them to act as armed escorts to the CH-147s.

The reserve squadrons will be reduced/eliminated as well.

Sound right G2G?

MG
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

Offline Welshy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 12,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2007, 19:06:59 »
I forgot to mention that 17 Chinooks will hardly be enough to replace or severely reduce the Griffin fleet

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,506
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,367
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2007, 22:42:27 »
PMars,

Keep in mind that some of the aircraft that were "in storage" have been (are being?) sent to Portage for the wings course and I don't believe they are being considered in the reduction.

dan, why would we want aircraft that are no longer being used?  There is a reason they are getting rid of them -- they are OLD!  Take away the cool factor for a bit, which I suspect is the only reason you want to see them in Canadian airspace.  There is absolutely no reason why the Griffon could not be used as an escort, provided it was fitted with the right equipment and tactics put in place for such.

Edited to add:  BTW, if you want to discuss Canada purchasing attack helicopters, suggest you contribute to that thread, and not this one.  As for the spelling, consider every forum being written in the english language an english forum.

And to everyone else...it's spelled "Griffon."
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 22:45:21 by Strike »
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline pipstah

  • Member
  • ****
  • 700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 228
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2007, 22:56:19 »
A little question for you guys (strike, G2G, Inch, Zoomie and whoever can answer ), I'm just wondering about the speed of the griffons fleet compared to the chinooks. Wouldn't it be too slow for the chinooks? I'm trying to compare those two aircrafts but I do lack the expertise of helicopters world I would like that if anyone can light my lantern it would be greatly appreciated
Fangs of death
RESCUE!

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2007, 22:58:26 »
Griffon top speed - 140 kts
Chinook - 170 kts (according to a quick google)

Offline dan_282

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2007, 22:58:57 »
arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2007, 23:01:14 »
arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?

NO - the hooks are new off the assemly line

Secondly the CH146 Griffon buy was for 200 airframe -- what happened to the others -- or did the other 100 never happen?
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline pipstah

  • Member
  • ****
  • 700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 228
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2007, 23:02:40 »
Thanks SF2.... have any idea about the manouevering speed of those two ?
Fangs of death
RESCUE!

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2007, 23:04:46 »
There's no manouevering speed per se.....especially with a helo - you can do whatever you want between 0 and 140 kts in a griffon!!

Offline pipstah

  • Member
  • ****
  • 700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 228
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2007, 23:08:13 »
DOH! I will have to go read somes documents about helicopter aviation because I know nothing on rotary wing  ;D as you can see  :P   
Fangs of death
RESCUE!

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2007, 23:08:41 »
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 201,681
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,469
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2007, 02:29:54 »
arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?

Dan,

Here's how it is at Army.ca...and many of the users here have given you nice hints and advice already. Listen to it.

Use your spellchecker, no MSN speak, use proper grammar/punctuation/capitals etc.

You would have received the "Must Read" notification upon joining the forum, I suggest that you go back and read it again.

Try this:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24937.0.html

Consider this your freebie, you've had a few in this thread already.

The Army.ca Staff
« Last Edit: March 10, 2007, 02:33:33 by The Librarian »
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Globesmasher

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2007, 02:37:44 »

Do you think our forces have the option of buying state of the art?


Yes - we just purchased the C-17, brand new block 17 models fresh off the assembly line.
ACP-T will see the acquisition of the C-130 J.  They don't come much newer than that.
FWSAR will be modern.
The avionics in the Cormorant is pretty impressive.
The proposed Sea King replacement, S-92 is about to roll off the drawing board.

There's very modern equipment in the pipe coming down to us.


Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 167,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,824
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2007, 16:15:14 »
WARNING - Following comments are not in my lane by G2G can correct me if I'm Ray Oliver

The Griffon fleet will stay steady at about 64 airframes in 1 Wing although there is talk of configuring the remaining a/c as I-BRUH or Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter (IIRC). They are to get sensors and weapons to enable them to act as armed escorts to the CH-147s.

The reserve squadrons will be reduced/eliminated as well.

Sound right G2G?

