# Mackay vs Kenny



## Strike (4 Sep 2007)

Usual caveats...

IDNUMBER  200709040036 
PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen 
DATE:  2007.09.04 
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  News 
PAGE:  A9 
BYLINE:  Peter MacKay 
SOURCE:  The Ottawa Citizen 
WORD COUNT:  219 

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

Not same chopper

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

Re: More choppers, fewer casualties: senator, Aug. 30. 

Senator Colin Kenny really should be asking why he and his Liberal colleagues chose not to equip the Canadian Forces with appropriate equipment. 

It is unfortunate that Senator Kenny doesn't know his facts. The current mission requires a medium-lift helicopter to carry a sufficient number of personnel. The Griffon is neither intended nor capable to fill the role of a medium-lift helicopter. 

The government is addressing the shortcomings of the Griffons through our planned purchase of 16 medium-to heavy-lift helicopters. This purchase not only delivers on our commitment to strengthen Canada's military, it also reinstates a vital capability that air crews and soldiers have done without for over a decade. 

We are working alongside 36 other nations in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government as part of a UN-sanctioned, NATO-led mission. The various military capabilities and equipment resources in Afghanistan provided by the contributing nations are considered NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) resources, and therefore are shared and tasked for use by the regional commanders. The current shared resources of medium-lift helicopters within ISAF Regional Command (South) where the Canadian Forces operate include Chinook helicopters from the U.S. and the Netherlands. 

Senator Kenny should know this and not unfairly malign the Canadian Forces through innuendo. 

Peter MacKay, 

Ottawa 

Minister of National Defence


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2007)

Mr. MacKay,

Don't stop there! Keep pouring it on.


----------



## Strike (4 Sep 2007)

In case anyone wants to see the original article...

More choppers, fewer casualties 

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

The head of the Senate's defence committee is calling on the government and the military to immediately send Griffon helicopters to Afghanistan as part of an effort to cut down on casualties.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny says the use of the choppers as resupply transports would reduce the time troops spend operating ground supply convoys that are highly vulnerable to insurgent attacks and improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. IEDs are seen as the main threat to soldiers on the ground at this point, he said.

Troops can be particularly vulnerable to such attacks as they travel in ground convoys to resupply forward operating bases. Military officers see more use of helicopters to move supplies and personnel as one of the solutions in reducing that exposure to IEDs.

Canada is currently in negotiations to buy medium-lift Chinook choppers from the U.S., but those aircraft might not be available until 2011.

But Mr. Kenny says Canada has an existing fleet of smaller Griffon choppers that could be used in Afghanistan. *"Obviously the Griffons won't be able to carry as much as a Chinook, but they can still play a role in moving some equipment and reducing some of the exposure of supply columns to IEDs," he said. "Any amount counts."*

"Why isn't that being done?" Mr. Kenny asked. "Why do we have 76 Griffons still sitting here in Canada?"

Defence Department spokeswoman Sarah Kavanagh said the current Afghanistan mission requires a medium-lift helicopter able to carry sufficient numbers of personnel, up to 30 at a time, or an appropriate amount of cargo and equipment.

"The role of the Griffon is not intended to fill the role of a medium-lift helicopter, and at this time there is no intent to deploy the Griffon to Afghanistan," said Miss Kavanagh. But, she added, "While the performance characteristics of the Griffon are not ideally suited to the environment in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces continues to monitor the evolution of operations in that theatre to determine if there may be an appropriate role for the Griffon in the future."

U.S. and Dutch Chinooks are currently available in southern Afghanistan, but they are much sought after by various forces in the region. The Canadian Forces used to operate Chinooks, but the Conservative government sold them off in the early 1990s as a cost-cutting measure. *Mr. Kenny said that while the Griffon carries less than the Chinook*, any difference could be made up by operating more of the smaller helicopters. He said 18 of the Griffons should be sent over to Kandahar as soon as possible.

