# If it is written, then it's true. Toronto Star says new attack helicopters.



## mover1

LET THE SPECULATION AND WET DREAMS BEGIN

 ;D



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




_Edited by Vern to correct typo in topic title._


----------



## PO2FinClk

It is written in a Newspaper, then it is far from being completly truthfull or accurate.


----------



## mover1

no s*** Sherlock
and in the Toronto star at that. :


----------



## Mike Baker

Can it be true? Hope it is  ;D


----------



## McG

Identification of a requirement is just the first small step & attack helicopters may still be a long way from getting in front of the Treasury Board.  That being said, if we want to do the things that we've suggestd we want to do with the Chinook, then we do need attack helicopters.


----------



## Reccesoldier

If you listen closely you can hear the sound of the tinfoil-hat wearing, tree hugging, granola munching, appeasment minded, surrender monkeys heads exploding in Toronto.

<pop>

There goes another one...


----------



## seamus

I am pretty sure the Attack Helicopters are being stored right now with my new rucksack.  ;D  I want it to be true but who knows? But you need the one to support the other so they are probably looking at the problem at a very basic level. And hopefully they buy a real Attack Helicopter and not just Frankenstein those highly capable Griffins. :-\


----------



## Munxcub

"Helicopter Gunships" sounds too aggressive... could we not find a more fluffy PC name for them? Then the "tinfoil-hat wearing, tree hugging, granola munching, appeasment minded, surrender monkeys" might not be so taken aback by this idea... Maybe "Positive Reinforcement for Aeriel Supply runs"?


----------



## Reccesoldier

Munxcub said:
			
		

> "Helicopter Gunships" sounds too aggressive... could we not find a more fluffy PC name for them? Then the "tinfoil-hat wearing, tree hugging, granola munching, appeasment minded, surrender monkeys" might not be so taken aback by this idea... Maybe "Positive Reinforcement for Ariel Supply runs"?



Aerial compliance moderators?


----------



## observor 69

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

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


----------



## PO2FinClk

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Aerial compliance moderators?


+11111


----------



## fighter puke

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


----------



## Sf2

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

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


----------



## GAP

SF2 said:
			
		

> The griffon isn't "mast torque" limited.  Its the transmission that is the weak leak that requires de-rating of engine power.   I didn't catch anywhere in this thread how much these guns are going to weigh - but there's nothing wrong with operating the Griffon at full weight of 11900 lbs.  They do it all the time.
> 
> Overtorque before getting off the ground?  Sounds a little silly - again, sure they won't load it past 11900, and, as I said, at that weight, no problem....taking into account hot and high, with fuel loads.


Out of my lane here, just curious.....

Is the 11900 full weight or cargo capacity?  If it is going to used as a gunship is the equipment and pilots likely to cause lifting problems?


----------



## Sf2

11900 is all up weight.

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

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


----------



## GAP

Thanks...that puts the comments into perspective...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SF2 said:
			
		

> 11900 is all up weight.
> 
> Empty they're 7900'ish.....
> Crew - 600
> Gas for 3 hrs 2100 lbs
> ------------
> 10,600
> 
> That leaves 1300 lbs for the guns and ammo - again, have no idea how much the kit weighs.



Is that hot and high or cold and sea level?


----------



## George Wallace

I would guesstimate that one gun and mount would weigh in at 200 - 300 lbs, depending on how the mount was attached and the size of the gun itself.  Any anti-vibration mountings would have to be figured into the mount.  Wouldn't want to rip the airframe apart when firing.   ;D  How much ammo would you want to carry?  How much extra fuel?  What else in the way of EIS for the wpn?  Gun Tools/toolbox?  Spare barrels?  I think that 1300 lbs would soon disappear.  Just wondeing outside of my lanes.


----------



## CrazyCanuck

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

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


----------



## Inch

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is that hot and high or cold and sea level?



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

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


----------



## ExSarge

Canada, will not buy “Gunship’s” we may however be allowed to purchase “aerial anti-aggression and anger suppression vehicles” Rather then weapons systems they will be equipped with antisocial behavioural modification systems. These systems will be capable of delivering high speed metal jacketed message capsules each one individually inscribed in the language of your choice “USE YOUR WORDS”!


----------



## PO2FinClk

SF2 said:
			
		

> 11900 is all up weight.
> 
> Empty they're 7900'ish.....
> Crew - 600
> Gas for 3 hrs 2100 lbs
> ------------
> 10,600
> 
> That leaves 1300 lbs for the guns and ammo - again, have no idea how much the kit weighs.


Out of my lane, but weapons aside this leaves very little room for armour plating doesn't it? I recall them having lift limitations due to the added weight of plating in Bosnia, let alone new weaponery.

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


----------



## PO2FinClk

Incidently, CASR had a page on this very subject as of last September which, to me at least, indicates that some CAS/CAD offices were truly studying this possibility. I would not believe the written media on its own, but seeing CASR reporting on it as well indicates some  value of legitimacy.


----------



## Sf2

1300 lbs can be eaten up quickly, you're right.  But you don't necessarily have to carry 2100 lbs of gas.  You could carry half that....then have FARPs set up enroute.  There are many ways to play the game.


----------



## Red 6

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Aerial compliance moderators?



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


----------



## Reccesoldier

Red 6 said:
			
		

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



Much better, were you a QM in a former life?


----------



## observor 69

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> http://www.aircav.com/huey/uh1.html
> 
> "Hueys” armed with only two M60D door guns, called “Slicks” because of their uncluttered external appearance, were the backbone of all airmobile combat operations in Vietnam. Unarmed MedEvac “Hueys” were called “Dust Offs”, because of the clouds of dust kicked-up, when landing."



If the Yanks did this with a twin Huey then I imagine we should be able to do it with a Griffin. 
Now working at the altitudes of Afghanistan could be a problem. I read somewhere that these type of choppers primarily work at night in cooler air?

Thoughts?


----------



## Red 6

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Much better, were you a QM in a former life?



Negative, if I was I could've gotten a contract to come up with the name instead of doing it for nothing


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

STOP I'M HAVING FLASHBACKS TO THE EARLY 90'S!!!
"Me, if I'm elected i will cancel those cadilac helicopters!" J Chretien.  :rage:


----------



## Inch

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Out of my lane, but weapons aside this leaves very little room for armour plating doesn't it? I recall them having lift limitations due to the added weight of plating in Bosnia, let alone new weaponery.
> 
> Leighton & Dion would have a field day with this one.



