# Attack Helicopters



## GENOMS Soilder (20 Jan 2005)

I was just wondering what everyones thoughts were on having attack helicopters (aka gunships) in the CF.
Helicopters like the AH-64D Apache Longbow, or the big beast Mil-24 Hind, or the Tigers.
Just wondering.
Also, how effective, if they really are, are the Griffons in combat?


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Jan 2005)

Apache? Sure, why not, got the arguments to convince Parliament we need it, and the cash to fund it?

Griffon threads:

Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter... - http://army.ca/forums/threads/43.0.html

Griffons Woes - http://army.ca/forums/threads/283.0.html


Search Page - http://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced


----------



## Wizard of OZ (21 Jan 2005)

You seem to be forgetting that we dropped the Armed portion from the CF so i think getting those would be a pipe dream.


but we all have dreams


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Jan 2005)

Hey the Aussies can buy Tigers, why can't we? The Dutch have Apache's for god's sake! As an infanteer you bet I would love gunship support, especialy when there is enemy armour out and about...

I think the best fit for our needs would be the new SuperCobra, AH-1Z... it's made by Bell so it could even be built in Canada!

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

Again mike i would love to see them but i just don't see how we could get them.  They would be a great assest especially if we lose our armour element


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2005)

Think of the "Recruiting" Value!

GW


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

I can see it now "JOIN THE CANADIAN FORCES AND SEE OUR ATTACK HELICOPTER" ;D


notice the lack of a plural.

ahh the liberal party making the CF a daily challenge.


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Jan 2005)

I know, I know, too "agressive"  :threat: Canadians don't kill people right?  :

Well I'm in CIMIC, maybe we could figure out a way to distribute blankets and teddy-bears from them... lol   ;D


----------



## Armageddon (25 Jan 2005)

While I can understand that the idea of an attack type chopper might be an asset I really can't see the arguement ever being strong enough to convince the government that it would be a viable purchase.   I just don't think that the Canadian public would support the push for anything with the word attack in it.   Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous but that is what it would take to get the government to ever even consider it, in my opinion.   *crosses fingers*   Maybe i am wrong though, like I said they would be an asset but..............


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Jan 2005)

That's why you call them "armed reconnaissance helicopters" and hope no one clues in... we all love ISTAR right??


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2005)

Well seeing as the current feeling in the Government and NDHQ that Tanks are dinosaurs and obsolete, it would make sense that the "New" Army that they want to restructure to should have Attack Helicopters in their new "Rapid" "Mobile" Force.   The Attack Helicopter is a great tool and very mobile.   Newer Choppers can fly in most weather conditions (not all) and technology makes them efficient "Killing Machines" or in our case very mobile and efficient "Surveillance Platforms".

GW


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

Yea that might fly what would we call the new destroyers? boats with tubes that might be guns?


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jan 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> That's why you call them "armed reconnaissance helicopters" and hope no one clues in... we all love ISTAR right??



Now you're talking.   "A rose but any other name..."      Interestingly, the Aussie's Eurocopter Tiger is not an "AH", but an "ARH".   "Armed" is much more acceptable socially than "attack."

There is a doctrinal requirement for aviation to be capable of providing precision firepower as part of networked fires...I understand that this requirement will be made shortly to the air force, although I don't know how it will be prioritized with other capabilities that the Army wants of its dedicated aviation.


----------



## Slim (28 Jan 2005)

Armageddon said:
			
		

> I just don't think that the Canadian public would support the push for anything with the word attack in it.



Maybe we could call it a defense helicopter...? Or offer to buy the version with rubber missles and guns...?

F#cking Liberals...they didn't get my vote!


----------



## Zoomie (28 Jan 2005)

Or we could just flaunt the helicopters excellent ability for providing aid to suffering children and how it could be used to transport equipment (and missiles).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jan 2005)

Or,....those long tubes?.........well for firing T-shirts into the crowd obviously.


----------



## Slim (28 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Or,....those long tubes?.........well for firing T-shirts into the crowd obviously.



Bin Laden T shirts...or, perhaps. Che Guevera...


----------



## MCpl Burtoo (28 Jan 2005)

We are short on pilots now, what AC are we going to get rid of to free-up pilots to fly these pipe dreams?


----------



## Inch (28 Jan 2005)

Forlorn Hope said:
			
		

> We are short on pilots now, what AC are we going to get rid of to free-up pilots to fly these pipe dreams?



We are short, but not nearly as bad as a few years ago. When I went through Basic Helicopter School a year ago, the TacHel Sqns were nearing full manning, I can't say for certain what their current status is but I do know there was some haggling with the Career Manager in order to get extra TacHel slots for guys on my course. We're still a little undermanned in the MH community but I don't think that will last long once the new helos are within arm's reach. As for retention of trained pilots, I know of more than a few guys that would stick around if we got AH's. I don't think retention would be a big concern nor would recruiting.


----------



## Slim (28 Jan 2005)

Forlorn Hope said:
			
		

> We are short on pilots now, what AC are we going to get rid of to free-up pilots to fly these pipe dreams?



The U.S. uses Warrant Officers as helo pilots and they are quite successfull at it from the few that I've met and worked with...

Start a program where (non-university) Guys are recruited, trained and given their wings. they would hold the rank of technical Warrant Officer...


----------



## Inch (28 Jan 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> The U.S. uses Warrant Officers as helo pilots and they are quite successfull at it from the few that I've met and worked with...
> 
> Start a program where (non-university) Guys are recruited, trained and given their wings. they would hold the rank of technical Warrant Officer...



Or you could just open up the OCTP or CCEP programs again. It would save a little on the logistics of creating a new rank, you wouldn't be limited by who can be crew commanders, Aircraft Capts, det or flight commanders since all of your pilots would be officers and you could just send the guys to get degrees later on if it's deemed a requirement (which at present it is).


