Author Topic: If it is written, then it's true. Toronto Star says new attack helicopters.  (Read 39201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,192
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,699
depends on many factors...where in Afghanistan?  South?  North?  How hot are we talking?  How long do you want to fly for?  How much ammo do you want to carry?  Is there any wind?  What's the humidity?  What power margins are the pilots willing to accept, depending on their skill level?

What I'm trying to get at is that is isn't so black and white whether it will work or not.  There are numerous factors, all of which have effect on the other, that affect the performance of the GriffOn (o, not i).

Pushing my lane here but I can't but think a Griffon with two engines, some door guns, could one hope for rockets....would be of value in KAF.
 Night vision flight supply run, cool air, avoiding IED's  ??

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,192
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,699
Pushing my lane here but I can't but think a Griffon with two engines, some door guns, could one hope for rockets....would be of value in KAF.
 Night vision flight supply run, cool air, avoiding IED's  ??

Added thought:
Reviewing other thread on Griffons and maybe it's like the Brits, lack of manpower and bucks.
Anyway will our Chinooks ever see KAF, maybe if we extend the mission and by then we could hope for Apaches !

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,172
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,660
CH-146.......another military mistake brought to you by the Liberals!
Not that I'm a Liberal defender or apologist by any means, but you can't pin that on them. Marcel Masse was the PC defence minister at the time, and they were built in his home riding - a "get-me-re-elected" project that failed.

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Not an Air Force Type!! ;D
What about the BO105?  It doesn't look mean (a definite requirement due to the tin-foil-hat Brigades disapproval of anything aggressive looking) in spite of it's payload capabilities.
"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 baboon6

  • Member
  • ****
  • 230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 139
Not an Air Force Type!! ;D
What about the BO105?  It doesn't look mean (a definite requirement due to the tin-foil-hat Brigades disapproval of anything aggressive looking) in spite of it's payload capabilities.

No longer in production. Replaced by EC 135 and in specifically military applications by the the EC 635

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_135

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_635

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ec_635/





Offline cameron

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 384
I find the Toronto Star article interesting for one main reason.  Arguments have been put forward why the Griffon can't be deployed into theatres like A'stan, so why modify it to be an armed escort for the Chinook when the powers that be can't or won't deploy the Griffon into certain theatres.  On another point I hope the Canadian government is seriously considering purchasing attack helicopters (in the not too distant future).  The two platforms that I think may best suit the CF's needs are the AH1Z Cobra and the version of the Lynx used by the Royal Marines.  Both have proven to be quite capable and reliable platforms at much less cost than say an Apache, cheers.
"All men dream: but not equally.  Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible."

Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Lawrence of Arabia

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,997
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
I wonder if the newly acquired Lakota might be an option for the CF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-72_Lakota
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 426,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,384
  • Crewman
No longer in production. Replaced by EC 135 and in specifically military applications by the the EC 635

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_135

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_635

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ec_635/


I wonder if the newly acquired Lakota might be an option for the CF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-72_Lakota

Looks like you guys are looking in the same 'catalogue'.   ;D

cameron

One advantage of the AH-1W or Z is that you can transport more in one lift by Air or Sea, than you can AH-64's.
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.

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,876
In looking at the Lakota, which is replacing the Blackhawk, we would be looking at more of a general puirpose helicopter that can be adapted.....not sure if that is the intent, but interesting .....
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,997
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
I was thinking that being more multi purpose would be more useful.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,876
I was thinking that being more multi purpose would be more useful.

While I agree with the concept, they generally end up not doing either job very well.....is that not the original concept behind the Griffon?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,997
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
I did not think being a gunship was in the roles originally envisioned for the Griffon...
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,876
I was not talking about gunship duty....somewhere, in one of the old threads I remember reading, that the Griffon was envisioned for multiple purposes (way out of my lane here, so forgive lack of knowledge...)..
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,205
  • Freespeecher
Although engaging in speculation is one of my hobbies, looking at the source is enough to trow cold water over the entire idea.

In the back of my mind I am seeing an attempt to recreate the "my God, they want to buy aircraft carriers!" myth to damage the current government in the event of an election, rather than a serious analysis of what the Department is going to do. While I am sure there is a cubical somewhere in NDHQ devoted to looking into armed/attack helicopters, the size and scale of the other projects (combined with the budget crunch pointed out by our friends in the Ruxted Group) means there will not be enough resources or hands to manage that project in the near future.

If I was pressed to provide a solution that is near term, affordable and meets most of the needs I'd go for armed Predator UAV's and add Hellfire or BRIMESTONE ATGM's to our inventory. Sorry guys................
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 Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,192
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,699
Although engaging in speculation is one of my hobbies, looking at the source is enough to trow cold water over the entire idea.

If I was pressed to provide a solution that is near term, affordable and meets most of the needs I'd go for armed Predator UAV's and add Hellfire or BRIMESTONE ATGM's to our inventory. Sorry guys................


Is this option cheaper than choppers?

CrazyCanuck

  • Guest
A bit off topic here, but looking at that Lakota it's both smaller and slower than the Blackhawk, why are they replacing the Blackhawk with this?

