Author Topic: If it is written, then it's true. Toronto Star says new attack helicopters.  (Read 39191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mover1

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 758
  • I wasn't looking at anybodys birthmark man........
LET THE SPECULATION AND WET DREAMS BEGIN

 ;D



IDNUMBER  200706140165
PUBLICATION:  The Toronto Star
DATE:  2007.06.14
EDITION:  Met
SECTION:  News
PAGE:  A19
BYLINE:  Bruce Campion-Smith
SOURCE:  Toronto Star
COPYRIGHT:  © 2007 Torstar Corporation
WORD COUNT:  293

http://veritas.mil.ca/showfile.asp?Lang=E&URL=/Clips/National/070614/f02929NA.htm

http://www.thestar.com/article/225291

Air force to beef up its helicopters; Existing Griffons will be refitted with machine guns, rockets until gunships arrive

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada's air force wants to buy a fleet of gunship helicopters to protect its new transport choppers as they haul troops and equipment in enemy zones.

But until these new attack choppers arrive, the air force plans to outfit its existing Griffon helicopters with machine guns and rockets to do the job.

The danger facing the big transport helicopters was driven home last month when insurgents downed a U.S. Chinook chopper in Afghanistan, killing all seven people onboard, including a Canadian military photographer.

"We have officially recognized that there is a requirement to have a helicopter that would accompany the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter ... in a battlefield type environment," said air force spokesperson Capt. Jim Hutcheson.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor last summer unveiled the Conservatives' $4. 7 billion plan to buy 16 medium-to-heavy lift helicopters, likely the Boeing Chinook.

While the twin-rotor Chinooks will have their own anti-missile gear and other defensive aids, air force officials say they're still too valuable an asset to fly around a battlefield unguarded.

The Chinooks are about the size of a transport truck and can haul more than 30 soldiers.

"They're obviously an attractive target and you want to do everything you can to protect it and its occupants," Hutcheson said.

As a result, the air force has launched a program to outfit some of its Griffon choppers to serve as flying bodyguards to the Chinooks when they arrive in the air force fleet in 2011.

Under the program, it's expected the Griffons, already able to carry machine guns, will be outfitted with extra armament as well as infrared and optical sensors to spot enemy forces on the ground.

In the long-term, the air force hopes to buy helicopters designed as flying gunships.

"Further down the line, they would be looking at a helicopter that was more specifically dedicated and designed for that role," Hutcheson said.

The air force was making plans for this new capability before the downing of the Chinook last month. But Hutcheson said the crash drives home the need to give the Chinooks some protection.

"Certainly we can learn lessons from the experience in Afghanistan," he said.




Edited by Vern to correct typo in topic title.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 12:20:55 by ArmyVern »

Offline FinClk

  • Scallywag
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
  • Ahoy, the chocalate chip kind.
It is written in a Newspaper, then it is far from being completly truthfull or accurate.

Offline mover1

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 758
  • I wasn't looking at anybodys birthmark man........
no s*** Sherlock
and in the Toronto star at that. ::)

Offline Mr.Newf

  • King of the Granite Planet
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,642
  • Fuc*in Eh!
Can it be true? Hope it is  ;D
I am the one and only

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,427
Identification of a requirement is just the first small step & attack helicopters may still be a long way from getting in front of the Treasury Board.  That being said, if we want to do the things that we've suggestd we want to do with the Chinook, then we do need attack helicopters.

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
If you listen closely you can hear the sound of the tinfoil-hat wearing, tree hugging, granola munching, appeasment minded, surrender monkeys heads exploding in Toronto.

<pop>

There goes another one...
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline seamus

  • New Member
  • **
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 35
 I am pretty sure the Attack Helicopters are being stored right now with my new rucksack.  ;D  I want it to be true but who knows? But you need the one to support the other so they are probably looking at the problem at a very basic level. And hopefully they buy a real Attack Helicopter and not just Frankenstein those highly capable Griffins. :-\
There are two things that are infinite in this world, the universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure about the universe.
 A. Einstein

Offline Munxcub

  • Member
  • ****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 135
    • CrossFit Kelowna
"Helicopter Gunships" sounds too aggressive... could we not find a more fluffy PC name for them? Then the "tinfoil-hat wearing, tree hugging, granola munching, appeasment minded, surrender monkeys" might not be so taken aback by this idea... Maybe "Positive Reinforcement for Aeriel Supply runs"?  ;)
« Last Edit: June 14, 2007, 13:18:51 by Munxcub »

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
"Helicopter Gunships" sounds too aggressive... could we not find a more fluffy PC name for them? Then the "tinfoil-hat wearing, tree hugging, granola munching, appeasment minded, surrender monkeys" might not be so taken aback by this idea... Maybe "Positive Reinforcement for Ariel Supply runs"?  ;)

Aerial compliance moderators?
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,172
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,699

http://www.aircav.com/huey/uh1.html

"Hueys” armed with only two M60D door guns, called “Slicks” because of their uncluttered external appearance, were the backbone of all airmobile combat operations in Vietnam. Unarmed MedEvac “Hueys” were called “Dust Offs”, because of the clouds of dust kicked-up, when landing."

Offline FinClk

  • Scallywag
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
  • Ahoy, the chocalate chip kind.