----------



## Wizard of OZ (1 Feb 2005)

RUBBER MISSLES I LOVE IT.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2005)

Don't forget a water cannon...... ;D


----------



## Meridian (1 Feb 2005)

Just remember, Zoomie.. those missiles are made with loving and tender care down in the friendliest of friendly places, the USA.  It helps trade, creates jobs, and makes workers feel all fuzzy inside with pride.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Feb 2005)

I could not find anywhere on this site where the aussis have attack helo's 

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2005)

A bit of perspective about armed or attack helicopters. Even powerful machines like the AH-64 have proven vulnerable to small arms ground fire, and helicopters as a whole are rather fragile ("10,000 parts flying in close formation).

Historically, Close Air Support (CAS) was performed by fixed wing aircraft, which can fly faster, carry more payload, and perform manoeuvres which are impossible for helicopters. The A-10 is the modern incarnation, but in the past, the Douglas "Skyraider" was well liked by troops in Viet Nam because it had 4 X 20mm cannon in the wings, a large number of hardpoints for bombs and napalm cannisters, and being propeller driven, could slow down enough to remain on station for a long time, and allow the pilot to accurately engage ground targets.

While SPADs and A-10s are no longer in production, there may be planes with suitable characteristics available. Any zoomies have more up to date information?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Feb 2005)

Can always check this site.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/index.html

But it does not appear that anything other then modified F18's sucha s E/F  varriants for a little while.  Sinc ethe commanche progect was cancelled not much on the radar screen for the US.


----------



## Sheerin (3 Feb 2005)

Wizard - check out this site http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/asd/air87/main.cfm
it's the Aussies' new toy.
I think the first two arrived recently.  http://www.ausaero.com.au/news/News%20Items/Arrivalarh12.htm


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Feb 2005)

cool thanks.


----------



## Big Bad John (3 Feb 2005)

[/coloWe are short on pilots now, what AC are we going to get rid of to free-up pilots to fly these pipe dreams?


The U.S. uses Warrant Officers as helo pilots and they are quite successfull at it from the few that I've met and worked with...

Start a program where (non-university) Guys are recruited, trained and given their wings. they would hold the rank of technical Warrant Officer...r]

The Royal Marines and the Army in the UK still have Sgt-Pilots, especially for rotary wing A/C


----------



## Zoomie (3 Feb 2005)

A nice idea that certainly works in your examples...  

I personally don't think it will fly (no pun intended) in the CF.  Our system is so small and interoperability is key for all of our pilots...


----------



## karl28 (3 Feb 2005)

Does any know if the CF has thought of modifying the Griffin to be a gunship like the Twin Huey's in Vietnam ? They where armed pretty good not perfect but its better than nothing and we already have them plus also have the pilots for them . We could also call the Air Defense platforms so its a nicer name that way those  lovely liberals  wont get offended .  ;D


----------



## Big Foot (3 Feb 2005)

I must say I found the last post humorous. However, given the fact that our glorious government wants us all to be peacekeepers, I can't see them approving putting implements of death onto a chopper that, in their books, is only going to be used for peacekeeping missions. From my point of view, it would be a good idea as we are an army and armies hold one job above all others, that being fight wars. From what I have learned through talking with NCMs and UTPNCMs, you can't peacekeep if you don't know how to fight. The world is growing more and more dangerous yet the government seems to believe that peacekeeping forces can survive on a minimal military budget. If we cannot fight to defend ourselves, how can we fight to protect people in the nations where we are peacekeeping? Like it or not, J.L. Granetstein was right when he said that the days are coming when the government will tell our army to go fight a war and the are will say "Sorry, we don't do that anymore".


----------



## karl28 (3 Feb 2005)

*Well Big Foot thanks for answering my question * . But you think they would do something like that . They could have it like a package on for combat missions like Afghanistan than take the extra weapons off for peace keeping missions like Bosnia ? Or would that be to Difficult to maintain ?


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2005)

Various packages are possible for the Griffon, including door gun mounts, as well as "kits" to mount hardpoints for various guided and unguided missile systems. The basic problem is the Griffon has a rather small payload to begin with, so you would not be able to carry much ordinance.

Other problems are the Griffon is unarmoured, so the pilot would have to hang back a fair distance to keep from being shot down. This sort of negates any range advantage you might have with long range missiles.

Lastly, there are not a lot of Griffons to begin with. If you mount an "air defense" kit on a Griffon, that means the plane is no longer available to be an ERSTA platform, or a Medivac helicopter or whatever. The Brigade commander would have to make some very careful trade-offs before arming his helicopters.

Given the lack of fixed wing CAS machines and the unsuitability of Griffons, the Predator UAV has been used as a CAS platform with some success. While fairly small and limited, it is better than nothing at all...


----------



## Inch (4 Feb 2005)

Despite what you all want to believe, arming the Griffon was trialed. It consisted of a "plank" across the cabin with the Hellfires and mini guns mounted externally on the end of the plank. I don't recall the exact findings of the trial, but I think it was put on hold until an upgrade of the main gearbox and rotor mast is completed.


----------



## Zoomie (4 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Other problems are the Griffon is unarmoured, so the pilot would have to hang back a fair distance to keep from being shot down.



Griffons in theatre are armoured against small arms fire - it weighs alot and reduces the range, but it makes the pilot and FE feel more secure.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2005)

The Griffon can be as much...or as little as the CF wants it to be, ranging from some "power and performance" mods to a major upgrade to a UH-1Y-like configuration.

A tac hel pilot now flying Sea Kings and I were the two guys who set up the "weaponization" configuration trial noted by Inch, above.   