There seems to be quite the misconception that helicopters are armoured. They are not, no, not even the Apache, armour is heavy and really not worth the weight if you take a shot in the tail rotor. They're not designed to be APC's. I don't know the Griffon's set up, but anything more than kevlar seat cushions is a waste of torque. You should be using the terrain to your advantage, not going head to head with AA.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Inch said:
			
		

> There seems to be quite the misconception that helicopters are armoured. They are not, no, not even the Apache,



Yes it is:


> Crew seats, by Simula Inc, are of lightweight Kevlar. ... Crew stations are protected by Ceradyne Inc lightweight boron armour shields in cockpit floor and sides, and between cockpits, offering protection against 12.7 mm armour-piercing rounds.


 http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa001013_1_n.shtml (scroll down to "Accommodation")


----------



## fighter puke

*The griffon isn't "mast torque" limited.  Its the transmission that is the weak leak that requires de-rating of engine power. *  

I beg to differ with you, but it is "mast torque limited". The sensor is located at the base of the mast and reads differential torque values from the mast in relation to xmsn rpm.....thus producing a signal that is routed through the signal conditioner and read from the tripple torque indicator in the cockpit.......don't let then fighter puke moniquer fool you....I did my time on the Griffon as well......


----------



## reccecrewman

Fighter Puke...............  I'm not lookin' to pick a fight here, but it would help if you'd throw a little more info on your profile to allow members to see what experience you have and a little of what you've done. The more complete the profile, the more credible your posts become.

BTW, I don't doubt for a second that spiel you just put up about the Griffon........ But then again, B.S can baffle brains.  ;D Kidding aside, I know jack squat about aircraft, it's completely out of my lanes, so I'll just continue reading........

Regards


----------



## fighter puke

Good point recce.......I have made a habit of putting up less than required info.......lots of loons out there........in this case, I will update.......


----------



## Taylor187

Someone needs to tell O'Conner that if he buys the Bell AH-1W Super Cobra (Or Zulu Cobra if the composite four bladed rotor system and T700-GE-401 engines makes him giddy[if they're in production by the time ottawa is ready to buy])  he can replace the Griffons with UH-1Y Venom which have an 84% parts commonality with the Super Cobra. Cost savings at its finest.

TGIF, road trip to Ottawa.


----------



## George Wallace

Taylor187 said:
			
		

> Someone needs to tell O'Conner that if he buys the Bell AH-1W Super Cobra (Or Zulu Cobra if the composite four bladed rotor system and T700-GE-401 engines makes him giddy[if they're in production by the time ottawa is ready to buy])  he can replace the Griffons with UH-1Y Venom which have an 84% parts commonality with the Super Cobra. Cost savings at its finest.



So you're advocating that we go back to the 'Twin Huey'?  Just because it has some common parts with the AH-1Z Super Cobra?

And that would bring us to the example of the Lynx and M113.  The M113 being of 1965 vintage and the Lynx being of 1967 vintage........and which one is now long removed from the CF inventory, even though it has 'some' parts common to the M113..................but unfortunately not ALL parts.


----------



## Reccesoldier

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you're advocating that we go back to the 'Twin Huey'?  Just because it has some common parts with the AH-1Z Super Cobra?
> 
> And that would bring us to the example of the Lynx and M113.  The M113 being of 1965 vintage and the Lynx being of 1967 vintage........and which one is now long removed from the CF inventory, even though it has 'some' parts common to the M113..................but unfortunately not ALL parts.



You might be on to something there George... BRING BACK THE LYNX!!!!!!


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you're advocating that we go back to the 'Twin Huey'?  Just because it has some common parts with the AH-1Z Super Cobra?



The UH-1Y is hardly the twin Huey.......just like the AH-1Z is nothing like the previous Cobras.....

Aviation obviously not your thing


----------



## Sf2

> The griffon isn't "mast torque" limited.  Its the transmission that is the weak leak that requires de-rating of engine power.
> 
> I beg to differ with you, but it is "mast torque limited". The sensor is located at the base of the mast and reads differential torque values from the mast in relation to xmsn rpm.....thus producing a signal that is routed through the signal conditioner and read from the tripple torque indicator in the cockpit.......don't let then fighter puke moniquer fool you....I did my time on the Griffon as well.....



Perhaps I mis-read your post.  I'm saying the mast isn't the physical limiting factor - ie the weak link in the chain - sure, the indications of torque are measured on the mast, but the reason why the engines are derated (read torque limiters) are because of the transmission, not because the mast is going to snap.  That's what I meant against your post.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The UH-1Y is hardly the twin Huey.......just like the AH-1Z isnt nothing like the previous Cobras.....
> 
> Aviation obviously not you thing



No it is not (see little box with Red and Gold(Yellow) above...  ;D ), but the UH-1Y is the continuation of UH-1N or what we called the CH135.  Does it really matter.  The comparison to the commonality of parts between the two and the same idea with the M113 and Lynx is what I am pointing out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

George,

If I am reading you right, you are saying an AH-1Z is to a twin Huey as a M-113 is to a Lynx?

As I understand the AH-1Z program, a better anology would that it compares to the twin huey like a LAV 3 compares to a Grizzly- they sort of have a common ancestory, but that's it.


----------



## Taylor187

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No it is not (see little box with Red and Gold(Yellow) above...  ;D ), but the UH-1Y is the continuation of UH-1N or what we called the CH135.  Does it really matter.  The comparison to the commonality of parts between the two and the same idea with the M113 and Lynx is what I am pointing out.



The suggestion of going to the UH-1Y from the Bell 412/CH-146 wasn't really based on engine types, take off weight, or range. I was thinking more along the lines (Which I should of elaborated) an upgrade of air frames, advanced electronic warfare self protection suite, FLIR package and an advanced Warning system with missile/laser/radar warnings and automatic counter measure systems. Combine that with the AH-1W (Eventually a Zulu upgrade package to bring compatibility inline with the UH-1Y) and it's a cost effective solution to any any frame woes which could ground the birds in the near future.

That's at least my view on the subject as an civie looking in from the outside.


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> George,
> 
> If I am reading you right, you are saying an AH-1Z is to a twin Huey as a M-113 is to a Lynx?
> 
> As I understand the AH-1Z program, a better anology would that it compares to the twin huey like a LAV 3 compares to a Grizzly- they sort of have a common ancestory, but that's it.



Basically, that is what I am saying.  The Lynx and M113 have the same engines, and transmissions, suspensions, etc.  The Lynx has a different Engine/Transmission setup as well as Differential separated by prop shafts/Pillow Box.  Although many things were the same, there were still many parts that were unique.

The LAV 3 and Grizzly are not the same vehicles, and other than headlights  ;D there were very few interchangeable parts.

The AH-1(X) and UH-1(X) suggestion has some merit, but also, it is not without its' flaws.  A few interchangeable parts mentioned in passing is a bit simplistic.


----------



## GAP

How many of these are we talking about?


