Author Topic: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement  (Read 48045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Navor86

  • Guest
  • *
  • 60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8
Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« on: January 13, 2008, 05:05:57 »
Moin,
I have been following the Canadian Helo Force some time now.
And after some research on this and other sites it was stated that the Griffon has the following shortcomings (generalization)
-Overloaded due to to upgrades
-Can not operate effective in high altitudes
-Troop Lift

So when is the the Griffon due to be replaced? I know that they are just around 10 Years old,but concerning the new Role of the CF a replacement should be on track.
For example I can not think that the Griffon could effectively fly SpecOps Missions outside Canada,because of needed  electronic upgrades and Lift Capacity,which can not be supported by the Airframe:
Another Point is that 16 Chinooks might sound godd but seem seem some Airframes short to effectivly support Deployment,Training ,Repair.So the work must be done by the Helos.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,097
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,746
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2008, 08:13:42 »
There is currently no plan to replace Griffon. We typically operate aircraft for thirty years or more. Major capital acquisitions are government decisions.

Sixteen Chinooks is twice the highest number that we ever had. It's a good start.

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2008, 08:18:17 »
This topic has been beaten to death but I'll bite.

No one outside the community seems to understand the concept of trade offs.  Take less fuel, take more troops, can't go far.  Troops carry less gear, carry more troops.  Need to fly far, take less troops or less gear.  Troops carry lots of gear, take less troops.  I won't get into numbers, but the Griffon can do it.

You're right, what you said is a very, very, very broad generalization.  But it also holds true for about 90% of the other Light Utility Helicopters out there, which is what the Griffon is.  So does that warrant replacement?  The Griffon isn't a chinook.  I was never meant to be.   So don't call the airframe a shortcoming because it can't haul 13 troops around the mountains in the middle of the day (btw, the chinook can't either).  What new role of the CF, as you say, warrants the replacement of the Griffon?

And you wanna replace the Griffon with the Chinook?  Then how would you go about doing a det level kinetic assault in an urban environment in a place like, say Haiti, with a chinook?  Would you conduct convoy overwatch or c3 with a Chinook?  Are you going to attach a WESCAM to the nose of a chinook and the circle overhead the battlefield?

You see where I'm going with this?  You don't need to replace the griffon.  You need to augment it with something with larger capacities do the stuff you have locked in your brain.



Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,097
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,746
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2008, 21:04:47 »
You don't need to replace the griffon.

The Wing Commander appears to disagree with that, as do I.

As you said, though, it has been beaten to a creamy paste and the Search Function does seem to work.

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 265,711
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,893
  • Regimental Headquarter Staff
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2008, 01:25:09 »
This topic has been beaten to death but I'll bite.

No one outside the community seems to understand the concept of trade offs.  Take less fuel, take more troops, can't go far.  Troops carry less gear, carry more troops.  Need to fly far, take less troops or less gear.  Troops carry lots of gear, take less troops.  I won't get into numbers, but the Griffon can do it.

You're right, what you said is a very, very, very broad generalization.  But it also holds true for about 90% of the other Light Utility Helicopters out there, which is what the Griffon is.  So does that warrant replacement?  The Griffon isn't a chinook.  I was never meant to be.   So don't call the airframe a shortcoming because it can't haul 13 troops around the mountains in the middle of the day (btw, the chinook can't either).  What new role of the CF, as you say, warrants the replacement of the Griffon?

And you wanna replace the Griffon with the Chinook?  Then how would you go about doing a det level kinetic assault in an urban environment in a place like, say Haiti, with a chinook?  Would you conduct convoy overwatch or c3 with a Chinook?  Are you going to attach a WESCAM to the nose of a chinook and the circle overhead the battlefield?

You see where I'm going with this?  You don't need to replace the griffon.  You need to augment it with something with larger capacities do the stuff you have locked in your brain.




You got proof of that? IIRC a CHINOOK can carry alot more than that in worst conditions than Afghanistan
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 167,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,822
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2008, 02:45:08 »
The Griffon is not being replaced, for the foreseeable future.  As Loachman stated, most helicopters have an effective life expectancy (ELE) of 30 years or so -- that puts the Griffon in the replacement window at around 2025.  The pre-90's tactical aviation fleet was a balanced organization for its assigned roles and consisted of light observation helicopters, utility/tactical transporters and heavy lifters (Kiowa, Twin Huey, Chinook).  Two types were retired and one replaced (Kiowa, Chinook gone, Twin Huey replaced by Griffon).  This was primarily a resource-constrained survival move to keep from disbanding an entire functional branch of the Air Force.  People should be under no illusion that the Griffon was somehow meant to magically replace the Kiowa, Huey and Chinook.  Problem is, many folks (Army and Air Force alike) started bad mouthing the Griffon at an early point in its career, and much of the maligning was reinforced with stories and hearsay.  Without putting unrealistic expectations on it, the Griffon is a reasonable light utility helicopter, not without some warts, but not the "bucket of crap" that many people like to paint with a poorly informed brush. 