We begged, borrowed and in some cases....well anyway, we assembled a collection of various kits from our contacts throughout the US military-industrial complex and tacked it all onto one of the Griffons (CH146401) that was being used for initial CH146 pilot training down in Fort Worth, Tx.   The "plank" was made by the same company that makes the SOA-kit used by the 160th SOAR "Nightstalkers", for their AH/MH-6, MH60K and MH-47E/G aircraft.   Armament was: AGM-114K Hellfire, GDAS GAU-19(A) .50 3-barrelled gatling and a CFD low-recoile crew-served 30mm.   To be clear about this, the aircraft didn't fly that way because the airworthiness would have not been worth the effort at the time...the picture was "worth a 1000 words" to let naysayers know it was at least possible.

A Griffon as is could fly with that eqpt seen above and retain about 1 1/2 hours on station.   Add a "power and performance" mod to the engine/tranny (including FADEC fuel control for the engines) and we could lift a bit more for extended operating periods.   If you go all the way up to a "Y" rebuild,  _[see Bell site here for more Y info]_    you could do a fiar bit more....

I would like to make a point about many of the folks saying the Griffon is unarmoured and thus would have to hang back, etc... (this is NOT just regarding a_majoor's comment above, by any means)   We would fly the aircraft where it's required to operate and try to minimize risk to crew with the appropriate measures, personal body armour, aircraft armour, etc... but you can not protect yourself from everything, there will always be risk out there and operating any "weapon system" comes with risks.   That does not mean you "don't operate there"...     Our LAV III's aren't equipped with a bird cage and don't have DAS, so an RPG could take them out in an instant...but you guys still operate them in theatre, right?   Same goes for the Griffon...if it is physically able to fly in the AOR, then it's operation would come with associated risks that must be assessed to determine when and where operations would be undertaken.

On the armed helicopter side of things, the Army is finalizing its statement of required dedicated aviation support to the Air Force through its Capability Development Record process.   Currently it is being reviewed by Gen Caron before he provides Gen Pennie with the consolidated and finalized statement of aviation capability the Army requires.   I can tell you that it does include the requirement for an armed capability, to contribute to networked fires through the provision of precision direct and indirect fires.   Several GOs were very supportive of an ARH capability for tactical aviation and that is what the Army's statement to the Air Force will most likely contain.   More to follow as the papaerwork makes its way from one floor of 101 to another...

Cheers


----------



## Wizard of OZ (4 Feb 2005)

If we arm them does that mean we won't get to paint them pink?   ;D

just for giggles.

In all honesty though it would be nice to see some close air support for the guys on the ground.

As a Seaking pilot what are your thoughts on the new chopper coming in?


----------



## Zoomie (4 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> As a Seaking pilot what are your thoughts on the new chopper coming in?



LOL - Duey is a Griffon driver - he stated that he and another Griffon pilot (who now flies the Sea-King) first developed the idea of an armed Griffon.

He is presently attending "Fox-hole U" and would have the most up-to-date information regarding tactical aviation and the future Army plans.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2005)

Z, actually I only have 2 hrs on the Griffon, I was only operational on the 147 and 135, there rest was flying an oak bomber and doing some PG work, then into my current staff wog position in Army combat development/doctrine.   I was in 10 TAG HQ when the Griffy first came in and served as the last official SO Impl(ementation) for the 146 after all the other guys scurried away from St-Hubert, and I was left to carry a whole load of files along Autoroute 20 and the 401 to Kingston.   Well, that an a whole lot of staffing systems requirements, acquisitions and T&E stuff, thereafter. 

"Tongue in cheek", I told myself I'd get only out of the office when there was a decent chopper in the inventory.   ;D   (p.s. That can also mean a Griffon with some teeth!)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2005)

Inch, I can hardly disagree with you about aircraft, but your point about the LAV actually reinforces mine.

LAVs do not have the armour or firepower to mix it up in direct assaults, and several threads across the forum are devoted to debating what we will be able to do, and how it will be done. Your pilots can fly right up to the FEBA, but will be in range of far more weapons than if they are orbiting about 3-4km to the rear. The downside is the Hellfire armed Griffon will only be able to fire at targets 4-5km ahead of the FEBA, hardly an improvement over a LAV-TOW.

Dismounted infantry will have similar limitations, the firepower and extra kit available on the LAV will have to be left behind so everyone inside is not incinerated by an RPG round. 

We can look forward to improved versions of the Griffon, and perhaps alternatives like armed UAVs will break the deadlock on the use of close air support.


----------



## Inch (4 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Inch, I can hardly disagree with you about aircraft, but your point about the LAV actually reinforces mine.
> 
> LAVs do not have the armour or firepower to mix it up in direct assaults, and several threads across the forum are devoted to debating what we will be able to do, and how it will be done. Your pilots can fly right up to the FEBA, but will be in range of far more weapons than if they are orbiting about 3-4km to the rear. The downside is the Hellfire armed Griffon will only be able to fire at targets 4-5km ahead of the FEBA, hardly an improvement over a LAV-TOW.



You meant Duey right? I didn't mention LAVs in any of my posts.

I disagree about the need for a helo to stay back a distance, that's why us crafty pilots invented nap-of-the-earth flying. You can't kill what you can't see (even on radar). The trees block radars quite effectively as do valleys and other topography. You sneak in, pop up, ruin some poor tanker's day, pop down and sneak away amongst the terrain. The Apaches and Cobras have been doing it for years, they're not as armoured as you may think, they rely on the maneuverability and speed of the machine to accomplish their goals, not armour in a face to face duel.


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Feb 2005)

Late comer to this thread, but anyone here read G2mil?  here's an article of interest.

http://www.g2mil.com/O-6B.htm


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2005)

a_majoor, inch is right, and his comments speak directly to what I mentioned before in this post about folks thinking that somehow choppers suddenly stop flying when en wpns may be in play.   FEBA?   Are we actually still using that term?   I work in Army Doctrine and I haven't heard that word used in a very long time, particularly with assymetric threats and non-contiguous battle space.

