# Apaches



## ringo

US intends to sell 260 Block 1 Apaches, South Korea considering buying 36, would Canada be interested in used Apaches?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

No?


----------



## Sf2

I'll take em.....
Just gotta clear out my garage first.


----------



## OldSolduer

I can hear the cries of woe emanating from Taliban Jack and his "Defence" critic, Dawn "Black Ace" Black:

"What? Helicopters? In Canada? with guns?"
or from the Liberals:

"We don't need these Cadillac helicopters"


----------



## jzaidi1

It'd be an interesting purchase for Canada.  We can see a direct application to our mission in Afghanistan but what happens afterwards?  The majority of our operations outside of Canada are of a peaceful nature.  Also - how effective are they with homeland defence?  At least with CF-18s we can guard the air anywhere.

I like the thought of it and it would be cool to have Canadian gunships, however, I don't think we need them for national security - international security, YES!!

J


----------



## vonGarvin

Fireball said:
			
		

> It'd be an interesting purchase for Canada.  We can see a direct application to our mission in Afghanistan but what happens afterwards?  *The majority of our operations outside of Canada are of a peaceful nature. *


Where on Earth have you been?  Anytime we send the MILITARY overseas, it's not because things are fine.  It's because there is or has been a war.  Sometimes we are belligerents, sometimes not, but in every case (mostly every case) we are armed.  This does NOT mean that AH-64s would be needed on every mission, but the same goes for every piece of kit we have: we only take what we need.


----------



## jzaidi1

Let me qualify my statement.  Aside from Afghanistan (and exchange staff in Iraq) we are not in a frontal offensive position.  Most of our international work "right now" may be in war zones but we are running under the auspice of peace.  I doubt we'd need Apaches in natural disaster areas to protect our humanitarian efforts.  I'm all for the purchase but I am trying to be logical.

J


----------



## aesop081

Fireball said:
			
		

> Let me qualify my statement.  Aside from Afghanistan (and exchange staff in Iraq) we are not in a frontal offensive position.  Most of our international work "right now" may be in war zones but we are running under the auspice of peace.  I doubt we'd need Apaches in natural disaster areas to protect our humanitarian efforts.  I'm all for the purchase but I am trying to be logical.
> 
> J



Well, first few weeks of the Kosovo mission we sure needed AH-64s, i'm glad the americans had them around.


----------



## a_majoor

Fireball said:
			
		

> The majority of our operations outside of Canada are of a peaceful nature.



Even if you are only referring to a mission where the DART is deployed, the ability to escort humanitarian aid and protect the aid and aid givers on the ground from the human vultures who would rob or otherwise interfere with the mission should not be discounted. (Read Blackhawk Down to see how a mission which started off as humanitarian relief went south rather quickly).

New capabilities provide new opportunities as well; consider one of the reasons we are purchasing UAV's is to provide airborn sensor platforms which can be used to direct fire and other effects. An AH-64 Apache has a powerful sensor suite, a human operator on board to interpret the images and a weapons package to exploit the imagery if needed. A useful analogy would be: its time for you to go to Home Depot to pick up enough flooring to redo your kitchen and living room. Do you want to drive down in your Honda Civic, or would you rather go with a pickup truck? If we take this option we now have a "pickup truck" in the parking lot for the special needs.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Where on Earth have you been?  Anytime we send the MILITARY overseas, it's not because things are fine.  It's because there is or has been a war.  Sometimes we are belligerents, sometimes not, but in every case (mostly every case) we are armed.  This does NOT mean that AH-64s would be needed on every mission, but the same goes for every piece of kit we have: we only take what we need.



It would sure be nice to have a couple sitting in sea cans with "open in case of excremental impact to rotary oscillator" painted on the side in big friendly letters.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the Conservatives had a majority, I could see them eying this sale, but with a minority they won't touch it, just from the optics it would give the Libs and the NDP a chance to paint them as heartless warmongers, complete with youtube video of people getting blasted on the thermals.

It certainly would change the direction of the Air force and we would likely have to ditch most of the Griffions to find the people to fly and fix them.


----------



## ringo

British Apaches have a folding blade mechanism for shipboard storage to support amphibian operations.
 IMO Apaches would be good for CAF, besides escort recce and fire support missions, a foldable rotor would enable Apaches to be embarked in new JSS or even aboard a frigate/destroyer for littoral operations.
 Could Apaches be adapted to naval helicopter hauldown equipment.


----------



## geo

Let's face it..... if we have Chinooks & intend to move personnel and material via those means.... we need something to ride shotgun!

If we have trucks that are following highways that run through "Injun country" we need something to ride shotgun!