Offline fighter puke

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
The IBRUH concept is only a pipedream until they get rid of the torque limited mast. You put that much weight on a Griffon, and it will oivertorque before it gets off the ground.......beefed up masts and transmissions and a helo that is RPM limited and IBRUH is a possibility......big bucks to mod.......new a/c would make better sense.......CH-146.......another military mistake brought to you by the Liberals!

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
The griffon isn't "mast torque" limited.  Its the transmission that is the weak leak that requires de-rating of engine power.   I didn't catch anywhere in this thread how much these guns are going to weigh - but there's nothing wrong with operating the Griffon at full weight of 11900 lbs.  They do it all the time.

Overtorque before getting off the ground?  Sounds a little silly - again, sure they won't load it past 11900, and, as I said, at that weight, no problem....taking into account hot and high, with fuel loads.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,873
The griffon isn't "mast torque" limited.  Its the transmission that is the weak leak that requires de-rating of engine power.   I didn't catch anywhere in this thread how much these guns are going to weigh - but there's nothing wrong with operating the Griffon at full weight of 11900 lbs.  They do it all the time.

Overtorque before getting off the ground?  Sounds a little silly - again, sure they won't load it past 11900, and, as I said, at that weight, no problem....taking into account hot and high, with fuel loads.
Out of my lane here, just curious.....

Is the 11900 full weight or cargo capacity?  If it is going to used as a gunship is the equipment and pilots likely to cause lifting problems?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
11900 is all up weight.

Empty they're 7900'ish.....
Crew - 600
Gas for 3 hrs 2100 lbs
------------
10,600

That leaves 1300 lbs for the guns and ammo - again, have no idea how much the kit weighs.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,873
Thanks...that puts the comments into perspective...
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 100,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,807
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
11900 is all up weight.

Empty they're 7900'ish.....
Crew - 600
Gas for 3 hrs 2100 lbs
------------
10,600

That leaves 1300 lbs for the guns and ammo - again, have no idea how much the kit weighs.

Is that hot and high or cold and sea level?

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 426,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,379
  • Crewman
I would guesstimate that one gun and mount would weigh in at 200 - 300 lbs, depending on how the mount was attached and the size of the gun itself.  Any anti-vibration mountings would have to be figured into the mount.  Wouldn't want to rip the airframe apart when firing.   ;D  How much ammo would you want to carry?  How much extra fuel?  What else in the way of EIS for the wpn?  Gun Tools/toolbox?  Spare barrels?  I think that 1300 lbs would soon disappear.  Just wondeing outside of my lanes.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

CrazyCanuck

  • Guest
I can see it now - "Gunships! we will start an arms race with the taliban! now everybody is going to think we're aggressive, everybody likes Canadians! therefore are helicopters don't need protection!"

On a lighter note, what would we be getting? I'm thinking Cobra's as their a bit cheaper than Apache's.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Is that hot and high or cold and sea level?

All up weight is all up weight, doesn't matter where you are. Whether you can lift at AUW is a different story.

What matters is torque (Q) required vs torque avail. Q avail is usually the same though can vary with DA, Q required is affected by all kinds of things like Density Alt, aircraft weight and wind speed if you're hovering. If you're at AUW with a high DA and slow winds, you'll require a lot more torque to hover than if you were at a low DA with 20 knots of wind. Just the aerodynamics of helos, regardless of what helo you're flying. Some aircraft have a lot more torque avail and may require less torque to hover. It's hard to give you concrete numbers though, since we fly in %Q which varies from aircraft to aircraft. 100% Q on a Sea King is more power than 100% Q on a Griffon.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline ExSarge

  • Member
  • ****
  • 740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 154
  • Airborne Infantry, Strike-Hold!
Canada, will not buy “Gunship’s” we may however be allowed to purchase “aerial anti-aggression and anger suppression vehicles” Rather then weapons systems they will be equipped with antisocial behavioural modification systems. These systems will be capable of delivering high speed metal jacketed message capsules each one individually inscribed in the language of your choice “USE YOUR WORDS”!
Eagles may soar through azure blue skies, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines!

Offline FinClk

  • Scallywag
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
  • Ahoy, the chocalate chip kind.
11900 is all up weight.

Empty they're 7900'ish.....
Crew - 600
Gas for 3 hrs 2100 lbs
------------
10,600

That leaves 1300 lbs for the guns and ammo - again, have no idea how much the kit weighs.
Out of my lane, but weapons aside this leaves very little room for armour plating doesn't it? I recall them having lift limitations due to the added weight of plating in Bosnia, let alone new weaponery.

Leighton & Dion would have a field day with this one.

Offline FinClk

  • Scallywag
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
  • Ahoy, the chocalate chip kind.
Incidently, CASR had a page on this very subject as of last September which, to me at least, indicates that some CAS/CAD offices were truly studying this possibility. I would not believe the written media on its own, but seeing CASR reporting on it as well indicates some  value of legitimacy.

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
1300 lbs can be eaten up quickly, you're right.  But you don't necessarily have to carry 2100 lbs of gas.  You could carry half that....then have FARPs set up enroute.  There are many ways to play the game.

Offline Red 6

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 3,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 570
Aerial compliance moderators?

Vertical-lift Peace Operations Defensive Support Aircraft, 1 each?