I don't think LAVTUA even comes close to a Hellfire in engagnement range...unclas numbers of 3250-3750m for TOW 2-improved and 8km+ for Hellfire means a Griffy could engage a ways back (if it chose to be that far back) and still pound things several ground force tactical bounds forward.   (LAV)TUA is still the middle cat in the DFS team.   MGS being the shorty of the group and MMEV being the 8km+ player.   Just point me in the direction of the right thread to discuss this point, it's an intersting one, for sure.

Interestingly, I spoke with a US SBCT Batallion Commander months ago about the Stryker, and of us getting our MGS.   He said he'd trade in all his Strykers and LAV 1's in a heartbeat and take our LAV 3's.   He said the only reason the US put an LP 105 on a LAV chassis was because their LAV is turret-less and only sports a .50 cal.   He said he'd kill to have our LAV 3 with 25mm Bushmaster!      This was from a US Army Cav officer who's fought the Stryker in OIF!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2005)

Excellent stuff...I'm seeing alot of good commentary and perspective from across the spectrum here .

Now DPT, I have a question about the Tac-Hel community - has anything regarding doctrine or employment of Tac Hel in ground support come out of the US Army Aviation getting shot to hell in An Najaf in OIF.  Didn't about 30 Apaches get put out of commission to some extent?  If the Iraqis were capable of doing this, what lessons are we taking away for our team?

(I think this was the Scenario that A Majoor was looking to when envisioning a different approach to Tac Helo support.)



			
				DPT said:
			
		

> Interestingly, I spoke with a US SBCT Batallion Commander months ago about the Stryker, and of us getting our MGS.  He said he'd trade in all his Strykers and LAV 1's in a heartbeat and take our LAV 3's.  He said the only reason the US put an LP 105 on a LAV chassis was because their LAV is turret-less and only sports a .50 cal.  He said he'd kill to have our LAV 3 with 25mm Bushmaster!    This was from a US Army Cav officer who's fought the Stryker in OIF!



Wow, and to think we've trashed the turret in some threads on here.  Interesting to note that the grass always seems greener on the other-side of the fence.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

Infanteer, the engagements resulting in the loss and damage of AH-64s in OIF were one of the things I am drawing from, but there is an article in one of the back issues of the ADTB (which I can't find right now, damnit) on the use of the Griffon as an armed attack helicopter, and some of the responses to that article said the same things I am bringing up.

If we want to get an attack helicopter or CAS ability in the CF, we should at least ensure we are using the right equipment (AH-64, "Tiger", "Mongoose", Cobra, Rooivik, "Havoc", plus more I have forgotten for the moment; you don't get this much choice shopping for pickup trucks!), of finding an outside the box solution such as armed UAVs. Griffon pilots may well be brave and bold enough to attempt armed support, but I would rather see them as brave and bold attack helo drivers if they must do this.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Feb 2005)

Infanteer, a_majoor, good points! (Infanteer, I was just as surpised by the SBCT Bn Comd as you about the Stryker comments...definitely seems the grass may not be greener on the other side!)

Firstly, yes, much of the work we're doing ranging from doctrine development, down to TTPs (and even BTS I've been working on for a unit working up to SHIRBRIG high readiness) takes into account other nations' LL.  Specifically regarding US Army aviation, I have been working very closely for the last year and a half with the US Army Aviation Center in Ft. Rucker, AL, to take down their lessons from OEF, OIF and other ops (including aviation from those whom some of you who have been down to Bragg or were in Khandahar in 2002 may have had the opportunity to fly with.)  I have shared our aviation transformation material with the US Army's senior aviation transformation guru (a VERY savvy, CW5 ret'd aviator) and likewise, he with me, so the link is one person TIGHT.  Tugged along by my US Army counterpart, I had the opportunity to chat very briefly with US Gen Cody (VCSA, but more importantly an aviator) down in Washington this summer at an ABCA meeting.  I learned alot about US Army views of ops in about three minutes and took what he had to say to heart, you don't get that kind of advice every day.

A-majoor, regarding the OIF incidents, yes, we're definitely learning from the unfortunate experiences of the US (and the Brits), -64's, the -47 near Khanduz, etc....  I'll talk about doctrinal employment of AH vs. ARH below, but interestingly, one of the biggest take aways about loss of aircraft, crew and pax came from not the tactical employment of aviation but other factors related to the terrain of the theatre.  Interestingly, there were numerous cases where of all things, the Air Traffic Control folks had won the war over having aviators return home from missions in nice orderly patterns that make ATC's job easier.  Imagine the joy of the insurgents when they saw that all returning aircraft changed from tactical use of terrin and features into lined up blips all coming along the same route towards the airfiled while still way outside the perimeter fence!  Sadly, it's only a matter of time before and RPG connects with the boys.  US Army is re-writing TTPs on a continual basis, and ATC no longer directs how aircrew will return to base, thus avoiding the potential establishment of undesireable routine.

Now, that is also not to say the an armed Griffon, or any armed hel would be employed (per current doctrine) as an AH.  Just so folks don't think we're trying to get to big for our britches, we clearly understand that AH per se are part of a large, integrated force package, whose purpose is very specific, primarily anti-armour or all-arms call-for-fire support (I would call it aviation CAS, but the '18 boys get kind of snarky when any other than them uses the term CAS to describe what they do...   A Canadian armed hel (ARH vice AH)would most likely be used primarily as part of the combined recce team (mounted) with the connotation of "fight to see" beyond the engagement range of en wpn systems, or in a supporting fires to the DFS engaged in decisive actions.  In both cases, the "ARH" would function as a team member within a larger formation, not being the spear point of ops as the AH often finds itself in.