"I'm of the view that anything that can be done to reduce casualties and provide the necessary equipment should be tried," said Mr. Kenny, whose committee has been supportive of additional equipment and personnel for the military.

According to figures provided by the Canadian Forces, the Griffon can carry its crew as well as 10 passengers. It has been used in domestic missions as well as overseas on operations such as in Haiti. It has armour lining the floor and the crew seats, according to the military, and the chopper can reach speeds of up to 260 km/h.

Canada is spending $4.7 billion on 16 Chinook helicopters, but negotiations with aerospace firm Boeing are still ongoing. The Canadian Forces expects the first Chinooks to arrive in 2011, although the Defence Department is trying to arrange for a faster delivery by acquiring choppers earmarked for the U.S. military.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2007)

I stand to be corrected, but if we had a use for a green coloured civvie chopper over there, I'm sure it would have been there by now. Notwithstanding the obvious design limitations, isn't there a problem with the lift due to the atmospherics over there?

I'm pretty sure the Air Force has looked long and hard at this already, and has obvious reasons for not pushing the issue. Too bad Kenny didn't bother checking the feasability (again) of his suggestion, with the experts. Although, I suspect he may know it, and this is simply another liberal smoke and mirrors, throw it against the wall and see if it sticks ploy. They must be spreading the work load, because Dion has so many feet in his mouth right now.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Sep 2007)

I saw the Peter MacKay answer in the PAO news clips on the DIN today and all I can say is "good on ya Peter." I hope he goes on to really lift the profile of DND and finally get some good info out to the public on the nature of the mission....good start.


----------



## childs56 (4 Sep 2007)

The sad truth of it is, there can be a very valuble mission for the Griffons in Afganistan. 
It doenst matter if Mckay or Kenny can agree on any one subject. 
The Goverment has stated that they will do anything possible to protect to the troops. 

Sending the Griffon over to carry out over watch, and light resupply would be a invaluable tool to the troops on the ground. 

For what ever reason they have not been sent over. I would hate to be Mckay in his position, he listens to the Airmen who makes the case to not deploy. He then has to back that up while winning the hearts and minds of all involved.  

The same can be said about Tanks, Fighters and AFV and APC's. 
The only thing the Airforce has going for itself is the fact that they can ship cargo and conduct domestic SAR. They cannot deploy Fighters, or ground support Helos. Which is the reaosn we have them. 

To say the mission scope does not require those assets is not telling the whole truth.


----------



## Strike (5 Sep 2007)

> ...he listens to the Airmen who makes the case to not deploy.



There are more than a few helo types that have been over there, although not in a "direct" flying position.  However, many would love to go with the helo.  It has nothing to do with the AF saying they can't deploy.  That may have been the case at the beginning when we were operating further north, but is not the case now.

That topic has been beat to death.

Perhaps if this thread could focus on the different opinions of the politicos quoted above.  That's what initially caught my eye.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Sep 2007)

A link to the Senator's latest piece. In it he equates the lift ability of the Griffon to that of the LAV, and implies most of our IED casualties have been in the latter. In my opinion there is more than the usual mix of apples, oranges and bananas in his argument.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=08816d1b-309b-45ce-a007-0a18141147c9


----------



## bilton090 (27 Sep 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> In case anyone wants to see the original article...
> 
> More choppers, fewer casualties
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (27 Sep 2007)

> When* the Mulroney Conservatives demanded cost cutting* , the Air Force offered up the Chinooks (they were sold to the Dutch KLu while the CF introduced utility Griffons). Now that the CDS has demanded Chinooks to reduce the CF casualties in Afghanistan, we are told that  they cannot be fully operational until late in 2012. Not sharing  the Army’s urgency,  the Air Force prefers to await the  latest  model.




Bilton....
Oopsie..... not just the Liberals to be eating humble pie.


