# Canadian Attack Helicopters



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2006)

At the risk of incurring Michael O'Leary's wrath and being relegated to the "Let's Buy These Aircraft Thread" (which see) I want to follow up on the plea from 2Bravo to have Heavy Lift AND Escort Helicopters on his flight line by tomorrow morning.



> You're all going to groan, but just getting CH47s is not enough.  They need escorts, and that means attack helicopters.  Without the attack helcopters we will still be beholden to other countries to move around theatre.
> 
> Sorry, just throwing that out there,
> 
> 2B



Let's assume for the moment that the editor of the Toronto Star knows whereof he/she speaks and that this statement from their editorial is an accurate reflection of government intent: 



> And now that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has addressed the mobility issue, he is focusing on buying assault ships, Stryker mobile gun systems and *attack helicopters*.



http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1151617836064&call_pageid=970599119419

The working assumption, when discussing "attack helicopters" is that we are considering Apaches or Cobras.  Some other aircraft such as Tigers, Rooivalks, A129s, even Black Sharks and Havocs are available as well.  (Here's a page with links to descriptions of these  -  http://www.army-technology.com/projects/#Attack_Helicopters )

There is however a "potential"  "home-grown" solution that the US is looking at as a complement to the Apaches and as a replacement for the Kiowa Warrior - Bell's ARH (Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter - http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/military/ARH/bellarh-72.pdf )

What caused me to consider posting this this morning was a linkage on the performance specs on the Med/Hvy Helicopter and the information supplied by Bell on their Engine Specs for the ARH.

The lift helicopter calls for a range of 100 km with a full load



> Internal lift – Cabin space to accommodate an infantry platoon (30 soldiers) with full combat equipment, including weapons, body armour, rucksacks, rations and communications (4,763 kilograms).
> 
> External lift – Lift multiple loads, including a lightweight field howitzer and associated equipment (a minimum of 5,443 kilograms).
> 
> ...



http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1968

Curiously the ARH brochure cites the identical Height and Temperature performance specs (converted to English units).  As well the quoted range and endurance  (2.33 hours and 362 km) seem to be in keeping with the demands of escorting another helicopter on a 100 km mission (100 km each way) and leave a little loiter time.  It struck me, working from a position of limited knowledge, that the original specs on the Lift helicopter requirements were quite modest given the capabilities of the Chinook, supposedly the favoured contender.  I thought that might have been to ensure that the EH101 got a look in.  But suppose it is to make the Lift compatible with the Escort?

The US Army has ordered 368 of the ARH from Bell Textron. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=60924&session=dae.21605936.1151779242.RKbBqsOa9dUAADFXWQY&modele=jdc_1

The basic helicopter is being assembled at Bell Textron in Mirabel and transferred to Fort Worth for weaponizing.

http://press.arrivenet.com/government/article.php/676878.html

Although Boeing might be expected to compete for this order with Apache, Bell and Boeing are co-operating on the manufacture of the V22 Osprey.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/index.htm

So all this by way of preamble.

To the question:  Would the Bell ARH be an acceptable "Escort/Attack/Recce" solution for 2B?  How about for Duey and friends?

Especially seeing as how it is in production and we might be able to skim a few out of the line in the near term to accompany 4-6 CHAPS CH-47Ds delivered by Boeing from the US Army's pool of refurbishable Chinooks.



> CH-47D and Cargo Helicopter Airframe Procurement Support (CHAPS)
> Currently, the U.S. Army and international countries operate over 600 CH-47D Chinooks. This model will be operated and supported through 2018 by the U.S. Army and Boeing until the CH-47F is in full production. The CHAPS program provides for the sale of flight-ready CH-47D Chinooks under "Exchange and Sales" regulations. Under this program, select D-Model Chinooks from the U.S. Army fleet are available to military users and service organizations worldwide providing them affordable aircraft fully capable and easily up-gradable to include any future system provided in the CH-47D. CHAPS provides countries affordable alternatives to more advanced aircraft and enables users to support military operations, medical and disaster relief, search and rescue, fire fighting and civil support with reliable, cost-efficient helicopters.



http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/index.htm

Would it be any easier for Griffon pilots to transition to the Bell 407 ARH than to the AH-64 or Cobra?