Not to have em would be irresponsible and downright negligent ..... IMHO

Get one or two Doz - for use by CEFCOM and SOFCOM


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Fireball said:
			
		

> Let me qualify my statement.  Aside from Afghanistan (and exchange staff in Iraq) we are not in a frontal offensive position.
> 
> J



I might be taking this a little far, but your statement is somewhat like referring to the 1940s and saying "Aside from the European Theatre of Operations we are not in a frontal offensive position."


----------



## Loachman

ringo said:
			
		

> Could Apaches be adapted to naval helicopter hauldown equipment.



It would be simpler and cheaper to add sensors and a suitable weapon package to an existing Naval helicopter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even the US avoids using them in the Marine environemnt.


----------



## geo

It should be a subtle hint that the USMC continues to use the Super Cobra in a marine environment..... Just possibly, they've figured something out


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ringo said:
			
		

> British Apaches have a folding blade mechanism for shipboard storage to support amphibian operations.
> IMO Apaches would be good for CAF, besides escort recce and fire support missions, a foldable rotor *would enable Apaches to be embarked in new JSS or even aboard a frigate/destroyer for littoral operations.* Could Apaches be adapted to naval helicopter hauldown equipment.



Where would we store the AH64s gun ammunition, hellfires and 2.75 inch rockets? Do you understand how much training we would have to give the flight crew to get them qualified to land on the deck? not to mention the ground crew. Hey aviator types....does the Ah64 and the Sea King use the same type of go juice?


----------



## Loachman

geo said:
			
		

> It should be a subtle hint that the USMC continues to use the Super Cobra in a marine environment..... Just possibly, they've figured something out



Yes. Extensively redesigning something for its mission.


----------



## tabernac

Loachman said:
			
		

> It would be simpler and cheaper to add sensors and a suitable weapon package to an existing Naval helicopter.



I hope you're not suggesting we keep our Sea Kings flying longer in an airborne cowboy role...


----------



## geo

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes. Extensively redesigning something for its mission.



Ummm yeah... but once they had the Super Cobra, they never bothered with the Apache


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> Get one or two Doz - for use by CEFCOM and SOFCOM



Sure.......but whos going to fly them and fix them ?


----------



## Kat Stevens

All those SQ and army PLQ qualified guys in the air force....   :rofl:


----------



## geo

Ahhhh..... There's the rub !!


----------



## Loachman

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> I hope you're not suggesting we keep our Sea Kings flying longer in an airborne cowboy role...



A small number of FLIR systems were purchased for them for the Gulf War.

Should there be a similar need during the remainder of the Sea King's life - however long that may turn out to be...

But, no, I did not mention any specific machine, did I?


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> Ahhhh..... There's the rub !!



That's the problem with all these "lets buy this, lets buy that" threads and posts.........it takes allot of people and resources to sustain the equipment and missions. We are desperately short on people as it is now, adding something new just increases the pressure on the existing structure.


----------



## Loachman

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm yeah... but once they had the Super Cobra, they never bothered with the Apache



No, because they had already adopted a "navalised" (to a limited degree) J-model Sea Cobra which continued to evolve.

The Marine and Army missions are different, and they employ their helicopters differently as well - or at least did. I would expect that Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred the lines considerably.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

geo said:
			
		

> Let's face it..... if we have Chinooks & intend to move personnel and material via those means.... *we need something to ride shotgun!*
> If we have trucks that are following highways that run through "Injun country"* we need something to ride shotgun!*



I believe that is already being looked at, from a conversation I had with a couple of fellas from the TacHel world a few months ago while they were in town on RUET.


----------



## FoverF

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Sure.......but whos going to fly them and fix them ?



From the Griffon fleet. 
 - Chinooks will allow us to reduce airframe (and crew, and tech) numbers, without losing lift capacity
 - Apaches would take the surveillance workload
 - Apaches will replace Griffons that will need to be dedicated to the Chinook escort role
 -One Apache in theatre is worth HOW MANY Griffons that are at home because it is too hot/too high/too wet/too high a threat level to deploy them? 

From the Herc fleet.
 - we are replacing many airframes (-E/-H) with few airframes (-J/C-17)
 - those fewer airframes have smaller crews
 - those fewer airframes require a fraction of the maintenance 

From the Sea King fleet
 - being replaced (some day) by a machine with (hopefully) fewer maintenance requirements

From the recruitment benefits we get from having bad-ass helicopters like Apaches
 - everyone in the world knows Apaches are bad-ass
 - everyone in the world thinks it would be cool to fly or probably even just fix Apaches

From Army trades.
 - if the Army wants them, then they're going to have to make sacrifices
 - fewer Leo IIs?
 - Eryx/Javelin/ADATS/others retired without replacement? 
 - No new M777s/Excalibur?

If the CF decides that this is a priority, then it can be done, and done handily. Its not as if the Canadian Forces as an organization is incapable of mustering the resources to buy and fly a limited number of Apaches, especially given the ridiculous economies of scale we can take advantage of from our neighbors. The only question is, what  are you willing to give up to see Apaches overhead? 