----------



## Kirkhill

Some reading for those interested - Canadian Attack Helicopters is a personal favourite of mine - it references the ARH, the replacement for the Kiowa


This posting from the Attack Helicopters thread by Inch is interesting as well - CH-146 mocked up with a 50 Cal Gatling, a pair of Hellfires and what looks to be 25-30mm cannon.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1159/post-117842.html#msg117842

Attack helicopters:

why isn't canada spend some of tht money to buy some apaches -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46506.0.html
Canadian Attack Helicopters -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46687.0.html
The Apache Longbow -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37789.0.html
Attack Helicopters -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1159.0.html
What do you think about this?? (HIND) -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47439.0.html


----------



## Inch

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Yes it is: http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa001013_1_n.shtml (scroll down to "Accommodation")



I stand corrected. Still though, it's not add on, it was designed into the airframe, just like the Titanium tub in the A-10.


----------



## observor 69

If you take a Huey/Griffin and add guns, rockets etc how would it preform at the altitudes of Afghanistan?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> If you take a Huey/Griffin and add guns, rockets etc how would it preform at the altitudes of Afghanistan?



Depends on how much stuff you add, plus fuel load and Density Altitude.  Someone like Strike or GtoGolf would be better people to weigh in here, as our resident Griffon experts.


----------



## Sf2

depends on many factors...where in Afghanistan?  South?  North?  How hot are we talking?  How long do you want to fly for?  How much ammo do you want to carry?  Is there any wind?  What's the humidity?  What power margins are the pilots willing to accept, depending on their skill level?

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


----------



## observor 69

I thought this was interesting and relevant to the chopper discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/15/nafg115.xml

The British Army is operating with "woefully inadequate" resources in Afghanistan that are putting soldiers' lives in danger, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Despite Tony Blair's promise last year that the Army would be furnished with whatever equipment it needed there are still glaring and dangerous gaps in what is being delivered on the ground.

The Daily Telegraph spent three weeks on the front line with troops in Helmand province and discovered a number of alarming kit deficiencies that are making one of the world's most hostile environments even more perilous. 

A total of 55 British soldiers have been killed in Helmand since troops were deployed there last year - many of them in their late teens or early 20s. 

The Prime Minister pledged that frontline commanders would be given whatever they needed to fight Taliban insurgents yet the kit shortages revealed yesterday paint a very different picture of the reality for British troops in the province. 
The Daily Telegraph can disclose that: 

Just 50 per cent of Apache helicopter are working 
Only 70 per cent of Chinooks are available
A garrison was down to its last 200 mortar rounds because no helicopter resupply 
Only 16 of 96 new armoured vehicles have been delivered
Engineers are forced to travel in soft-skinned trucks while carrying high explosive 
Soldiers have bought their own binoculars to replace inadequate Army sights. 

More at link.


----------



## observor 69

SF2 said:
			
		

> depends on many factors...where in Afghanistan?  South?  North?  How hot are we talking?  How long do you want to fly for?  How much ammo do you want to carry?  Is there any wind?  What's the humidity?  What power margins are the pilots willing to accept, depending on their skill level?
> 
> What I'm trying to get at is that is isn't so black and white whether it will work or not.  There are numerous factors, all of which have effect on the other, that affect the performance of the GriffOn (o, not i).



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


----------



## observor 69

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Loachman

fighter puke said:
			
		

> CH-146.......another military mistake brought to you by the Liberals!


Not that I'm a lieberal defender or apologist by any means, but you can't pin that on them. Marcel Masse was the PC defence minister at the time, and they were built in his home riding - a "get-me-re-elected" project that failed.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Not an Air Force Type!! ;D

What about the BO105?  It doesn't look mean (a definite requirement due to the tin-foil-hat Brigades disapproval of anything aggressive looking) in spite of it's payload capabilities.


----------



## baboon6

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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


----------



## cameron

I find the Toronto Star article interesting for one main reason.  Arguments have been put forward why the Griffon can't be deployed into theatres like A'stan, so why modify it to be an armed escort for the Chinook when the powers that be can't or won't deploy the Griffon into certain theatres.  On another point I hope the Canadian government is seriously considering purchasing attack helicopters (in the not too distant future).  The two platforms that I think may best suit the CF's needs are the AH1Z Cobra and the version of the Lynx used by the Royal Marines.  Both have proven to be quite capable and reliable platforms at much less cost than say an Apache, cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

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

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


----------



## George Wallace

baboon6 said:
			
		

> No longer in production. Replaced by EC 135 and in specifically military applications by the the EC 635
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_135
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_635
> 
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ec_635/





			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder if the newly acquired Lakota might be an option for the CF?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-72_Lakota



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

cameron

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


----------



## GAP

In looking at the Lakota, which is replacing the Blackhawk, we would be looking at more of a general puirpose helicopter that can be adapted.....not sure if that is the intent, but interesting .....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I was thinking that being more multi purpose would be more useful.


----------



## GAP

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I was thinking that being more multi purpose would be more useful.



While I agree with the concept, they generally end up not doing either job very well.....is that not the original concept behind the Griffon?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I did not think being a gunship was in the roles originally envisioned for the Griffon...


----------



## GAP

I was not talking about gunship duty....somewhere, in one of the old threads I remember reading, that the Griffon was envisioned for multiple purposes (way out of my lane here, so forgive lack of knowledge...)..


----------



## a_majoor

Although engaging in speculation is one of my hobbies, looking at the source is enough to trow cold water over the entire idea.

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

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


----------



## observor 69

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Although engaging in speculation is one of my hobbies, looking at the source is enough to trow cold water over the entire idea.
> 
> If I was pressed to provide a solution that is near term, affordable and meets most of the needs I'd go for armed Predator UAV's and add Hellfire or BRIMESTONE ATGM's to our inventory. Sorry guys................



Is this option cheaper than choppers?


----------



## CrazyCanuck

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


----------



## MrWhyt

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


As I understand it the Lakotas are to supplement the Blackhawks not replace them. The Lakotas will be used exclusivly within the US, freeing up Blackhawks for overseas work.


----------



## GAP

MrWhyt said:
			
		

> As I understand it the Lakotas are to supplement the Blackhawks not replace them. The Lakotas will be used exclusivly within the US, freeing up Blackhawks for overseas work.



In the article on the Lakota, they stated the Blackhawks are going to the reserve units...


----------



## MrWhyt

> In the article on the Lakota, they stated the Blackhawks are going to the reserve units


It also says:


> The Army's new UH-72A Lakota will primarily be used by the National Guard in support of homeland security missions.
> They are planned to replace the UH-1 and OH-58A/C, which are older light utility helicopters, and supplant other types in domestic use.
> The UH-72A Lakotas will replace UH-60 Black Hawks, which will be transferred to the National Guard for operational missions.


It looks like we're both correct.


----------



## Loachman

UH72 is primarily replacing old UH1Hs, which can no longer be supported, and older OH58s. The principle issue for the UH1 is engine parts. The A/C model OH58s are no longer suitable for the recce role and cannot carry enough passengers to be useful in a utility role.

"Black Hawk" not "Blackhawk".

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

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


----------



## GAP

MrWhyt said:
			
		

> It also says:It looks like we're both correct.