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill
Very good post (and refreshingly full of references).  I think that 2B hit the nail on the head with regards to the escort requirement for our helicopters.  Having said that, in the near term, just having our own lift would drastically reduce our dependancy on 'others' for stuff.  I hope that escort helicopters (of whatever variety) do show up, and soon!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Jul 2006)

Could we not develop an assault version of the Cyclone much like the armed UH1s in Vietnam?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2006)

Does the Cyclone have doors on both sides for the gunmounts?


----------



## Armymatters (1 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Could we not develop an assault version of the Cyclone much like the armed UH1s in Vietnam?



Isn't the Cyclone a little big to be acting as helicopter gunships?


----------



## GAP (1 Jul 2006)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=60924&session=dae.21605936.1151779242.RKbBqsOa9dUAADFXWQY&modele=jdc_1

Press Releases 
This section contains only official communiques issued by industry, government agencies, international organizations or other agencies which defense-aerospace.com has determined are of interest to users. 
Communiques are posted free of charge

Has anyone read the list of press releases coming out of other countries for upgrading their equipment? Getting our stuff quickly is going to be a b*&*ch  what with all this stuff on order. These companies are swimming in billions of $ of orders.  And that is only for the month of June 
.


----------



## Guardian (1 Jul 2006)

It sounds like a great idea (knowing nothing about aircraft as I do).

The problem that pops to mind is this: the government is able to do a quick buy of the Chinook simply because there really isn't a lot of competition in that lift bracket, and also because we have institutional experience with that bird. It's politically justifiable to single-source this contract through the ACAN process.

It would be not nearly as easy to do so with the ARH. There are a lot of competing designs out there that politically would have to be given a chance to compete. That might lead to a full evaluation and procurement process that could deliver the escorts years after the Chinooks.

Unless the government says, "Well, it's an urgent operational requirement to get escorts, and so we are using the ACAN process to get this Canadian-built reconnaissance helo." 

Would that fly politically?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2006)

Helicopter Base Price     New Direct Operating Cost / Hr    M.A.U.W.   Empty Weight    Useful Load    Max Sling Load    Max Range **    Fast Cruise    HOGE ceiling ISA 
S-92         $13mil         $2200                                       26500 lbs   16875 lbs           9625 lbs        10000 lbs            600 nm              153 knots      7000 ft      
Bell 407    $1500 000    $ 350                                        5000 lbs     2653 lbs            2347 lbs        2646 lbs              330 nm              133 knots      10450 ft  

http://www.helinews.com/multicomparison.shtml
http://www.helinews.com/turbinecomparison.shtml 

I don't think we are thinking quite the same things here Ex-Dragoon.  For 1 S-92 Cyclone frame you can buy 8 407 ARH frames.

And given that you can carry two ARHs in a C130 a space <2.7m high x 3.1m wide by 12.2m long (15.3m with ramp)
http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/military/ARH/bellarh-72.pdf  
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-130J.htm

while the S-92, even folded is going to occupy a space something like 4.7m high (rotor hub) by 3.9m wide (wingstubs) by at least 13m (my guess with folding tail)
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,9604,1841,00.pdf

Then it would seem likely that a BHS could transport a few more of them and the government might be able to buy a few more of them as well.

As to delivery on these things GAP - one of the advantages of working with the US Army on ops is that the US Army gets to decide whether to release half-a-dozen CH-47Ds out of a fleet of 500 and a couple of dozen ARHs  out of a fleet of 368 (not including AH-64 and existing Kiowas, etc) that might impact their operations in 5 to 10 years, or equip the Canadians to take some of their workload tomorrow (or at least in a year or so).  Which do you think would be most appealing to a US General?