Funny about some call CAS (or what we all know to be more accurately avn support to an all arms call for fire)!  I've spoken recently with Marines who describe what their "grey angels, dealing death from above, and dropping 30mm brass on top of their heads (AH-1W's)" as CAS.  The boys aren't fussed over the intracacies of words...in their eyes, ugly grey helo's chucking Hellfire and 30mm forward over top while they advance over the ground is pretty effective "CAS" in their eye's!  When I talk of USAF 'CAS', they usually just call that "air force stuff'..."it's not close at all, not like my fellow soldiers flying Cobras over my head...that's CLOSE."

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

Here's an interesting one for consideration.

They have taken the standard MD 500 series LOH (which I believe is used as an armed platform by the US Special Ops Community) and taken the pilot out of it and flown it as a UAV.

Implications for Attack Helo support, pilot needs, Cavalry doctrine, Long Range Patrol support?





> the aircraft could be configured to carry a variety of payloads.
> 
> The weapons-related testing is scheduled to be completed over the next several months. Boeing engineers expect this testing to also demonstrate the simple integration of existing qualified systems for Little Bird aircraft onto the UAV, which would also include auxiliary fuel tanks and sensors.
> 
> The Unmanned Little Bird is uniquely suited for precision re-supply; communications relay using large, heavy packages; airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; downed pilot recovery, and weapons delivery.




http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Wizard of OZ (18 Feb 2005)

With the proposal of a heavy lift chopper might this free up some of the Grifs to get armed up?

What do you think the heavy lift will be Pave Low or a varriant of that sort?


----------



## big bad john (18 Feb 2005)

I never could understand why Canada sold its' Chinooks.  The Dutch are still using them in Iraq.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> I never could understand why Canada sold its' Chinooks. The Dutch are still using them in Iraq.



It happened at a time when there were multiple Chinooks falling out of the skys in the US Forces.

I don't think the Griffons could be armed to any great extent without any major modifications.  Their flight range would also be greatly decreased.

GW


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> I never could understand why Canada sold its' Chinooks.   The Dutch are still using them in Iraq.



Although the last official CH147 Chinook mission was August, 1991 (I was the FO on the msn, then BGen Cuppens was Comd 10 TAG and also Comd FMC's "COS Air", he and Foster, Comd FMC, were both in attendance in 11 Hgr, Uplands) the decision was essentially made in late-89/early-90 while FMC was still responsible for funding aviation (this was true until 1992, when AIRCOM officially took over funding responsibility for aviation).  Our CH147 was essentially a CH-47C+, the "+" being an automated flight control system (AFCS) that was what guys today would call a basic, manually-coupled flight director; upgraded Lycoming T55-LS11 engines; and an upgraded 28,000lb hook (vice a standard C's 20,000lb hook).  The problem was, it still retained the dynamic components of the C which were no longer in production -- transmissions, metal main blades, etc...  The CH-47 production line was only producing D-models.  The only figure I've heard from guys who were in DLA (directorate of land aviation) at the time was $400M to upgrade all 7 of our machines.  I don't know if this was US$ or Cdn$.  

To be honest, I can see why some folks though they needed to cut losses and run, so to speak.  We were only in Cyprus and the Sianai and the Army wasn't really using the 47 that much.  As much as some of my friends in green will say it was never there, I can tell you that servicability wasn't as bad as many say (considering the beast was 14-15 years old with NO major maintenance updates) and that the Chinook was actually being used more as a CF asset, a rotary-wing Herc if you will.  Aside from some para and boat work we did with the SSF in early 1991, most every other task was a "national"-type task.  I think the beast got lost in the shuffle and didn't have a champion to look after it.

Hopefully, as times and current ops have changed, so to I hope has the willingness to realize the 'Hook still has a place in CF operations...now more than ever...and that those in appropriate position fully support efforts to acquire a med/hvy lift cap for the CF.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

As well, like the Herc, the CH-47 has national disaster relief capabilities that could be "talked-up" to support its acquisition.


----------



## Jungle (18 Feb 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> the Army wasn't really using the 47 that much.


Yeah, well... if it worked anything like the C-130s, then it's no surprise. I spent some time as Para Ops NCO in 3R22eR and we are always the last priority. We keep asking for the freaking frames, but we are always at the bottom of the priorities list. Everybody and his dog can get support before us. Operations, aircrew trg, national taskings... name it, it comes before us.
Luckily, I made some good contacts at 8 Wing Ops, and we were able to combine their aircrew trg with our needs. Anyway, it was likely the same type scenario with the Chinooks...
Finally, I was on the last continuation para with CH-147s... it was a sad day, but they were nice jumps


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2005)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Yeah, well... if it worked anything like the C-130s, then it's no surprise. I spent some time as Para Ops NCO in 3R22eR and we are always the last priority. We keep asking for the freaking frames, but we are always at the bottom of the priorities list. Everybody and his dog can get support before us. Operations, aircrew trg, national taskings... name it, it comes before us.
> Luckily, I made some good contacts at 8 Wing Ops, and we were able to combine their aircrew trg with our needs. Anyway, it was likely the same type scenario with the Chinooks...
> Finally, I was on the last continuation para with CH-147s... it was a sad day, but they were nice jumps



Jungle, I'm not sure where the breakdown in who gets tasked happened.  Something tells me that there was also some hiccuping at the Areas (given how smooth an operation the four areas can make things, in the eyes of the Brigades and Units.)  When we weren't getting calls to the squadron, we (450 Sqn) would actually phone up to Pet and ask if anyone wanted to go flying...usually SSF was the only group to make things happen when we were able to go...boats and para.

I have pics of that last continuation training, Jungle, I was a cojo on that trip.  When we would chat with the boys, most of them would tell us the -47 was their favourite jump.  I was also flying on the CAR's family day in '91.  The CAR's Honourary jumped with the boys...man, he was pretty frail looking, but there was a twinkle in his eye like no other jumper on board had.  He was up near the cockpit with the CO -- I looked back at the 3-minute call and saw him looking forward into the cockpit with a grin bigger than Jim Carey's!  I flicked my visor up, gave him a nod, then a salute...he flashed me one back, a quick thumbs up, then still grinning turned back to the rear to hook up.  I'd love to have only half the old gent's gumption when I get to be 80 years old!  