That'll teach me not to go back and reread....I missed that entirely!!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

GAP said:
			
		

> That'll teach me not to go back and reread....I missed that entirely!!



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



> Initial aircraft will be sent to the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif. *for medical evacuation missions in January 2007. The UH-72A Lakotas will replace UH-60 Black Hawks, which will be transferred to the National Guard for operational missions.* ... The UH-72A is a commercial aircraft designed to conduct light general support tasks in permissive, non-combat environments. Those tasks include civil search and rescue, personnel recovery, evacuation, counter-drug and limited civil command and control operations in the conduct of Homeland Security.


 http://www.army.mil/-news/2006/12/11/923-army-unveils-light-utility-helicopter-uh-72a-lakota/


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Loachman said:
			
		

> UAVs have their place, but will not replace a manned aircraft for a long time to come and are certainly no substitute for a recce or attack/armed helicopter.
> 
> Proposing helicopters that use old technology and/or are no longer in production (BO-105/Lynx) is a non-starter.



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

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

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

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

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


Matthew.


----------



## McG

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

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


What about the ability to protect the downed aircraft & any still living occupants?  What about killing the attackers if they miss the first shot?  Overwatch while the Chinook is on the ground loading/unloading?  What about those few times that the ambush is spotted before it is sprung, or when they are using RPG and HMG instead of manpads?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

What about the ability to protect the downed aircraft & any still living occupants?  - Combination of additional missiles on Predator, loitering fixed wing assets and perhaps the addition of mini-guns (like GAU 2) door-mounted on Chinooks? 

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

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

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

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



Matthew.


----------



## Loachman

UAVs rely completely on sensors. Sensors have technical advantages over the human eye, but limitations too. One limitation is a narrow field of view. Whatever realm(s) they operate in limit them as well.

I spent a total of a year flying on two police helicopter trials (Peel Region and Toronto). In both cases, all self-generated contacts came from me, the pilot operating by naked eye, rather than the police observer generally using the IR. In many instances, these were things that I initially noticed in my peripheral vision.

If there's a sensor out there with good peripheral vision, please let me know.

If there's a UAV out there that can carry a decent weapon mix and load, please let me know.

If there's a UAV out there that can manoeuvre rapidly and react quickly to a changing situation, please let me know.

If there's a UAV out there that could land, if necessary, and pick up survivors, please let me know.

If there's a UAV out there with the employment flexibility of a helicopter, please let me know.

If there's a UAV out there with the computer equivalent of two or more human brains - and that's on just one of the escort helicopters, of which there should be a minimum of two - please let me know. Do not underestimate the value of a trained and skilled human pilot or other crewman with the capability to spot something simply because it doesn't quite look right.

Whatever the manufacturer's slick brochure says, wide field of view", "decent weapon mix and load", "manoeuvre rapidly and react quickly to a changing situation", and "employment flexibility" are not the same as mine.

Truck, tank, armed helicopter, UAV - different vehicles, different characteristics, different strengths and weaknesses - all have their place, but no one can do all jobs.

Technology has a long way to go before a UAV can replace a manned battlefield helicopter. It's not going to happen until way after I hit CRA. Were I to find myself flying a big bulbous Chinook stuffed with troops and managed to survive the embarassment, I'd much rather have a pair of AHs buzzing around than a UAV. I'd put my money/life on the likelihood of the AHs detecting and responding much more quickly and effectively than a UAV anyday (of course, there's nothing wrong with having a UAV around as well - just the notion that it would be as useful).

MANPADS do not guarantee a hit - or even a successful launch, given the Taliban's maintenance and servicing capabilities. So far there is no wide-spread use. Hellfire can engage from beyond MANPADs range, and cannon can engage from beyond HMG and RPG range.

What's the difference between a "helicopter convoy system" and an airmobile operation as we currently conduct?

Current doctrine includes alternate routes and contact drills.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We had a FLIR on our hovercraft, we only used if we had an extra person as we felt the lookout with a searchlight and gyro-stablized binos was worth more. I know of several instances personally where we found people based on a glimpse that did not look right, something that would have been lost to a camera. Same reason why we held onto our analog radars for so long, the digital based radars had a bad habit of glossing over (sometimes very hard) small targets.


FLIR sucks in fog


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm sorry Loachman, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're throwing a series of strawmen arguments.  Weapons load was addressed with an admission that follow-up munitions would likely require the intervention of other loitering fixed wing aircraft.  Rapid Maneuvre if at altitude shouldn't be necessary because if done right, the enemy would never know you were there.  To land and pick-up survivors is exactly why I suggested arming the Chinooks.  

My point is that from altitude using thermal sensors you should be able to prove the route prior to overflight with the Chinooks better than a low level helicopter, thus dramatically reducing the number of times you'd need to react and do some of the things you list....not to mention the fact,  I continue to believe that the technology balance has shifted and with MANPADS, attack helicopters are at a distinct disadvantage in a one-on-one confrontation at low levels once you're already inside the enemy's effective range.

Candidly, I think the following are evidence that thermal sensors from medium altitude looking directly down do provide a better angle of view than a low level helicopter and because of that altitude, you don't need peripheral vision.  All you need to see is what is below you.

Link to AC-130 MPEG's:  http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=AC-130

Link to Predator UAV MPEG's: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Predator+UAV

RE:  Air Mobile Operations vs Convoy System - I'm completely out of my lane as to what your current tactics are in-theatre, so I'd 100% defer to you on that....



Cheers, Matthew.   

P.S.  Am I hallucinating, or isn't it true that the Chinook is actually faster than either AH-64 or AH-1 and as such the Chinook would have to slow down to allow the escort to keep up?  Many thanks in advance....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I continue to believe that the technology balance has shifted and with MANPADS, *attack helicopters are at a distinct disadvantage in a one-on-one confrontation * at low levels once you're already inside the enemy's effective range.



I'll take the Apache ...


----------



## Good2Golf

A Griffon with a balance between payload, fuel, up scaled armament and crew could allow a number of operational employment scenarios to be supported in many theatres.  No weapon system is able to load up with maximum quantities of all munitions/supplies/consumables...there is always a trade off somewhere -- more gas, less ammunition, fewer troops, etc...  The Griffon is no exception.

Frankly, the only thing that would keep this from happening to the Griffon is lack of will at any number of levels.  There are easily achievable solutions out there, many actually having been prototyped on numerous occasions.  If folks don't want it to happen, though (perhaps because they want to spend the money on something else, for instance)...it won't.  That's how it works.  

This isn't the first time this has been floated and it won't be the last.  The tactical aviation community has tried desperately to beef up the Griffon's overall capability, but the reality is, it is the runt of the Air Force litter and gets pushed out of the way at the money/feeding trough time and time again.  Case in point, as CSA105 mentioned...ERSTA (electro-optical reconnaissance, surveillance and target-acquisition system).  Senior staff were reviewing capital projects years ago...ERSTA comes up as the next item on the agenda, someone asks "who wants this project?"  Air Force and Army reps sat staring at each other as crickets provide background music...result?  ERSTA killed.