----------



## GAP (1 Jul 2006)

> As to delivery on these things GAP - one of the advantages of working with the US Army on ops is that the US Army gets to decide whether to release half-a-dozen CH-47Ds out of a fleet of 500 and a couple of dozen ARHs  out of a fleet of 368 (not including AH-64 and existing Kiowas, etc) that might impact their operations in 5 to 10 years, or equip the Canadians to take some of their workload tomorrow (or at least in a year or so).  Which do you think would be most appealing to a US General?



Excellent point....taken. The good will and confidence is there at the moment, maybe it will come true...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2006)

Good point about the competition Guardian - if we are looking at the "lightweight" end of things I guess these might be some of the other options:

Eurocopter Fennec - http://www.eurocopter.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?mode=&noeu_id=92&lang=EN
MD500-600 Explorer Series - http://www.luh-explorer.com/


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Jul 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Isn't the Cyclone a little big to be acting as helicopter gunships?



I never mentioned anythibg about a helicopter gunship though....re-read my post.


----------



## couchcommander (1 Jul 2006)

What about putting m134 miniguns on the CH-47's rather than arming some cyclones specifically for assault?

*edit* a la


----------



## Guardian (1 Jul 2006)

_What about putting m134 miniguns on the CH-47's rather than arming some cyclones specifically for assault?_

One of the air force guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that one (rather grim) advantage of having escorts is that if a SAM were fired at the Chinook, it has a smaller target with just one or two aboard that can "take a bullet" instead of the Chinook itself with 30 or 40 troops or mission-critical kit aboard. The miniguns also don't have the range of an independent escort to deal with threats.


----------



## couchcommander (1 Jul 2006)

Oh yea, I am not saying no escorts - that is definitely a good idea IMO. 

Ex-Dragoon seemed to support a medium lift chopper being armed to carry troops into dangerous situations, thus his post re: the cyclones. I was just suggesting if we were to go down that route, why not just arm the CH-47's?

As well, that way even if we don't get escorts, they are not defenseless. 

Fire away! :warstory:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Jul 2006)

I am looking at a common air frame for commonality of spare parts and training. After all the Mi 24 Hind concept seem to work real well for the Russians. Just up armour the Cyclone, perhaps put some wing stubs (AIr Firce types would that be possible?), add a command and control comm suite, some CRV7 pods and a chin mounted 50..,voila instant assault chopper.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (1 Jul 2006)

I'm fairly certain that the CH-47 will be armed with at least C6s.  Miniguns would be cool, but there may be some weight issues associated with that.  Still, the CH-47 should be focused on transporting troops and stores.  Just because you can arm an HLVW doesn't mean that it goes looking for trouble or doesn't need an escort.

Dedicated AHs would allow for escorts for Chinooks and medevac birds while also being able to go out and provide fire support to troops in contact.  I like the AH-64 because it has been proven in combat and is in service with a number of our allies.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Armymatters (1 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am looking at a common air frame for commonality of spare parts and training. After all the Mi 24 Hind concept seem to work real well for the Russians. Just up armour the Cyclone, perhaps put some wing stubs (AIr Firce types would that be possible?), add a command and control comm suite, some CRV7 pods and a chin mounted 50..,voila instant assault chopper.



The problem is that when the Hind was introduced, the Russians were forced to change the tactics they used in terms of helicopter warfare (the Hind was not very maneuverable, so the Russians changed the tactics so that Hinds operated in groups, converging on a target from all angles). In all, the Russians found out that it was not worth combining transportation and an attack role together in one airframe, and that is why the Russians very early on in the 1980's ordered the development of an replacement. The thing is that an armed Cyclone variant would have "shoot me down, I am a easy target" written all over it because it is simply, a big target. Attack helos usually have a small frontal area, and a compact airframe, which allows for greater maneuverability, and also presents a smaller target to shoot at as well. Using the Cyclone as an attack or armed helicopter would be wasting resources and putting the people that operate them in greater jeopardy than a more dedicated helo, IMHO.