That all said, there's no doubt who'd be getting supported if we got 47's again...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Feb 2005)

Here is my idea of how the CF attack chopper works

The Griffon already a C6 mount for it.

Next we put the one troop on their with a box of hand grenades and a sling shot.

I don't know how long the sling shot would take to past the procurement stage (Public works or what ever their called)

Voila, you now have a....
Attack chopper Ala Canadian


----------



## Wizard of OZ (21 Feb 2005)

As long as 60% of the compents were made in Quebec it would pass no problem.


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## GENOMS Soilder (21 Feb 2005)

If we do get attack helicopters.........IF..........
Would the contractor be from here in North America, or could they come from the east?
Just think, a huge Mi-35 Hind D with a red maple leaf on it.....


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2005)

Here are two to Photoshop, then: 

Kamov KA-50 (Hokum), and

Mil 28 (Havoc)


----------



## noreaga808 (27 Feb 2005)

Why not? Aren't the Russians selling alot of their equipment off for real cheap. Canada can even pick up a bunch of tanks too! It makes sense to me. Just buy a label maker and put the english stickers over the russian labels, that'll make for a cheap conversion. ;D I'm guessing politics would get in the way of this. Was it even considered?


----------



## Zoomie (27 Feb 2005)

noreaga808 said:
			
		

> Why not? Aren't the Russians selling alot of their equipment off for real cheap.


Probably good reason for that...



> Canada can even pick up a bunch of tanks too!



We just got out of the tank business...



> Just buy a label maker and put the english stickers over the russian labels, that'll make for a cheap conversion.


No comment



> Was it even considered?



Probably not - we tend not to buy equipment from former enemies.


----------



## noreaga808 (27 Feb 2005)

Good points Zoomie. I just had to put it out there, it would of been interesting to see.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Feb 2005)

We just got out of the tank business...

Very sad


----------



## noreaga808 (27 Feb 2005)

It is sad, when I finalized my application paperwork with a recruiter she kept on stressing that my choice for Armoured was "Recce" until I nodded my head in agreement even though I didn't have a preference. At that point it nailed the coffin for me for tanks. Who knows, it may have a comeback. Hopefully we don't have to lose crews to teach a lesson to the CF's. 

That "portable" weapons platform show in a post by Inch earlier definitely looked like a good concept. That way the Griffon can be converted easily back to troop transport. It would also make for a cheaper and versatile alternative to buying attack specific helos. It'll also have more of a PC look then a true attack helo which would be a good selling feature to those politicians.

Does anybody know the reason why they closed OCTP or CCEP entry programs?


----------



## noreaga808 (27 Feb 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Probably not - we tend not to buy equipment from former enemies.



Hey Zoomie I just realized, don't the CF's do business with Germany?

As for your "no comment". Come on, that was gold!... Alright, I guess I'm not as funny in writing as I am in person. :crybaby: 

You Flyboys crack me up, cheers!


----------



## Inch (27 Feb 2005)

noreaga808 said:
			
		

> Does anybody know the reason why they closed OCTP or CCEP entry programs?



The CF wants a degreed Officer corps, OCTP and CCEP don't generate degreed Officers. Those programs are only opened when there's a recruiting shortfall for DEOs and ROTPs.



			
				noreaga808 said:
			
		

> Hey Zoomie I just realized, don't the CF's do business with Germany?



We also do business with the Americans, you should remember from history class that we had a war with them too.


----------



## Slim (27 Feb 2005)

Hey Inch

Would you like to fly the SeaCobra? I'll be chatting with the Pm today and recommend (over lunch of course) that he spring for a few...

Seriously though...

During RV 89 I remeber seeing a bunch of Cobras flying around with Canadian markings on them...I believe it was for excercise purposes though.

Slim  

P.S. Every time I see that drunken cat of yours I laugh something fierce! ;D


----------



## Inch (27 Feb 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Hey Inch
> 
> Would you like to fly the SeaCobra? I'll be chatting with the Pm today and recommend (over lunch of course) that he spring for a few...



Slim, I'm surprised the PM would have lunch with you since you're the leading candidate for his job (well, in my books anyway).



> P.S. Every time I see that drunken cat of yours I laugh something fierce! ;D



Knowing that, I'll just have to leave it as is, for you buddy.  ;D


----------



## Slim (27 Feb 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> Slim, I'm surprised the PM would have lunch with you since you're the leading candidate for his job (well, in my books anyway).



The country would be a rather one-sided affair with me driving the boat. The baby-boomers would not be happy, and the...Well you get the idea. :-*

We would have a nice military though.



> Knowing that, I'll just have to leave it as is, for you buddy.   ;D


I have to find something equally as drastic! ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2005)

Hey Slim, next time you're dining with the PM you might want to bring this one up.

How about a Griffin with the ERSTA surveillance kit flying in loose formation with a couple of UAV helos armed with 70mm rockets. There are now Guidance Kits for the rockets that turn them into precision weapons (APKWS).  Could that be a politically inoffensive and low cost (both in dollars and potentially in lives) of offsetting the lack of tanks in a lightweight expeditionary force?
  


> SAIC Demonstrates Live-Fire from Vigilante VTOL UAV
> 
> 
> (Source: SAIC International; issued March 2, 2005)
> ...