----------



## Strike (27 Sep 2007)

> According to figures provided by the Canadian Forces, the Griffon can carry its crew as well as 10 passengers. It has been used in domestic missions as well as overseas on operations such as in Haiti. It has armour lining the floor and the crew seats, according to the military, and the chopper can reach speeds of up to 260 km/h.



That's the only point that I don't agree with.  If you had all the armour, gun mounts, etc, you greatly reduce the amount of troops you can carry.


----------



## Loachman (27 Sep 2007)

Sent to the appropriate people:

****************************************

I have enormous respect for Senator Colin Kenny. He
genuinely cares, he does his homework, and he is
blunt, to-the-point, and honest in his speech and
writings.

I am not sure to which "active members of the Canadian
Forces, recently retired members of the Canadian
Forces, informed academics - anybody who will give me
the real goods, rather than government bafflegab" he
spoke regarding helicopters, though ("Colin Kenny .
Any chopper better than none", 27 September 2007). I
sincerely doubt that any of them are involved with the
Griffon helicopter.

True, it can be be configured with twelve (not ten)
seats for troops, but just because the seats exist
does not mean that the helicopter will get off of the
ground with all of them filled, or go very far, or
that those troops will have the equipment and
ammunition necessary to operate and survive when they
get off.

The normal configuration is eight troops with light
equipment, ie personal weapons, ammunition for about
one engagement, and food and water for a couple of
hours. If they carry rucksacks or heavy weapons, the
number of troops drops to six.

And that's in Canada, for training purposes.

Add defensive door guns and light protective armour to
the helicopter, and knock off another couple of
troops.

Helicopters operate best in dense air - low altitudes
and cool temperatures. Kandahar sits at an elevation
of 3300 and enjoys summer temperatures of around 50
degrees Celsius. The detrimental effects of those
conditions on the Griffon's performance are far from
insignificant.

It would take more than three Griffons to move thirty
soldiers. It would take five to eight. Those soldiers
would then be on their own, on foot, lightly equipped,
and lacking the armour protection, mobility,
firepower, and extra ammunition, food, and water
carried by their LAV III.

As the Griffon cannot lift a full load of soldiers as
well as a full load of fuel, range and endurance will
be limited, and those limits may or may not be
acceptable.

To provide eight serviceable helicopters for tasking,
we would need at least a dozen in location. That
requires a considerable number of people to fly,
maintain, and support them.

The Tactical Helicopter community is already stretched
thinly. It is involved in training troops for overseas
missions, training its own people, and supporting a
variety of operations in Canada - all of which are
more than mere "thoughtful little tasks". They are
essential. The same community also provides personnel
to operate the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in
Afghanistan. Additionally, out of the eighty-five
airframes quoted, several are used for Search and
Rescue.

There is only so much that anybody can squeeze out of
a relatively small group of people.

There is far more to this than simple numbers of
helicopters and seats, and putting an inadequate
helicopter into that environment could well end up
costing more than it saves.

****************************************


----------



## stfx_monty (27 Sep 2007)

Loachman,

Is there a specific study that points to the difficulties with operating griffons in Afghanistan? I searched this section for Griffon/Afghanistan, but did come up with anything besides references.


----------



## Strike (27 Sep 2007)

The Griffon has a slew of tables that give operating info at various altitudes, temps, weights, etc.  It's from there that he's getting his info.


----------



## Loachman (27 Sep 2007)

stfx_monty said:
			
		

> Loachman,
> 
> Is there a specific study that points to the difficulties with operating griffons in Afghanistan? I searched this section for Griffon/Afghanistan, but did come up with anything besides references.



That which is known as the "MB" or "AOIs" - Aircraft Operating Instructions - which includes numerous performance charts.

And a little experience flying tactical helicopters, and knowledge of the state of our community.

Factors that I cannot take into consideration include range and endurance requirements and the risks that commanders, both ground and aviation, plus politicians, would be willing to accept.

A couple of us went through some of the charts a week or two ago, out of curiosity. I cannot remember the numbers, but there was a big gap between torque required to hover and what one would have with one engine inoperative for example. I'll redo those when I get the chance.