			
				2Bravo said:
			
		

> Dedicated AHs would allow for escorts for Chinooks and medevac birds while also being able to go out and provide fire support to troops in contact.  I like the AH-64 because it has been proven in combat and is in service with a number of our allies.



I am thinking more of the Bell AH-1Z Super Cobra: it's a proven helo as well, cheap, in service with many allies, and marinized, meaning that we can launch lots of them off the BHS, as they take up less space on ship.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jul 2006)

Rather than combining lift and attack; has anyone revisited recce and attack as the principal dual-purpose airframe: Kiowa D, perhaps?

(And please, don't reinvent the Comanche concept ... too expensive.)


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jul 2006)

The Cyclone is derived from the Blackhawk, so if we were to demand some commonality, then a Cyclone + Blackhawk fleet would be the ticket. I seem to recall the Blackhawk was offered in an armed version to the RAAF, although they went for the Tiger instead. The Blackhawk is still a pretty big aircraft, so the SAM/AAA problem would still exist.

For the really dedicated kit bashers out there, a Cobra airframe with the engines, transmissions and rotors of a Blackhawk would give a degree of commonality and probably some performance enhancement as well. An armed recce helicopter would be next best, and perhaps an armed UAV could serve the purpose as well.


----------



## Armymatters (2 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The Cyclone is derived from the Blackhawk, so if we were to demand some commonality, then a Cyclone + Blackhawk fleet would be the ticket. I seem to recall the Blackhawk was offered in an armed version to the RAAF, although they went for the Tiger instead. The Blackhawk is still a pretty big aircraft, so the SAM/AAA problem would still exist.
> 
> For the really dedicated kit bashers out there, a Cobra airframe with the engines, transmissions and rotors of a Blackhawk would give a degree of commonality and probably some performance enhancement as well. An armed recce helicopter would be next best, and perhaps an armed UAV could serve the purpose as well.



The AH-1Z Super Cobra uses the GE T700 Turboshaft engines, the same type found in the EH-101, and Cyclones that are already in service or will shortly enter service with the CF. On top of that, it is mechanically the same as the Bell UH-1Y, down to the tail, engines, transmission, and rotor. Heck, even the avionics, and cockpit displays are essentially the same.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon, is that you arguing to scrap the escorts, put the troops into a Big Honking Transport and then arm the BHT to the nines? But who is going to supply the screen? The Air Defence?  The Anti-Submarine Protection?

Oops sorry - got carried away for a moment. ;D  >  Happy Canada Day.


----------



## MrWhyt (2 Jul 2006)

> perhaps an armed UAV could serve the purpose as well.


Maybe a mix of Predator A and B. The A's armed with Hellfires and the B's with 500lb LGBS/JDAM, the 250lb SDB or some form of cluster munition.

Pros: Long loiter time, can be piloted via satellite link from a base in Canada (less personel in country), interoperability with allies (US), can be used as a recce assest not just an escort role, less media/civiliian fallout if an UAV goes down vs. losing pilots
Cons: Cost, cost, cost. Chain of command ie: who gives the shoot order? the pilot, the escortee or some muckety muck higher up.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (2 Jul 2006)

I'm not sure if UAVs can fly escort for helicopters as there may be some airspace control issues.  I know I wouldn't feel comfortable in the CH-47 if the plane flying next to me was a UAV.  Call me paranoid, but I want the guys at the controls to have a vested interest in not colliding.

AH-64 please.   

2B


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jul 2006)

A cheap but effective attack helo[$10.7m] is the Marine Super Cobra.


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Jul 2006)

I may have a love affair with the AH-64's in all it's wonderful variants, however in terms of cost and effectiveness the AH-1 Super Cobra's not only carry much of the same weapons systems (hellfire, TOW etc etc) but they do it at a cheaper cost in airframe.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jul 2006)

Next question.  Production Lines?  Are the Production Lines for the AH 1 still in operation, or do they have to be reopened and retooled?