Notwithstanding that it is an absolute truism that heavy lift must be escorted (either mutually or via standoff) and we are supposed to be getting Chinooks somewhere down the road, I honestly see the CF brokering a deal with some other nation to provide escort, before there is any more money invested in the Griffon.

The sad part is, the Griffon is an awesome machine for what it was actually intended to do...be a light utility helicopter (LUH)...exactly what the Huey was in the US and what the UH-72 Lakota is going to do as its replacement.  It was everyone placing absolutely unrealistic expectations on it, like replacing the Chinook, Twin Huey and Kiowa all-in-one, that gave it the bad rap it seems to have today.

There are some that say it's actually a pretty nice machine to fly, in a whole range of jobs.  I'd listen to what the actual Griffon drivers have to say, they are actually the one crowd that doesn't badmouth the machine like everyone else does...although apparently some folks would like to see a bigger Nr indicator...

- M134 7.62mm minigun from Dillon?  Doable.
- GAU-19A 0.50cal Vulcan from GDAS?  Doable.
- 2.75" APKWS rockets from BAE Sys?  Doable.
- AGM-114K/M from Lockheed Martin?  Doable.
- Transmission upgrade from Bell?      Doable.
- Upgraded PT-6-9 w/FADEC from P&WC?  Doable.
- Enhanced controlability mods from BLR?  Doable.
- Getting enough people (military and gov't alike) to agree that it's worth doing?     Ummmmmmm..... :-\


G2G


----------



## observor 69

Thanks for that G2G, nicely summed up.


----------



## a_majoor

The analogy of convoys is interesting. In WW II, Canada's Naval staff wanted cruisers, battleships and all the other heavyweight paraphenallia of a "modern" navy.

Limited resources (especially shipbuilding capability, but also skilled sailors and officers who knew how to use these things) drove Canada's navy in a very different direction; we ended up with a fleet of corvette's, frigates and small escort carrier's instead, which proved massively useful.

While there is no doubt that a modern attack helicopter is very useful and has capabilities we really want, like the big gun cruiser in 1939, we just don't have the wherewithall to get them. Armed UAV's like the Predator "B" with the ability to carry up to 6 Hellfire/BRIMESTONE or a few 70mm rocket pods might be our "corvettes", so we need to think about how to use them to our best advantage.


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'd listen to what the actual Griffon drivers have to say, they are actually the one crowd that doesn't badmouth the machine like everyone else does



Ummm... Hi, there, G2G...

Although I have already admitted somewhere here that I don't despise it as much as I once did now that a few issues have been sorted out since I last flew it.

There's still a good reason why nobody else has bought it in quantity.

Not a bad battlefield VIP helicopter, though.


----------



## Loachman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I'm sorry Loachman, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're throwing a series of strawmen arguments.



Sorry, I thought that was my experience talking.



> Weapons load was addressed with an admission that follow-up munitions would likely require the intervention of other loitering fixed wing aircraft.



So an armed UAV alone is not sufficient. You need back-up fast air. And who would act as the FAC? While the UAV's watching the target at least until it's struck, who's continuing the escort mission?

Instead of this iffy mix, how about an AH team that can detect/shoot and direct fast air? It's a proven concept, too, rather than your unproven one.

If it were feasible and desireable, I'm certain that somebody with the right knowledge would be receiving a healthy salary to do it.



> Rapid Maneuvre if at altitude shouldn't be necessary because if done right, the enemy would never know you were there.



Nor is it with AHs, until a reaction is required, and ditto.



> To land and pick-up survivors is exactly why I suggested arming the Chinooks.



Which could well be loaded to the point where they couldn't. They're a big, fat, cumbersome, soft target too.



> My point is that from altitude using thermal sensors you should be able to prove the route prior to overflight with the Chinooks better than a low level helicopter,



From altitude using thermal sensors in an AH you can do the same thing, with much quicker reaction time and greater flexibility. Nobody said that you had to be low-level. And how many Predators would it take to prove alternate routes? How quickly can one be moved over to the alternate?

There's no such thing as "proving" a route, either - which is why the call from the Kiowa was always "appears clear". No guarantee.



> I continue to believe that the technology balance has shifted and with MANPADS, attack helicopters are at a distinct disadvantage in a one-on-one confrontation at low levels once you're already inside the enemy's effective range.



I don't believe any of that. Technology shifts back-and-forth. And there's no indication of a serious MANPADS threat - yet. They are not as simple and effective, under field conditions, as some think. Hellfire is effective at greater ranges than MANPADS, unless I've missed out on a recent development. And what's this one-on-one thing?

Call me skeptical - obviously - but you're trying to do a very complex and unpredictable mission with a piece of kit not designed for it and completely unsuitable.

Don't over-estimate UAVs.

Don't underestimate AHs.



> Candidly, I think the following are evidence that thermal sensors from medium altitude looking directly down do provide a better angle of view than a low level helicopter and because of that altitude, you don't need peripheral vision.  All you need to see is what is below you.



Candidly, I think that my experience with IR systems (albeit not state-of-the-art, but close enough) mounted on helicopters trumps a couple of vids, but that may sound too arrogant. You can look down from a helicopter, too, and you still have peripheral vision. That's exactly what we were doing in the police helicopter business - no low-level at all.

The Chinook crew also have good peripheral vision, and there's a good chance that one of them might spot something suspicious as well. It'a a lot quicker and easier to get eyes-on from an AH in the neighbourhood than it would be from some controller hundreds of miles away, especially given the difference between what the Chinook guy would see (colour/naked eye) versus the Predator guy (temperature differences/IR). We had the same issues with the police helicopter and dispatchers. Height/weight/hair colour or make/model/licence number meant nothing to us. Educating them to give us really useful info was an ongoing process.

I've seen the same type of problem onboard an aircraft, too, between dissimilar sensors used by different operators - eyeball/IR and NVG/IR.

And here's another factor that shouldn't be discounted: Chances are that the Chinook and AH guys fly from the same airfield, have flown together, are part of the same team, and know each other reasonably well even if they don't hang out all of the time. Chances are the Predator guy doesn't have a clue who any of them are. On whom would you rather rely?

How about taking this one step further? The lift aircraft has the simpler job. Why not do that with a rotary-wing UAV? Think about that from the point-of-view of an Infantryman going into battle by air, and you may better understand my objection to attempting to protect a manned helicopter with a UAV.



> isn't it true that the Chinook is actually faster than either AH-64 or AH-1 and as such the Chinook would have to slow down to allow the escort to keep up?



VNE (Velocity Never Exceed) is a number that one just doesn't break, and cruise speeds are a guideline. Aircraft configuration, weight, and tactics employed are more significant, and they will all vary. Protection does not necessarily mean playing wingman.