Given that the Chinook is on its way into service some time in the coming years and there are improvements both short-term (one or two years) and a little longer planned to be undertaken for the Griffon, is it possible that the CF will pursue another helicopter...possible, but not likely IMO.  If it did happen, the irony of returning to a multiple type fleet of tactical helicopters (light, util and heavy) as we had until the early 90's would indeed be something to see.  What was old would be new again...

G2G   
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 03:12:22 by Good2Golf »

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2008, 08:53:45 »
G2G,
I agree with you....
but I see some form of gunship in our near future - needed to provide some protection for the Chinooks and the Griffons in trooplift mode....

But that's just me as a member of the green machine.
Chimo!

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,097
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,746
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2008, 18:44:49 »
The only obstacles to that are lack of political will and lack of money, and the latter is only a sub-component of the former.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,216
  • Freespeecher
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2008, 21:18:14 »
From the sounds of it, greater demands are being put on the airframe and there is a desire to fly higher, faster, farther than the Griffon is capable of doing. It sounds like most people who have reservations about the Griffon really want it to do the duties of a Medium Utility Helicopter.

I have nothing against that myself, and as Imperator would fully endorse a Medium helicopter fleet and converting the Griffons to perform special duties like being ERSTA platforms. Of course that is even more expensive than simply replacing the Griffons, so you can guess how far that idea will go in the real world. Still, it might be worth giving the S-92 Cyclone a look as a medium utility platform. It will be coming into service soon(?) and getting a bigger buy adding "Army" utility helicopters will provide some economies of scale and logistical consolidation for the Air Force.
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 Welshy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 12,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2008, 21:34:09 »
I think this is getting away from the bigger issue. We don't have enough pilots even if we wanted to spend money on more airframes. We already mothballed a bunch of griffons (now going to be used on BHT). It's not a simple matter of throwing money at the problem, we have personnel issues than need to be solved first.

Offline Welshy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 12,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2008, 21:43:17 »

but I see some form of gunship in our near future - needed to provide some protection for the Chinooks and the Griffons in trooplift mode....

I believe there is something in the works to beef up the firepower on the griffon for this role. Someone correct me if I am wrong or elaborate further in that.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,097
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,746
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2008, 22:19:55 »
Minigun. Not great from my point of view, as trading 7.62 mm rounds with somebody on the ground is a bit silly but at least the gravitational effects favour our rounds over theirs.

So you're still alive, eh?

How're things?

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2008, 08:09:48 »
I believe there is something in the works to beef up the firepower on the griffon for this role. Someone correct me if I am wrong or elaborate further in that.
Long term solution. This is not a solution - more like a Band-Aid.  Once you've invested a bundle in the Chinooks, are you going to nickle and dime the problem of providing protection or are you going to solve it?
Chimo!

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,466
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,367
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2008, 08:29:37 »

So you're still alive, eh?

How're things?

He was whining yesterday about how he had a whole 3 books for each of his 5 classes.   :'(  ;)

Already getting on my nerves.  Thankfully he's only here twice a week. ;D
Stop assuming I'm a man!

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

Offline Welshy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 12,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2008, 14:27:28 »
Admit it, you love having me around

Long term solution. This is not a solution - more like a Band-Aid.  Once you've invested a bundle in the Chinooks, are you going to nickle and dime the problem of providing protection or are you going to solve it?
Well, I'm not going to hold out any hope that we would get something better in terms of a ground support role. The forces will step over a dollar to save a dime. I'm not saying its the best option, but I guess it is better than nothing.

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 267
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2013, 20:10:30 »
Let's try to revive an old topic.

I realize there is no plan to replace the Griffon in the near future.  However, when the time comes, or "if" it were being replaced now, what would the best option be?

Would the Griffon be able to take the same upgrade as the UH-1Y Venom of the USMC?  Or would the RCAF be better off with the UH-60 Black Hawk?

I think best-case scenario would be a common fleet of H-60 variants for the MHP and UTTH fleets.  MH-60R Sea Hawk ASW variant and MH-60S Sea Hawk General Support variant for the MHP to replaced the failed CH-148 Cyclone procurement.  To replace the CH-146 Griffon would be the UH-60M Black Hawk utility variant (with option to convert to AH-60 Battle Hawk attack variant when needed), the MH-60M Black Hawk special operations variant, and the HH-60M Rescue Hawk in the SAR/Base Rescue/Combat Support role.  This would give a common fleet for ease of training, maintenance and logistics as well as being inter-operatable with the US military.