MG

MG, you da joint-integrated-interoperational-combat operations understanding man!  I-BRUH leading to BRUH as MHLH comes on line with an MHLH/BRUH/SOA package of operators, yup....sounds about right.  8)   Don't know what's going to happen with the non-tactical folks, though....  ???

PMars, do you mind if I ask why you started your mission analysis with the CSS squadrons having priority?  To end your analysis with 16 Griffon left over for the combat operators seems a bit strange.  That's a COA that is not at the head of the pack for presentation to CAS or the CDS methinks.

G2G

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 167,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,824
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2007, 16:22:47 »
A little question for you guys (strike, G2G, Inch, Zoomie and whoever can answer ), I'm just wondering about the speed of the griffons fleet compared to the chinooks. Wouldn't it be too slow for the chinooks? I'm trying to compare those two aircrafts but I do lack the expertise of helicopters world I would like that if anyone can light my lantern it would be greatly appreciated

Pipstah, without getting into specifics, the limiting factor in aviation packages is almost always the shooter.   Hook is fast when it's not slinging.  Utility is middle of the pack (Griff, Hawk, Puma, etc...) and the guns usually have so much stuff hanging off them that everyone else slows down when element integrity is required.  Clean, you'll see 130-150 out of a 'hook and they'll pull G along with the best of them. The Griff isn't bad, as you know...element form speeds are not "significantly" less than Vne anyway.

G2G

Offline PMars

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2007, 16:49:10 »
439 new deployment role?

What does that mean?

. The 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team.

From a news story on new defence posture. The interesting question to me was why 439 and not 430? I suppose it is because of 439's national rescue role? It does suggest, however, that Griffons will go on interesting deployments in the future.

Offline PMars

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2007, 16:58:43 »
MG, you da joint-integrated-interoperational-combat operations understanding man!  I-BRUH leading to BRUH as MHLH comes on line with an MHLH/BRUH/SOA package of operators, yup....sounds about right.  8)   Don't know what's going to happen with the non-tactical folks, though....  ???

PMars, do you mind if I ask why you started your mission analysis with the CSS squadrons having priority?  To end your analysis with 16 Griffon left over for the combat operators seems a bit strange.  That's a COA that is not at the head of the pack for presentation to CAS or the CDS methinks.
G2G

I started with the CSS and AF requirements as they will probably remain relatively static as part of the national rescue role. The end result, 16, is what struck me as well and is why I posed the question.

Someone posted that 200 Griffons were acquired and this is not so. There were 100, two were lost with 444, leaving 98.

Someone else posted that the "missing" Griffons were going to the Wings course at Portage. Interesting. I posted that possibility last year and was corrected that would not happen. I wonder if the SAR training will be carried out by the contractor, as it is with the RAF, leaving 403 to concentrate on tac helo. It would seem to make sense to transfer the sim to the Wings course as well but I was also told the sim would stay where it is. If the contractor is doing conversion to type training, which 403 used to do, then maybe Portage is the right place for the sim.

Finally, someone else posted elimination of the air res squadrons. I am not sure if that would become a political issue or not. And finally, there is the SERT requirement for up to two Griffons which 427 used to be responsible for. Could that role be taken on by the air res (438) with a flight at Ottawa?


I will look to others to comment and correct the above.

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2007, 17:06:46 »
The only reason I posted 200 is in the intial "hype" when the CH135 was being replaced the number 199 popped up in several areas  as the number of airframes being acquired -- the only reason the number stuck with me was it was identical the the intial Bison buy.
   I never expected the CF to get 200 (ish) airframes - and I must admit I may have misses a comment about the other airframes going elsewhere non CF related.





 
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2007, 17:28:36 »
Quote
The 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team.

That's the first time i've ever heard of that, although I'm not one to really pay attention to what CSS squadrons are doing.  Should they deploy, who would perform base rescue?

Quote
there is the SERT requirement for up to two Griffons which 427 used to be responsible for.
Incorrect.  427 doesn't, and never has, supported SERT.

Quote
Could that role be taken on by the air res (438) with a flight at Ottawa
Absolutely not


Offline eurowing

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 24,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 310
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2007, 23:00:39 »
Wow, I was worried someone ran over a small brown dog.  Whew.   ;D

Played with RC Airplanes in sandboxes