I can think of worse things to spend the money on (had a large list here, but elected to erase it), but I can probably think of better things too (had an even larger list here).


----------



## aesop081

FoverF,

I was born *at* night......not *last * night. I know full well that it *can* be done, i've figured that much well before this thread started. My point is this : What are we willing to give up ?

Increased recruiting alone will not make up the shortfalls. Something will have to be given up to bring something like an AH-64 into the fleet.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> FoverF,
> 
> I was born *at* night......not *last * night. I know full well that it *can* be done, i've figured that much well before this thread started. My point is this : What are we willing to give up ?
> 
> Increased recruiting alone will not make up the shortfalls. *Something will have to be given up to bring something like an AH-64 into the fleet.*



Downsize NDHQ by 10%....that'd be an easy 2,000 salaries right there.  I still can't believe there are 20,000+ people "administrating" what is a VERY small armed force.


Matthew.


----------



## daftandbarmy

To paraphrase Churchill: Every (modern first world) country has attack helicopters, it's own or someone else's. 

If we continually go cap in hand to the US and others to beg for basic assets to transport and protect our own troops, what does that mean for our long term claims to self-reliance and, by extension, sovereignty? 

AH are basic tools of the trade these days. We've proved that we know this by trying to Jury Rig our Griffins to be gunships. 

Let's by some Apaches and stand on our own two feet Canada! (Cue national anthem)


----------



## TCBF

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> ...  I still can't believe there are 20,000+ people "administrating" what is a VERY small armed force....



- Where did you get this figure of 20,000?


----------



## Loachman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Downsize NDHQ by 10%....that'd be an easy 2,000 salaries right there.



And how many of them are pilots (let alone rotary-wing) or techs?


----------



## Loachman

FoverF said:
			
		

> From the Griffon fleet.
> - Chinooks will allow us to reduce airframe (and crew, and tech) numbers, without losing lift capacity



Much as I am not a fan of the Griffon, we are already below the number of that type (ie utility, not Griffon specifically) that we should have.

It's more than straight lift capacity.


----------



## aesop081

FoverF said:
			
		

> From the Griffon fleet.
> - Chinooks will allow us to reduce airframe (and crew, and tech) numbers, without losing lift capacity



We are already criticaly short of crews an technicians. Reducing one fleet while introducing another will not increase the number of personel available. It just maintains the status quo



> - Apaches would take the surveillance workload



Take the surveillance workload away from what ? Right now surveillance is done by UAVs and LRPAs how would the Apache take over from that ? The key to surveillance is persistance. The AH-64's endurance (or lack of) does not make it a surveillance platform.



> -One Apache in theatre is worth HOW MANY Griffons that are at home because it is too hot/too high/too wet/too high a threat level to deploy them?



Again, showing your ignorance. CH-146s are in fact going over, thats why we are buying miniguns for them. Loachman can talk about the aircraft's performance figures for over there.



> From the Herc fleet.
> - we are replacing many airframes (-E/-H) with few airframes (-J/C-17)



How does that make more personel available ?



> - those fewer airframes have smaller crews



Those new airframes dont have Navigators and FE. Those people will go to other airframes that are short Navs and FE.........Both trades are short.



> - those fewer airframes require a fraction of the maintenance



But that does not equate to a requirement for less technicians. Oh and did i mention that we are criticaly short of technicians ? 



> From the Sea King fleet
> - being replaced (some day) by a machine with (hopefully) fewer maintenance requirements



See above


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Where did you get this figure of 20,000?



My recollection is I got the number from I report I read by Dr Geoffrey Shaw of the American Military College on the Unification of the Canadian Military .


Matthew.


----------



## FoverF

> How does that make more personel available ?



I never recommended buying Apaches as the solution to the CF-wide personnel shortage. In fact, I never recommended buying them at all.

I was just saying that if the CF decides that flying Apaches is an operational priority (and some people seem to think it should be), then there are more than enough bodies in the CF to make it happen. Other things would have to give, but that's what prioritizing is about. 



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We are already criticaly short of crews an technicians. Reducing one fleet while introducing another will not increase the number of personel available. It just maintains the status quo



If we could maintain the status quo in terms of personnel shortages, and get Apaches, I'd take that deal. But while I was simply giving examples of where we may be able to free up some personnel in the next 5 years or less, there are lots of other options too. Lets not forget about all the people sitting in the backlogged training system (crews and techs), who are essentially doing busy work. If we bought Apaches, a good chunk of those people could simply hop onto the US army's training system along with the initial cadre. Or we could send them to civvy trade schools to learn to fix things while waiting for the obligatory extensive upgrades to be completed. Or sink more money into paying for techs. Headhunt from civilian companies. Maybe even headhunt from foreign militaries. I have yet to see a problem that can't be solved by the prudent application of some currency. 