----------



## Armymatters (2 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Next question.  Production Lines?  Are the Production Lines for the AH 1 still in operation, or do they have to be reopened and retooled?



Still open. Turkey was to acquire new build Cobra's under the King Cobra programme, but the Turkish government canned the order due to fiscal issues. The -W model entered LRP in 2003, while the -Z about to enter full-rate production, with initial operating capability in mid-2009. All airframes for the USMC. Both the USMC and the Israelis are very happy with the type.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Rather than combining lift and attack; has anyone revisited recce and attack as the principal dual-purpose airframe: Kiowa D, perhaps?
> 
> (And please, don't reinvent the Comanche concept ... too expensive.)



Michael I think you will find that the ARH that I mentioned is the replacement for the Kiowa OH-58D.  They are both 5000 lb All Up Weight aircraft vs the 15,000 to 16,000 lb weights of the AH-1Z and the AH-64

From Global Security:


> ...The ARH will be a direct replacement for the aging OH-58D Kiowa Warrior fleet...


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/arh.htm 
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/oh-58.htm


----------



## Mud (6 Jul 2006)

Interesting comments about the American ARH - seems like the most politically viable option.  

A while back I saw a pic of a Griffon undergoing testing with a 20mm cannon and Hellfire launchers - apparently neither was hooked up, maybe just checking the aerodynamics- but anyways does anyone know what became of that?  Could it have use as even an  interim option?  Or would our medium lift choppers be guaranteed American/Brit/Dutch Apache cover?

Dave


----------



## thunderchild (9 Jul 2012)

I like the idea of having AH-1Z and upgrading or replacing the griffons with UH-1Y and S-92's


----------



## brihard (9 Jul 2012)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I like the idea of having AH-1Z and upgrading or replacing the griffons with UH-1Y and S-92's



You do realize this thread has not been posted on since 2006, right?


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Jul 2012)

I beleive your referring to the Viper and Venom helicopters in USMC service as of 2 years ago? You realize that replacing Griffens is not a blimp on the procurement radar?


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Jul 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I beleive your referring to the Viper and Venom helicopters in USMC service as of 2 years ago? You realize that replacing Griffens is not a blimp on the procurement radar?



Griffon...Blimp...I see what you did there, nice one.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2012)

RCAF attack blimp? say it ain't so


----------



## medicineman (10 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> RCAF attack blimp? say it ain't so



Bet the bad guys would never see that coming...well ok, figuratively anyways...

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2012)

Well P & W may have a line on Attack helo's since we supplied the engine tech for China's new helo's. maybe we can buy some for "testing"


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2012)

What do we really want/need with an attack/armed helo?

The big, heavyweight ones like the Apache are built for high intensity conventional war and to deal with heavily protected targets like AFVs. Is that a possibility on the horizon or do we need many smaller, lighter and cheaper helos to cover large areas (COIN, stability ops, humanitarian relief etc.) and deal with lesser target sets?

How big of a footprint can we afford? Do we want to be tied to airbases or do we want to be able to operate out of FOBs and FARPs?

What sort of operational concept are we going with? Do we want to deploy large numbers of troops and equipment at once or do we want to make pinpoint insertions of small numbers of specialists (SoF operators, Recce dets, weapons teams to form cutoffs)?

Once we answer those questions then the nature of the equipment needed becomes much clearer.


----------



## cupper (10 Jul 2012)

If our history with ASW helos is any indication, I wouldn't be holding my breath that we'd see anything before our great grandkids are ready to fly them.


----------



## dimsum (10 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> If our history with ASW helos is any indication, I wouldn't be holding my breath that we'd see anything before our great grandkids are ready to fly them.



And that's *after* we collectively agreed that we needed a replacement for the Sea King.


----------



## GAP (10 Jul 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And that's *after* we collectively agreed that we needed a replacement for the Sea King.



We had some of those didn't we?