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34



> The Army's Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) is intended to fill the gap between the current unguided 2.75" Hydra-70 Rocket System and the HELLFIRE anti-tank missile. It is anticipated that APKWS will be comprised of a laser sensor and guidance package coupled with the Hydra-70 rocket. It is designed to use the current MK66 rocket motor, M151 10 pound high explosive fragmentation warhead, M423 point detonating fuse, and the M260 or M261 rocket launcher. The MK66 rocket motor and associated component parts (warhead, fuze, etc.) are those that are currently in the inventory, however, the APKWS is designed to be compatible with any 2.75 inch rocket system in the inventory at time of acquisition. The rocket warhead and fuze are integrated with a laser sensor and a highly accurate guidance assembly resulting in a precision guided weapon. The APKWS is programmed with the aircraft's compatible laser code and loaded into the aircraft rocket launcher(s). The APKWS is designed and intended to enhance the existing rocket system and to complement the Hellfire missile system; providing a significantly lower cost per kill against soft to lightly armored point targets. Precision guidance and warhead size of the APKWS will significantly reduce collateral damage. These features will make APKWS the weapon of choice during operations in urban terrain or for aerial fire support missions in close proximity to friendly forces. The APKWS will be employed from attack, armed reconnaissance, or other designated helicopters.



http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/hydra-70.htm


----------



## Canadian Sig (3 Mar 2005)

It seems to me that getting something like an attack capable chopper would be best handled by getting a dual role machine. (The public loves to think that we are being smart with "their" money.). If that were the case we could look at something that doubles for troop transport and can mount mini-guns/rockets. Either way I would love to know that I have some air support on hand other than the yanks (who scare me more than the enemy). :bullet: :bullet: :bullet:


----------



## ArmyRick (3 Mar 2005)

How about an attack version of the black hawk? I seen a photo of one with 8 x hellfires on it


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2005)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> It seems to me that getting something like an attack capable chopper would be best handled by getting a dual role machine. (The public loves to think that we are being smart with "their" money.).



Too bad the MI-24 Hind E was developed by the other team...Mind you I don't know the reliability and maint. record for the aircraft...But it can carry lots of crunchies and packs a wack of firepower.

Slim


----------



## Wizard of OZ (4 Mar 2005)

If we get the heavy lift from the other side then why not the Hind it is a dual role chopper.  I think the pavelow is outta reach now that it is a meduim lift chopper.


----------



## Freddy Chef (5 Mar 2005)

A helicopter with attack and lift capabilities?

The ACH-47?

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/gunsagogo.html

Since the ACH-47 only saw service in Vietnam, what were the drawbacks that discontinued it's program?


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Mar 2005)

Freddy Chef, UH-1B Huey gunships and AH-1 Cobras were relatively new into the theatre anyway, and the US Army was trying to put as much airborne firepower into theatre as possible....thus, "if it flew, it was armed."  Guns-a-go-go's disappeared even before Vietnam was over, as the attack helicopters had really come into their own by that point.  Although that being said, todays MH-47E/G's have a pretty fierce amount of 7.62 and 5.56 minigun bristling off them!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## air533 (19 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Mar 2005)

Just got 1760 hits on google...........


----------



## air533 (19 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Mar 2005)

air533 said:
			
		

> I'll be more specific, I meant in relation to Canada's military.
> I guess despite 1760 hits, it's not that important a question:
> It's not like Canada will ever have attack helicoptors anyway. Kinda calls into question the importance of this whole thread.
> It's been fun guys!



 ???


----------



## air533 (20 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Slim (20 Mar 2005)

air533 said:
			
		

> Look, I'm not trying to be contentious here.   I know about search engines.
> The topic of the thread is attack helicopters.
> So why when I mention the KA-52 am I told to take the hint and go check a search engine?



Hi Air533

Look, I don't think that ayone is trying to be mean or "elitist" or anything like that...We get an awful lot of people who come here and arbitrarliy throw out questions during the course of a thread without really wanting to know the answer...Or for other, less-savoury reasons (trolling, whatever) The "staff" here don't have the time to go and look up all of the answers to every question asked. They expect you to do that, gain the knowledge you want to gain, and THEN come back and enter into a discussion about the particular piece of kit you're interested in. (in your case the KA-52 Soviet attack helo)

Once you do that you will find plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of pilots here who will be impressed as heck that you went out, did your research, and are now after their opinion of said piece of kit. 

No one is trying to be rude...We just don't have the time to look up the answer to every little question that gets asked.      



> C'mon guys... some of you guys are in the military and I'm not, I just a civilian who thinks military issues are important and I'm looking for more info than I could get from Google.
> (Specifically how an aircraft like the KA-52 might or might not fit into Canada's Forces operationally.)
> If the military wants more support from the 32 million civilians in Canada military types gotta help us out a bit at least. :-\



You have no idea how much we value open-minded peoploe coming to the forum and wanting to know more about the CF and what it can and can't do for Canada...I guess all I can say is that to get a little you have to give a little (again going back to research) Do some background work on what you want to know and then come and start a topic on what you're working on...As long as it isn't silly or wasting staff's time we will be happy to help you out.

If you have any problem PM me and I will try to "guide" you here at the site as best I can.

Cheers

Slim
ARMY.CA STAFF


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Too bad the MI-24 Hind E was developed by the other team...Mind you I don't know the reliability and maint. record for the aircraft...But it can carry lots of crunchies and packs a wack of firepower.
> 
> Slim



The Hind is actually a "compound aircraft", which relys on the stub wings to generate much of the lift in forward flight. The attack profile is closer to a WWII fighter-bomber making a high speed pass while spewing rockets and cannon fire, and maybe dropping a bomb in passing as well. This is much different from the ideal of western helicopter drivers doing "pop ups" from rotor defilade and sniping hard targets with TOW or HELLFIRE missiles.

Like most rotary wing machines, the Hind is 10,000 parts flying in close formation, and the Muhajadeen were able to deal with them in the 1980s by firing 12.5 and 14.4mm HMGs, as well as captured SAM-7 "Strela" Manpads; not to mention the "Stinger" SAM. Tracking one of these speeding by at 200+ mph is difficult. but not impossible.