A major concern should be vulnerability during take-off and landing on the unfriendly end of the trip when the machine is going to be sluggish, and that a platoon could be isolated for an extended period of time while the machines refuel.

Yes, route recces and surveillance are feasible, and would require fewer machines. I do not believe that we could sustain that operation, especially with our TUAV commitment, given the state of 1 Wing. The Sinai and FRY missions took a huge toll on us.

Many of us would like to be there, and we'd rather fly than operate a big model aeroplane. Most of us would fly Griffon over there, in whatever roles possible, despite its shortcomings. I was willing to fight World War Three from the front right seat of a Kiowa, too, despite its shortcomings (and there were several).

There are possible benefits, but they're offset by risks.

That's somebody else's job to decide which is greater, and so far there's been no indication that anybody's seriously leaning towards deploying Griffon, in its current configuration, to Afghanistan.

I have no quibble with that.

Nor would I have any quibble with deploying us, if we were given the means to do a decent job.


----------



## stfx_monty (27 Sep 2007)

Thank you loachman and strike.

If you could PM those charts to me at some point, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## bilton090 (27 Sep 2007)

I stand corrected, TKS Geo
   But still Loachman- you have a crew of 3, + 2 door gunners, + if you are lucky 4 to 5 guys, ( but I don't think 5 ), with there kit, Frag vest,TV,full combat load of ammo,weapons,rats,at lest a small pack or full ruck & don't forget 18 to 20 Lt's of water. And if it's an Eng. add about 50 Pd's. or  more for explosives. The snipers were going out with over 100 Pd. rucks.
   Now you have a chopper dropping off 4 maybe 5 pers.

  O ya the temps. were mid to high 60's cel.


----------



## Loachman (27 Sep 2007)

stfx_monty said:
			
		

> Thank you loachman and strike.
> 
> If you could PM those charts to me at some point, I'd appreciate it.



I do not know if we have any in a suitable electronic form.

And, unless one has the background and knowledge to use them, they're not the simplest things to work with.

On the very few occasions when I use them myself, I always consult an FE anyway as they're far more used to working with them.


----------



## Loachman (27 Sep 2007)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> Now you have a chopper dropping off 4 maybe 5 pers.



That was one of my points.

And is that militarily useful?

The Brits are not even using EH101s in Afghanistan, and they're far more capable.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (28 Sep 2007)

There's also some question about the level of mechanization being used in today's COIN wars, and about whether, despite the advantages helos bring, their use ends up being counterproductive in the grand scheme of things.  From _"Rage Against the Machines: Mechanization and the Determinants of Victory in Counterinsurgency Warfare"_:



> As Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate, increased levels of mechanization are associated with diminished incumbent success in counterinsurgency warfare. Countries with no main battle tanks in their stockpiles managed to win or draw 61% of their wars, while countries with one thousand or more tanks won or tied only 35%, a statistically significant difference. The impact of helicopters is even more profound: countries that did not employ helicopters on the battlefield won or tied 70.3% of their wars, compared to only 43.5% of those that used heliborne assaults. The win/loss rates are even more dramatic: helicopter-capable states won only 9% of their wars, compared with nearly 38% for those without helicopters. These differences are also statistically significant.



I understand that correlation isn't causation, but the figures are enough to make you sit up and think about it.

The full study can be found here: http://www.princeton.edu/~jlyall/Rage2.3.pdf


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Sep 2007)

Bell 412 EP (very close to B412CF) Technical Specifications

Read page 20, then play with the WAT chart on page 21 -- this would work for landings or low-hover work.

Consider an "empty weight" of 8500 lbs (crew and basic airframe -- no gas)...

G2G


----------



## Loachman (28 Sep 2007)

I just got a very nice personal reply back from Senator Kenny.

His understanding of the situation is far better than his letter in the Citizen would imply.


----------