Offline MrWhyt

  • Civillian
  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 28
Quote
A bit off topic here, but looking at that Lakota it's both smaller and slower than the Blackhawk, why are they replacing the Blackhawk with this?
As I understand it the Lakotas are to supplement the Blackhawks not replace them. The Lakotas will be used exclusivly within the US, freeing up Blackhawks for overseas work.

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,876
As I understand it the Lakotas are to supplement the Blackhawks not replace them. The Lakotas will be used exclusivly within the US, freeing up Blackhawks for overseas work.

In the article on the Lakota, they stated the Blackhawks are going to the reserve units...
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline MrWhyt

  • Civillian
  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 28
Quote
In the article on the Lakota, they stated the Blackhawks are going to the reserve units
It also says:
Quote
The Army's new UH-72A Lakota will primarily be used by the National Guard in support of homeland security missions.
They are planned to replace the UH-1 and OH-58A/C, which are older light utility helicopters, and supplant other types in domestic use.
The UH-72A Lakotas will replace UH-60 Black Hawks, which will be transferred to the National Guard for operational missions.
It looks like we're both correct.

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,172
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,660
UH72 is primarily replacing old UH1Hs, which can no longer be supported, and older OH58s. The principle issue for the UH1 is engine parts. The A/C model OH58s are no longer suitable for the recce role and cannot carry enough passengers to be useful in a utility role.

"Black Hawk" not "Blackhawk".

UAVs have their place, but will not replace a manned aircraft for a long time to come and are certainly no substitute for a recce or attack/armed helicopter.

Proposing helicopters that use old technology and/or are no longer in production (BO-105/Lynx) is a non-starter.

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,876
It also says:It looks like we're both correct.

That'll teach me not to go back and reread....I missed that entirely!!
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
That'll teach me not to go back and reread....I missed that entirely!!

Or better yet, don't rely on wikipedia ...

Quote
Initial aircraft will be sent to the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif. for medical evacuation missions in January 2007. The UH-72A Lakotas will replace UH-60 Black Hawks, which will be transferred to the National Guard for operational missions. ... The UH-72A is a commercial aircraft designed to conduct light general support tasks in permissive, non-combat environments. Those tasks include civil search and rescue, personnel recovery, evacuation, counter-drug and limited civil command and control operations in the conduct of Homeland Security.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2006/12/11/923-army-unveils-light-utility-helicopter-uh-72a-lakota/
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,324
UAVs have their place, but will not replace a manned aircraft for a long time to come and are certainly no substitute for a recce or attack/armed helicopter.

Proposing helicopters that use old technology and/or are no longer in production (BO-105/Lynx) is a non-starter.

I just wanted to qualify one issue as I've been an advocate of armed UAV's as priority in procurement for a while now.

My issue is the tactical application of UAV's vs armed escort helicopters. 

Specifically, I can envision UAV's such as Predator B being used as medium altitude route provers flying in advance of the Chinooks and looking downward from an eagle eye's view to try to identify any thermal signatures.  With that view, commanders can choose to reroute the trailing Chinooks while either the Predator or another local air asset commences an attack on the ground threat.

On the other hand, especially at altitudes such are present in Afghanistan I would envision attack helicopters being very limited in their ability to gain sufficient altitude to give them much more than a forward looking view which still guarantees significant cover for an enemy MANPADS ambush.   It is only after the MANPADS has been launched that a helicopter escort can provide return fire which frankly seems equivalent to the old analogy of dedicating assets to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

Bluntly if a Chinook is in flames, whether or not the counterattack killed the Taliban who fired the missile is completely irrelevant.


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 MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,431
Bluntly if a Chinook is in flames, whether or not the counterattack killed the Taliban who fired the missile is completely irrelevant
What about the ability to protect the downed aircraft & any still living occupants?  What about killing the attackers if they miss the first shot?  Overwatch while the Chinook is on the ground loading/unloading?  What about those few times that the ambush is spotted before it is sprung, or when they are using RPG and HMG instead of manpads?

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,324
What about the ability to protect the downed aircraft & any still living occupants?  - Combination of additional missiles on Predator, loitering fixed wing assets and perhaps the addition of mini-guns (like GAU 2) door-mounted on Chinooks?

What about killing the attackers if they miss the first shot?  - Again, I still think this scenario favours the UAV.  If there's a miss, the helicopters scram and UAV keeps eyes-on and then vectors in fixed wing aircraft to conduct the attack.  If you have escort helicopters I would never want them to stick around to continue a battle with MANPADS armed infantry as I think they'd lose.

Overwatch while the Chinook is on the ground loading/unloading?  - UAV with Hellfire?  (if we're talking about allied forces too, then AC-130 would be a nice dedicated escort too - just on this note, perhaps its time that the allied forces began using the equivalent of a helicopter convoy system similar the allied shipping model used in WW1 and improved in WWII).

What about those few times that the ambush is spotted before it is sprung, or when they are using RPG and HMG instead of manpads? - If spotted early then I'd reroute and allow loitering fixed wing to take-out target.  I should add, I would never base a procurement strategy on older technology when the bad guys are already using MANPADS in theatre.  That should be the threat both procurement and tactics are constructed to counter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Attack/Escort Helicopters don't provide a valuable capability.  What I am saying is the capability provided by the UAV could be better because it's likely to give you a greater ability to avoid the ambush altogether which I think should be the greatest priority. 



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