I really don't like to discourage creative thinking, but this is far from being a good idea - yet, and for many years to come.


----------



## Loachman

a_majoor said:
			
		

> While there is no doubt that a modern attack helicopter is very useful and has capabilities we really want, like the big gun cruiser in 1939, we just don't have the wherewithall to get them. Armed UAV's like the Predator "B" with the ability to carry up to 6 Hellfire/BRIMESTONE or a few 70mm rocket pods might be our "corvettes", so we need to think about how to use them to our best advantage.



If we had the "wherewithall" to get a Predator "killing machine" with a nasty-sounding name (from the NDP-supporter point-of-view) and healthy price-tag, we certainly have the wherewithall to get a reasonably effective armed helicopter (doesn't even have to be an AH) with a decent sensor and weapons suite - which has much greater flexibility of employment as well. And I'll take the proven over the airy-fairy anyday.


----------



## a_majoor

While I fully agree with you Loachman, wherewithall includes intangibles like political will. The Leopard tank replacement saga should be warning enough. I am also aware that UAV's are not even "second best", but a different tool altogether which may provide some of the capabilities that we are looking for in this mission (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/main.asp?view=more&issueID=13, "The Return of the Canadian Mounted Rifles". You can PM the author if you like  )

Predator B provides a capability that we want and need already (battlefield recce), so its ability to act as an armed platform allows up to add that capability quickly and easily, assuming we get Predator or a similar UAV in the near future. Predator also has lots of other uses, we might interest other government departments to go in with us on a bigger buy on a price or cost sharing agreement. The Coast Guard, RCMP, Canadian Border Security Agency and Provincial forestry departments should be interested, and we get a surge fleet if we work out the arrangements carefully. In a coalition environment, we would also have a very nice capability to compliment what our allies can bring to the table, a package led and escorted by armed UAV's along with allied attack helicopters would be a very potent and flexible force indeed.

So "if" we had to choose between armed UAV's and nothing, then armed UAV's give us some of the capabilities we need. If the choice is armed UAV's or AH; then AH by all means. In the best of all possible worlds, we should have both.


----------



## Loachman

A utility helicopter with sensor package and weapons still gives better capability for a wider variety of battlefield tasks than a UAV.


----------



## RCR Grunt

From a soldier on the ground point of view....

We always cheered and hooted and hollered whenever Apache's came to the rescue in a TIC, as long as it was American.  Thats no slight against the Dutch, they have rules to follow, but you cant see whats shooting at us from way up in the clouds, and there were incidents overseas where this was proven.  An AH doing gun runs for the ground troops gives them a warm and fuzzy you cant get from a UAV, even if you arm it with a huge miraid of mixed weapons.  When we call for AH, and you get that southern drawl back over the radio telling you he's rollin in hot, its like mom telling you everything is ok.  You dont get that from a UAV.  I only flew in choppers twice over there, one chinook and one blackhawk, and both were escorted by Apache's, and it makes you feel good.  I don't have any other technical experience or knowledge other than that which I have experienced, but thats my 2 cents.

Pro Patria!


----------



## mover1

Human factor goes a long way for morale and motivation.

A little off topic. anyone considering a UAV to deliver SKAD's or doing SAR?


----------



## RetiredRoyal

i remember on FTX in many a place when the A10's, cobras or other such machine would come in....not only heart warming, but fun as all heck to watch.


----------



## Mud

Hey RCR Grunt,

I can only hope people in charge of any purchase ask you guys what you think - politically I can't help but think  that a version of the American ARH will be favoured seeing as the Bell 407 airframe is built in Quebec.....and was'nt that really the main reason the Griffons were bought without tender?


----------



## Slim

Inch said:
			
		

> There seems to be quite the misconception that helicopters are armoured. They are not, no, not even the Apache, armour is heavy and really not worth the weight if you take a shot in the tail rotor. They're not designed to be APC's. I don't know the Griffon's set up, but anything more than kevlar seat cushions is a waste of torque. You should be using the terrain to your advantage, not going head to head with AA.



hey Inch

Isn't the Hind D an armoured attack helo?


----------



## Inch

Slim said:
			
		

> hey Inch
> 
> Isn't the Hind D an armoured attack helo?



Depends on your definition of armoured. If you mean the cockpit, probably (I can't say for sure), but if you're talking the whole helo a la AFV's, then no, it's far too heavy. For every pound you add in weight, you need to create the same offset in lift. In a helicopter, that translates to more power from the tranny, the more power you need, the bigger the helo needs to be just to support it's own weight. The bigger the power demands, the bigger the fuel load that's required and at ~7 lbs per gallon, fuel gets to be quite heavy, especially if you're burning 20+ pounds per minute (Sea King burn rate which has an AUW of 20500, less than a LAV3 and slightly more than an Apache).

So while Cobras, Apaches, Hind D's, Havocs, etc, do have some titanium or kevlar to protect the pilots from small arms fire, even up to 23mm in some cases, anything over a .50 cal will do a whole lot of damage to the rest of the helo. The Apache claims to be able to withstand a 23mm round in critical areas, an inexpensive, well-placed (read lucky) RPG will down the most lethally armed helo, just ask the Russians about when they were in Afghanistan. Of course the Stingers the Americans were supplying didn't hurt either!

A lot of the newer helos are coming out with Titanium rotor hubs, Cyclone being one of them, these are supposed to be able to take direct hits from 20mm rounds with no ill effects.

So while I was mistaken about the AH's being "armoured", I don't know of a helo out there can sustain a hit from a MANPAD and keep on fighting.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Depends on your definition of armoured. If you mean the cockpit, probably (I can't say for sure), but if you're talking the whole helo a la AFV's, then no, it's far too heavy.



I've actually been inside a Hind-D (No- I won't say where...).  While the skin around the cockpit and crew compartment are not armoured like an AFV, I was surprised by just how much metal was there to protect the crew and passengers. Judging by what I saw, I would say that it has earned it's reputation as a well armoured helo.


----------



## volition

I saw something the other week about a Eurocopter being made by all composite, the blades, everything!!


----------



## Inch

volition said:
			
		

> I saw something the other week about a Eurocopter being made by all composite, the blades, everything!!



A lot of rotor blades are composite these days.


----------



## Spencer100

volition said:
			
		

> I saw something the other week about a Eurocopter being made by all composite, the blades, everything!!



That is very interesting.  I will have to "google"  I have not heard of a complete "plastic" helo.


----------



## volition

Saw on it on discovery a few weeks back. The french military is testing it out.