MHP - 18 MH-60R AWS & 12 MH-60S GS
UTTH - 48 UH-60M
SAR - 10 HH-60M
Special Ops - 12 MH-60M

Total of 100 aircraft

Offline X_para76

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 256
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2013, 22:03:28 »
I believe there is something in the works to beef up the firepower on the griffon for this role. Someone correct me if I am wrong or elaborate further in that.

I know that they've equipped the Griffon's with the Dillon miniguns but some friends of mine who've filled tastings as door gunners have said that the Griffon isn't a very good platform for doing gun runs and that it was a bit of an embarrassment overseas.
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,466
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,367
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2013, 22:08:58 »
I know that they've equipped the Griffon's with the Dillon miniguns but some friends of mine who've filled tastings as door gunners have said that the Griffon isn't a very good platform for doing gun runs and that it was a bit of an embarrassment overseas.

 :orly:

Really I heard quite the opposite.  Something about other helos being unable to move their firepower independent of the aircraft position.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

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

Offline X_para76

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 256
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2013, 23:09:27 »
I asked a friend of mine from DHTC his thoughts on the Griffon and his thoughts were that it was find for domestic ops but was never meant for out of area ops. Hence why they used Russian and American helo's overseas.
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,466
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,367
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2013, 00:04:56 »
I asked a friend of mine from DHTC his thoughts on the Griffon and his thoughts were that it was find for domestic ops but was never meant for out of area ops. Hence why they used Russian and American helo's overseas.

The demands of DHTC ops are quite different from the rest of the Army.  You can trust that the Griffons were well represented escorting their own while in Afghanistan (which is both hot and high by the way).  Were there issues when the hot weather hit?  Of course there were, but every other country was also dealing with those same issues.

Would it be nice to have a specialized helo for spec ops?  Of course it would.  Is it going to happen?  Probably not.  In the meantime, 427 is flying that machine as hard as it will let them.

Remember, if the Twin Huey were to be considered a pick-up truck, the Griffon is an SUV.  You can still off-road with an SUV. You just have to be a bit more careful about it and be aware of your limitations.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

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

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 181,801
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,798
  • OBEY!
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2013, 06:44:15 »
I asked a friend of mine from DHTC his thoughts on the Griffon and his thoughts were that it was find for domestic ops but was never meant for out of area ops. Hence why they used Russian and American helo's overseas.
"A friend of mine..."

I call BS on that.  I mean, in Dom Ops, the Griffon is used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  In "out of area" ops, they are used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  Same job.  Just done "out of area".  I'm not a pilot, nor am I in the RCAF.  But I have been deployed on operations where the Griffon was used.  They had their limitations (just as all things do), but they weren't junk.  And they had some advantages over other "things". 
So, there I was....

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,884
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,489
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2013, 07:05:46 »
"A friend of mine..."

I call BS on that.  I mean, in Dom Ops, the Griffon is used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  In "out of area" ops, they are used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  Same job.  Just done "out of area".  I'm not a pilot, nor am I in the RCAF.  But I have been deployed on operations where the Griffon was used.  They had their limitations (just as all things do), but they weren't junk.  And they had some advantages over other "things".

granted, they are considerably slower then a chinook which they escort but their ability to swivel their guns make them quite useful for providing fire support. 

Offline X_para76

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 256
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2013, 07:59:16 »
"A friend of mine..."

I call BS on that.  I mean, in Dom Ops, the Griffon is used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  In "out of area" ops, they are used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  Same job.  Just done "out of area".  I'm not a pilot, nor am I in the RCAF.  But I have been deployed on operations where the Griffon was used.  They had their limitations (just as all things do), but they weren't junk.  And they had some advantages over other "things".

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.
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

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
  • *
  • 240,577
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,501
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2013, 08:04:57 »
Still you failed to address why the Hill would have been using Russian and American choppers in stead of Griffon's. 

 :dunno: Because of their total anathema to using anything Canadian issued, from uniforms to vehicles? :dunno:
“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

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 181,801
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,798
  • OBEY!
Re: Req : Possible Griffon Replacement
« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2013, 08:39:19 »
granted, they are considerably slower then a chinook which they escort but their ability to swivel their guns make them quite useful for providing fire support.
Exactly. They can dwell on target when other birds have to break off and come back.
So, there I was....