Reliability is on the Soviet model, build lots and don't worry too much about it.

Much of this info was cribbed from an old "Air and Space" magazine article.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Mar 2005)

I'm too lazy tonight to look at 6 pages of posts on attack helicopters, but with this much attention to them - did I miss something? Are we now looking into purchasing a few?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2005)

Whiskey...nah just wistful thinking from a few of the others.


----------



## ArmyAviator (21 Mar 2005)

> I'm too lazy tonight to look at 6 pages of posts on attack helicopters, but with this much attention to them - did I miss something? Are we now looking into purchasing a few?



Whiskey601.  I think there has been thoughts and Ideas on this eversince attack helicopters existed.  The Air Force (The hard Air Force and not half breeds like myself who wear blue but have spent more time with the Army) was often suspect of them and had other priorities.  It is becoming self-evident that the greatest force multiplier that an Army can have is Attack/Armed Recce helicopters.  To be relevent on any battlefield, high to low intensity, your have to have them.  But, and we all know the reasons, we can't afford them right now.  There are things to fix and priorities for new equipment.

The AH or ARH is not all seeing and all dancing and to be truly effective it has to be a part of the combined arms team.  But without this capability you are at a severe disadvantage already.  Fighter aircraft do not replace this capability either.  I did a paper for CFSS on this issue and found that attack helos had  five to six times the surviveability rate to fighters, approx three time better surviveability to A-10s, when providing direct support to land forces.  Now that was back in '92 and I would have to guess that the fighter survivability has improved with precision guided munitions.   (Wish I had kept the paper as it had some good references.)

Do we have to go that direction in the future? To stay relevent, you bet.  Can we go there now?  Not on your life.  One thing at a time.  When I become supreme commander and Prime Minister for life maybe I can speed up the process  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Mar 2005)

> When I become supreme commander and Prime Minister for life maybe I can speed up the process



Going after my job eh? Meanie!!


----------



## Freddy Chef (27 Mar 2005)

Thanks for the info on the ACH-47, Duey.

I remember reading about the AC-130 serving in Vietnam, and still serving today. Thought the concept of an attack transport aircraft did work, Chinook inclusive.

Though not practical (somewhat eliminating the _transport_ desgination), I found that the idea of an armed transport aircraft, with maximum ammunition load (ie: ACH-47 with standing room for the gunners and nothing but ammo in the back), somewhat......intimidating.


----------



## Infantree (6 Jul 2006)

The Black Hawk is the ultimate helo. It can be armed with a variety of weapons, it can carry 11 fully equpped soldiers and its a medium lift helo. It is made just south of us aswell.There are alot of different kinds of black hawk but im talking about the S-70A Heres a link to see it. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2006)

Infantree said:
			
		

> The Black Hawk is the ultimate helo. It can be armed with a variety of weapons, it can carry 11 fully equpped soldiers and its a medium lift helo. It is made just south of us aswell.There are alot of different kinds of black hawk but im talking about the S-70A Heres a link to see it. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/



 :

here we go again.........


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jul 2006)

Infantree said:
			
		

> The Black Hawk is the ultimate helo. It can be armed with a variety of weapons, it can carry 11 fully equpped soldiers and its a medium lift helo. It is made just south of us aswell.There are alot of different kinds of black hawk but im talking about the S-70A Heres a link to see it. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/



Many helicopters can be fitted with weapons and many can carry large numbers of troops.  Many can carry more than the Black Hawk.  The problem is that many cannot be fitted with all kinds of weapons and carry troops at the same time.  Most times you don't want one helicopter doing both at the same time either.  

Anyway, let's sort out something else.  If you are getting all of this info out of Jane's, or some documentary, or even worse - some game.......DON"T POST HERE!  You are out of your League....way outside of your Lanes.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Jul 2006)

The best attack helos are the ones designed to do it. Yes there are varaints of the black hawk armed with hellfire and other goodies, but an apchae is still the better choice for that role.


----------



## Trinity (6 Jul 2006)

Infantree said:
			
		

> The Black Hawk is the ultimate helo. It can be armed with a variety of weapons, it can carry 11 fully equpped soldiers and its a medium lift helo. It is made just south of us aswell.There are alot of different kinds of black hawk but im talking about the S-70A Heres a link to see it. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/



Hey.. Don't knock the kid.  He's absolutely correct.

Just because his spelling is off, his grammar is poor and he has no personal experience 
what so ever in any of the threads he's posting in, doesn't make him wrong....  :-[


Kid..  I hope you note the sarcasm.  A friendly note, stay in your lane.  
I have a feeling the next warning will be from a mod and it won't be friendly.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Jul 2006)

Kid.... Has it occurred to you that your telling people who actually know about military aircraft, which is the best?

I mean sure they only have Years of experience, and you have what couple of years reading books and playing video games. But hey I mean you must know something we don't.... other then of course how to spell Infantry, but just minor right cause I mean my trade needs to be misspelled by a 14 year old know it all, and I mean I wouldn't get upset about that would I?

Please STOP posting!


----------



## Slim (13 Jul 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Kid.... Has it occurred to you that your telling people who actually know about military aircraft, which is the best?
> 
> I mean sure they only have Years of experience, and you have what couple of years reading books and playing video games. But hey I mean you must know something we don't.... other then of course how to spell Infantry, but just minor right cause I mean my trade needs to be misspelled by a 14 year old know it all, and I mean I wouldn't get upset about that would I?
> 
> Please STOP posting!



I laughed very very hard when I read the above! I guess we still know how to get the msg across and have a good giggle at the 14 year old SOCOM general (of COURSE the BlackHawk is the ULTIMATE aircraft) in the process... :rofl:  ( Mike finally added the right little rolly-polly to represent this breed of military fighting man...er...boy)


----------