----------



## GAP

*Canada Considers Armed Escort Choppers*  
By DAVID ********, OTTAWA 
Article Link

 The Canadian Air Force may buy an armed escort helicopter or outfit its existing Griffon utility helicopters with sensors and weapons to protect the new Chinooks the service will soon acquire.
The Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance Utility Helicopter (IBRUH) would be designed to escort the Chinooks, which the Air Force sees as a critical asset. 
The IBRUH project is “really in the development stage right now,” said Air Force Maj. Martin Leblanc, who as a tactical helicopter specialist has worked on the IBRUH concept.
Air Force leaders support the concept. The service’s former commander, Lt. Gen. Steve Lucas, in the last few months has spoken in favor of what he called an armed reconnaissance helicopter. Lucas retired at the end of July, but the IBRUH concept continues to be developed.
Leblanc said no funding has been assigned to IBRUH and acquisition of such a capability would be tied to the delivery of the Chinooks. The cost of IBRUH would be based on what option — either a new aircraft or modernized existing helicopter — is decided upon.
Canada is spending 4.7 billion Canadian dollars ($4.4 billion) to acquire 16 Chinook troop-transport helicopters from Boeing. Negotiations are ongoing. Military officials hope the first Chinooks will arrive in 2011, although the Defence Department is trying to arrange for a faster delivery.
Work on the Chinook acquisition, known in the Air Force as the Medium-to-Heavy Lift Helicopter, is more advanced than IBRUH, a situation that could limit some options for an armed escort helicopter, Leblanc said. 
More on link


----------



## Mike Baker

If we do go and get new choppers, what would be the best to get for the Canadian Forces? They would have to work in the Arctic as well. Any thoughts?


----------



## DaveTee

Please dear God let us get Apaches...I'd pay the Canadian Forces to let me fly those! ;D


----------



## geo

well, now that the Chinook order has been pencilled into Boeing's order book, it is nice that someone is at last realising that having flying busses moving troops around, some protection would be a good thing.

There are a number of good candidates to chose from..... chose wisely BUT, please, choose quickly.

I would hate to lose a Chinook because of a tardy deliveries


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Guys come on this is already discussed along with opinions on what we should and should not get. Locked! Now Merged!

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## aesop081

DaveTee said:
			
		

> Please dear God let us get Apaches...I'd pay the Canadian Forces to let me fly those! ;D



 :

Yes the apache, it is the be-all, end-all of AHs.  Its not expensive to buy or operate.  Doesnt require alot of maintenance.........


----------



## HItorMiss

I thought we had all pretty much agreed that bang for you buck best cost vs reward chopper was the AH-1 Super Cobra but then again I have no practical idea on criteria. I had just thought that with the 20mm and the ability to carry about the same payload as the AH-64 minus the cost. With the folding rotors for possible naval use it seems to be the best idea to me.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

In the article it mentioned a possibility of arming Griffons to do the job. I'm confused....our SMEs here have told us that the Chinooks are not a good helicopter to operate in Afghanistan because of altitude and some other reasons.....why would we consider doing that if they can't support us in A'stan? ???


----------



## geo

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> In the article it mentioned a possibility of arming Griffons to do the job. I'm confused....our SMEs here have told us that the Chinooks are not a good helicopter to operate in Afghanistan because of altitude and some other reasons.....why would we consider doing that if they can't support us in A'stan? ???



If the Chinooks aren't any good in Afghanistan..... why would the US, UK and the Dutch be using em in that very place.  Methinks your SME might be dealing with dated info - older models with lesser capabilities.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

geo said:
			
		

> If the Chinooks aren't any good in Afghanistan..... why would the US, UK and the Dutch be using em in that very place.  Methinks your SME might be dealing with dated info - older models with lesser capabilities.



Sorry I meant to say Griffons......If the Griffons are no good in A/Stan why bother to re-configure them?


----------



## Sig_Des

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Sorry I meant to say Griffons......If the Griffons are no good in A/Stan why bother to re-configure them?



I think that's where this part of the article comes in:



> “Without investment in power and performance enhancements, the Griffon’s potential in the aerial firepower role is severely limited,” the report states.


----------



## 3rd Herd

LGen Steve Lucas "suggested" in Calgary in March that buying heavy lift helicopters would require that they be escorted by attack helicopters. He then went on to solicite opinions on the AH in attemting to deflect questions on other matters. ;D


----------



## Strike

> Sorry I meant to say Griffons......If the Griffons are no good in A/Stan why bother to re-configure them?



Now that is a whole other can of worms.  Don't believe everything you read.  There is much more involved in sending the Griffon to Afghanistan than the falacy that they can't fly there.  It might be an issue in the higher altitudes...


----------



## Bomber

CFD Mountain view still lists there being some Kiowa's in storage
http://antonakis.ca/12102005.php#9

Maybe with the mini gun and some new missiles?  They are stored indoors....


----------



## Rick Ruter

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Yes the Apache, it is the be-all, end-all of AHs.  Its not expensive to buy or operate.  Doesnt require alot of maintenance.........



I had a friend on exchange flying the Apache when I was in Bosnia in 99 and he came to visit in VK. He was supposed to lead a 4-ship and two crapped-out on start. He told me that serviceability was a big problem with the AH-64s. Cobras had a better serviceable rate.


----------



## aesop081

Rick Ruter said:
			
		

> I had a friend on exchange flying the Apache when I was in Bosnia in 99 and he came to visit in VK. He was supposed to lead a 4-ship and two crapped-out on start. He told me that serviceability was a big problem with the AH-64s. Cobras had a better serviceable rate.



Did you miss the sarcasm in my post ?


----------



## Rick Ruter

I knew what you meant. I just confirmed it with an example.

I had to do a SC for Gen Dumais when he was Comd 1 Cdn Air Div for 146 in AFG and it wasn't pretty. Around Kabul wasn't even an option because of altitude, temps and the threat lvl. Down south we might be able to fly more than 30mins but can you imagine how many HLS you'd need for fuel. May has well drive...


----------



## Rick Ruter

Bomber said:
			
		

> CFD Mountain view still lists there being some Kiowa's in storage
> http://antonakis.ca/12102005.php#9
> 
> Maybe with the mini gun and some new missiles?  They are stored indoors....



I flew in there in 2001 looking for a CF104 for a pedestal. The Kiowas had moss and mildew growing all over them. They'd been quarantined by the RCMP cauze the guy who bought them was trying to sell them to Iran or Iraq as ''crop dusters''.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Rick Ruter said:
			
		

> I flew in there in 2001 looking for a CF104 for a pedestal. The Kiowas had moss and mildew growing all over them. They'd been quarantined by the RCMP cauze the guy who bought them was trying to sell them to Iran or Iraq as ''crop dusters''.



Even in 1990 when 427 was flying them they could barely handle four people onboard with no heavy kit.....how could these effectively carry the ammo and weapons needed to protect a Chinnook on the battlefield?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Maybe look into the Kiowa Warrior variant?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe look into the Kiowa Warrior variant?