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> RCAF attack blimp? say it ain't so



Well we do have surveillance blimps/balloons.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> What do we really want/need with an attack/armed helo?
> 
> The big, heavyweight ones like the Apache are built for high intensity conventional war and to deal with heavily protected targets like AFVs. Is that a possibility on the horizon or do we need many smaller, lighter and cheaper helos to cover large areas (COIN, stability ops, humanitarian relief etc.) and deal with lesser target sets?
> 
> ...



We don't need Transport helicopters, the Griffons will never be deployed in a shooting war, the Griffon will never be armed......I;m seeing a trend here, if we get an attack helicopter I suggest one that is the exact copy of a close ally who we can share, parts, simulators and even exchange crews.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2012)

Make it the smallest, cheapest one around so we dont tempt people with a great deal of political pork.....


----------



## thunderchild (25 Nov 2012)

why not just upgrade The Griffons to the same standard as the Zulu cobra? That is what the marines did, it should be cheaper and make work here in Canada.


----------



## Shrek1985 (26 Nov 2012)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> why not just upgrade The Griffons to the same standard as the Zulu cobra? That is what the marines did, it should be cheaper and make work here in Canada.



Not economically doable. The griffon looks a lot like the Bell 201/207 Huey series, but it is really a very different and less capable bird. You'd be replacing everything and ending up with something similar to the UH-1Y, but heavier, less capable and more expensive.

*rant begins

I just want to know when and what it will take for us to get our collective Canadian heads out of our asses and either get serious about wanting to have an effective, versatile military we can do things with that make us happy, or just give up pretending to be a relevant nation (from which the concept of an available, useful military is inseperable) and turn the bloody show over to countries that haven't yet totally lost the will to have a civilization.

*rant ends

Remember where the AH comes from; the concept came of age in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yes, it does derive from having a cold-war tak killer or flying BMP from the western or eastern perspective, but the AH has proved a versatile package, which is just what we need, rather than 1-use wonders, which I will not reference to avoid thread jacking.

I think the AH-1Z/UH-1Y solution is a good one. Much cheaper and more versatile than Apaches and Blackhawks. I'd want a few tweaks IMO, but basically good platforms for us, especially in terms of cost/longevity and a level of parts commonality you won't find outside of an MI-17/MI-35 paradigm.

At heart though; the whole procurement system as it stands needs not revision, but replacement to be effective and useful to the CF. Right now it is very useful as a political tool, but little else.


----------



## dimsum (26 Nov 2012)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> *rant begins
> 
> I just want to know when and what it will take for us to get our collective Canadian heads out of our asses and either get serious about wanting to have an effective, versatile military we can do things with that make us happy, or just give up pretending to be a relevant nation (from which the concept of an available, useful military is inseperable) and turn the bloody show over to countries that haven't yet totally lost the will to have a civilization.
> 
> *rant ends



About the same time the US decides to implode on itself and we lose the "top cover" provided by their military.  Canada has always been "covered" by someone else (France, UK, US) and has never had any large internal wars, so unless we're somehow forced into our own (not likely with our geographical proximity to the US), the politicians and public will never consider national defence a top priority.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Nov 2012)

Well with the way various allies defense budget having been going, there may be some very good deals on barely used attack helicopters.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2012)

Once again. this is a "Fantasy Island" sort of debate without some serious grounding. Our doctrine (and I use the term loosely) is flexible enough to encompass anything from swarms of "Little Bird" helicopters landing 4 man teams on critical portions of the battlefield, with armed "Little Birds" providing top cover with miniguns to ATGM's, to AH-64D "Apache Longbows" leading and shooting in medium and heavy lift transport helicopters.

For now, the economic environment suggests we will do without for years to come, and if there is a need for some sort of aerial support platform the quick and dirty solution may actually be armed UAV's.

</wet blanket>


----------



## Sf2 (28 Nov 2012)

> Remember where the AH comes from; the concept came of age in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yes, it does derive from having a cold-war tak killer or flying BMP from the western or eastern perspective, but the AH has proved a versatile package, which is just what we need, rather than 1-use wonders, which I will not reference to avoid thread jacking.