I've been touting these birds to anyone who would listen (perhaps too much because I've been told to shut up an occasion usually by my domestic niner " please dear not during dinner !" etc)  
They have a lot to offer amongst other things a gunship you can get past the media by passing them off as a scout helos as opposed to those nasty evil gunship thingies.  ;D
My one concern would be speed can they keep up with CH 47's I can't recall the speed differces and in whose favor.


----------



## Rick Ruter

CH-47's gotta be faster than the 90kts of the Kiowa. Maybe the Warrior has an extra 10-20kts but it still should be slower than the Chinook. If Griffon has 140Kts max speed, Chinook must be close.


----------



## Bandit1

CH-47D/F performance at 50,000 lb (max gross weight): 143 kn.

CH-146 performance (weight not indicated):  140 kn.

The aircraft - Griffon - can carry up to 13 people—two pilots, a flight engineer and 10 passengers—and has a maximum gross weight of nearly 5400 kg or 11900 lbs. Part of its heft comes from the armour that lines both the floor and the crew seats. Despite its weight, the Griffon can reach speeds up to 140 kn.


----------



## Inch

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> CH-47D/F performance at 50,000 lb (max gross weight): 143 kn.
> 
> CH-146 performance (weight not indicated):  140 kn.
> 
> The aircraft - Griffon - can carry up to 13 people—two pilots, a flight engineer and 10 passengers—and has a maximum gross weight of nearly 5400 kg or 11900 lbs. Part of its heft comes from the armour that lines both the floor and the crew seats. *Despite its weight, the Griffon can reach speeds up to 140 kn.*



Weight really doesn't mean squat with respect to speed. A Sea King at max all up weight (20,500lbs) has a never exceed speed (Vne) of 151 knots, a Sea King with 1000 lbs of gas (~17,000lbs) has a never exceed speed of 151 knots. Aerodynamics and power play a larger role in how fast a helo can fly.

Whether or not you can go that speed depends on the environmentals, ie DA. 

As for the Kiowa going only 90 knots, are you sure that's right? It's a bit higher than that, a quick google search found that the Kiowa Warrior's Vne is 130 kts, with a cruise around 115 kts.


----------



## Bandit1

Sir, 

I agree with you - sorry, I was just pasting directly from the CF website!


----------



## Loachman

Bomber said:
			
		

> CFD Mountain view still lists there being some Kiowa's in storage
> http://antonakis.ca/12102005.php#9
> 
> Maybe with the mini gun and some new missiles?  They are stored indoors....



Maybe with new engines (at least twice the horsepower) and new rotor systems to lift the weight, new avionics, new sensors - or more simply and cheaply, new helicopters such as RH70.

Much as I loved the Kiowa, it's not worth resurrecting, militarily.


----------



## geo

That's the trouble when we're always trying to do things "on the cheap".
If it's old and worn out, then it's day is done and time to retire the darned thing.  Replace it with something that will do the job & do it well.


----------



## Loachman

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe look into the Kiowa Warrior variant?


20-plus-year-old technology. Get something modern. RH70 looks promising, but I'd prefer to wait a bit and see how it works out. I wouldn't want to be a launch customer for anything, especially from Bell.


----------



## Loachman

Rick Ruter said:
			
		

> CH-47's gotta be faster than the 90kts of the Kiowa. Maybe the Warrior has an extra 10-20kts but it still should be slower than the Chinook. If Griffon has 140Kts max speed, Chinook must be close.


VNE for the Kiowa was 120 KIAS. Practical max speed was 110-115 (the latter on a really good one, on a cool/cold day). VNE with mission kits (MiniTAT, Target Marking Kit, Nite Sun) was 108 KIAS.

CH146 will not attain VNE in level flight.

Speeds vary with tactics. I doubt that Leopard or LAV get driven cross-country flat out too often, either.


----------



## Loachman

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Even in 1990 when 427 was flying them they could barely handle four people onboard with no heavy kit.....how could these effectively carry the ammo and weapons needed to protect a Chinnook on the battlefield?


Their performance then was unchanged from when they were bought in 1971.

With a MiniTAT and 1100 rds (five belts) of 7.62 mm, one of the heavier observers, and one of the hotter-running engines (we were temperature-limited with the underpowered engines, and the odd one was worse than average) getting airborne on a hot July day in Petawawa in the mid-eighties was a real challenge, and that was nowhere near as hot as Afghanistan nor as high.

The MiniTAT was NOT a weapon, it was a farging anchor.


----------



## Loachman

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> CH-47D/F performance at 50,000 lb (max gross weight): 143 kn.



Abbreviation for Knot is kt.



			
				Bandit1 said:
			
		

> CH-146 performance (weight not indicated):  140 kn.



As pointed out, weight is irrelevant regarding speed.

CH146 will not attain 140 kts in level flight. This is its VNE (Velocity Never Exceed) - a limit which, if exceeded, may result in structural damage, unacceptable stress on components, or control problems.



			
				Bandit1 said:
			
		

> The aircraft - Griffon - can carry up to 13 people—two pilots, a flight engineer and 10 passengers—and has a maximum gross weight of nearly 5400 kg or 11900 lbs. Part of its heft comes from the armour that lines both the floor and the crew seats.



It's fifteen max. Two pilots, FE, four pax in each of the four-man bench and five-man bench (the FE occupies the right-hand seat on the five-man bench), and two in each of the transmission seats.

That's wearing T-shirt and shorts. It gets really crowded with anything else. And as weight of people and kit goes up, fuel load goes down in order to avoid exceeding max gross weight. Performance at max gross, especially on hotter days and at higher altitudes, becomes quite sluggish - harder to get going, and harder to stop - as well. That's never a good thing when flying tactically.

Raw numbers do not tell the whole story.


----------



## Bandit1

Thank you for the insight - I'm still green when it comes to rotors as most of my attention is paid to fix wings.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We used to use the 206 in the mining business, they really struggled, so we went to the 500. I see now that most companies are using upgraded 206L's to compete with the AStar. 206L has an internal load max of 1,000lb, the Astar is from 1,000-1600lbs depending on model.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Has anyone here ever taken a look at the Italian A 129 Mangusta International attack bird . I must admit a certain curiosity about what some of our highly qualified people on this board think of it?
                           
                                        regards,
                                                       Gordon


----------



## Loachman

I saw one in 1992, brand spanking new.

How it stacks up against its competition - and I am not interested in meaningless numbers - I cannot say.

I'd stick with something more common, in use with major allies, like AH64 or AH1Z. It makes interoperability, especially logistically, far easier.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The Mi-35M would be a good fit.  Everyone in Afghanistan should get a warm, fuzzy, nostalgic feeling to see it in the sky again.  




For the sensitive types, I'm kidding, just in case it's not obvious.


----------



## Loachman

Well, no kidding needed...

According to a small blurb in the April/June Helitac (just delivered to Ops today; I don't know if the mag's behind or the postman) the Czechs have donated six Mi-17s and six Mi-24s to the Afghans and want to assist in pilot training.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Well, that's just.....neat!


----------