Never saw benefit of the dillon or gau overseas did you.....??


----------



## Loachman (28 Nov 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> swarms of "Little Bird" helicopters landing 4 man teams on critical portions of the battlefield, with armed "Little Birds" providing top cover with miniguns to ATGM's,



Not a cost-effective solution. The only advantage is the ability to deploy a bunch in Hercs with very little preparation at either end of the ride.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> the quick and dirty solution may actually be armed UAV's.



Not with today's technology. Not cheaply. Not if one wants a rapid response or flexibility. Not if one wants to operate with any amount of cloud cover.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2012)

WRT the first point, if deployablity is the primary consideration then that might trump cost effectiveness. Having heavy hitters sitting in the hanger because there is no practical way to get them to theater kind of invalidates the reason for buying such things in the first place. This isn't to say that it is the solution I favour, rather that there are many considerations that are not being looked at by people who love the idea of AH's.

As for the second point, the key factor there is "quick and dirty"; I doubt that there would be any way to fast track attack helicopters in time to get into theater unless a very unlikely set of circumstances existed, such as an open production line or some nation leasing surplus equipment right when we needed it. Even armed UAV's might be a bit of a stretch in terms of rapid deployablity.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Nov 2012)

Are we talking NATO doctrine-compliant "AH" in the helo spectrum of OH, UH, AH and CH, or are we talking about a suitably armed aircraft that can support other helicopters and ground troops with an effective and supportable array of weapon systems?

Anectotally, when other nations are asking for Griffons as escorts, or for close combat attack support to ground troops, even when "nose shooters" (Apache, Cobra...) are available, one should consider that perhaps the Griffon properly equipped actually doesn't make such a bad aircraft after all, particularly given the reality of the resource pressures that DND/CF is experiencing for the foreseeable future.  Some in-service supportability refreshing and perhaps some minor obselescence technical solutions, certainly, but expectations between doctrinal wishes and practical realities need to be managed.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman (28 Nov 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> WRT the first point, if deployablity is the primary consideration then that might trump cost effectiveness. Having heavy hitters sitting in the hanger because there is no practical way to get them to theater kind of invalidates the reason for buying such things in the first place.



How many times have we been so constrained? Where is the need?

And who actually does this, and why?

We can pack three Griffons into a C17.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> there are many considerations that are not being looked at by people who love the idea of AH's.



Generally for good reasons.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for the second point, the key factor there is "quick and dirty"; I doubt that there would be any way to fast track attack helicopters in time to get into theater unless a very unlikely set of circumstances existed, such as an open production line or some nation leasing surplus equipment right when we needed it. Even armed UAV's might be a bit of a stretch in terms of rapid deployablity.



And how does one get these armed UAVs into theatre any quicker than helicopters?

If the prime intent is to shoot at something, a UAV is not the best answer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Nov 2012)

The great thing about getting the Griffons to Afghanistan is that it shows that it is possible, they are useful and they are wanted. Regardless of the constraints of the current airframe, we know we have done it and we can do it again. Hopefully we can take the lessons learned and retain the skill sets and improve the setup within the current design to address issues that were found.

The best thing to do now is take footage of the Griffins and Chinooks in action, and marry that to talks given by the people who flew, maintained, supported them and the people that were supported by them as to why and how things were done. With that knowledge we can always deploy again and hopefully reduce wheel reinvention to a minimum.


----------



## medicineman (28 Nov 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The best thing to do now is take footage of the Griffins and Chinooks in action, and marry that to talks given by the people who flew, maintained, supported them and the people that were supported by them as to why and how things were done. With that knowledge we can always deploy again and hopefully reduce wheel reinvention to a minimum.



We're talking the CF here - figure the odds of that happening...you're making sense and we know what happens when we make sense now don't we ?   ;D

MM


----------



## Loachman (29 Nov 2012)

We're talking 1 Wing here - it's been/being done.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Nov 2012)

That's good to hear, will make for a good documentary when it becomes unclassified.


----------