There's also the option of.. wait for it... wait for it... enlisted flight crew. One (or god forbid, even both) of the crew could be army NCOs, and trained in the US. That would go a long way towards addressing the aircrew problem, and with a minimal burden on our training infrastructure. 

The bottom line is that if the CF decided it really needed to get some Apaches, solutions would be found. 

So the impetus is on those who want Apaches to make the case that they are needed, and needed more than something else that's on the table right now. I think it could be very hard to make that a convincing case.


----------



## ringo

How many armed Griffon's in CAF service, how many Griffon's being sent to Afghanistan if any?
Canadian Apaches pilots any CAF exchange pilots ever fly Apaches with any of are NATO partners?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Griffon numbers in A Stan may be OPSEC
I don't think we have any exchanges with Apache crews but that's out of my lane so I won't commit to that.


----------



## dimsum

FoverF said:
			
		

> There's also the option of.. wait for it... wait for it... enlisted flight crew. One (or god forbid, even both) of the crew could be army NCOs, and trained in the US. That would go a long way towards addressing the aircrew problem, and with a minimal burden on our training infrastructure.



Having an officer or an NCM pilot/nav won't add any new members to the system; you're just robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.  Even in the US Army, where Warrant Officers are Apache (and other) pilots, it's not *exactly* the same as our definition of Warrant Officer.  

Just my $0.02


----------



## JimMorrison19

All of these crew/tech shortages really make me wish there were more of me... there are so many CF jobs I'd love to sign up for.

From a civvy point of view, considering what has been read, getting some apaches and doing some headhunting for pilots might not be a bad thing at all - it might actually help bring in more people to the forces. I can remember when I was a kid, the coolest things in the army to me were the attack helicopters, the aircraft carriers, the jet fighters, and the tanks, and I wanted to be a driver/pilot for one of those. Even when you grow up and get some common sense/reality knocked into you, it's still nice to know that all of those things you thought were totally cool as a kid are there in your military and you could potentially be a pilot for one. It's not a matter of coolness or having something for every situation of course (we'd last REALLY long if we were worried about how cool our military was ) - you guys have already made it clear it's a matter of necessity and proper support.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Griffon numbers in A Stan may be OPSEC
> I don't think we have any exchanges with Apache crews but that's out of my lane so I won't commit to that.



I don't remember us actually sending any over?


----------



## Loachman

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Griffon numbers in A Stan may be OPSEC



I can neither confirm nor deny that we have any Griffons in Afghanistan, but if we had, there's no way that it could be kept secret.



			
				Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I don't think we have any exchanges with Apache crews but that's out of my lane so I won't commit to that.



Yes, we have. and for amusement, the first guy that we sent many years ago was allowed to fly the real machine but could not fly the simulator, as that had a "US Eyes Only" security rating at the time.

I have posted before about the wisdom of employing NCO pilots in Tac Hel (I'm all for it), and methods of simplifying the training system: eliminate the degree requirement and return to the sanity of OCTP for officers, and remove Moose Jaw for helicopter pilots (or at least Tac Hel) and put them through the same training programme that we use for Jamaican pilots. Put them through at least Infantry Officer Phase II or whatever it's called now prior to any pilot training, too.

And ultimately remove Tac Hel from the life-sucking grasp of the a** f**ce and put it back into the Army where it originated and rightfully belongs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> And ultimately remove Tac Hel from the life-sucking grasp of the a** f**ce and put it back into the Army where it originated and rightfully belongs.



But that's crazy talk.  The very next thing you will be suggesting is giving MH back to the Navy!  Heresy!


----------



## geo

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't remember us actually sending any over?



Look out, look out... some griffons are going over.  How many is anyone's guess but - there will be Cdn Chinooks with Griffon escorts (?)  I thought the Chinook was a lot faster ???


----------



## armoured recce man

it is a lot faster but than again it is also a lot faster than a apache....


----------



## thunderchild

i think that our 15 new very expensive CH-47F's Had better be very well escorted because inside thoes helicopters are our kids. I say that if we didn't get rid of the GST, just froze it and chaneled it into northern development and military spending we could afford what we needed.  Attack helicopters are essential, I'd rather not have to keep saying to other countries 'CAN WE BORROW, DO YOU HAVE, WE CAN'T AFFORD' the basics.  When it comes down to it if country A needs the capability that is theres and we need the same and dont have it we wait, Is that worth a life to save face in Ottawa?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

That's what the Griffons are for.  Dedicated support.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

thunderchild said:
			
		

> i think that our 15 new very expensive CH-47F's Had better be very well escorted because inside thoes helicopters are our kids. I say that if we didn't get rid of the GST, just froze it and chaneled it into northern development and military spending we could afford what we needed.  Attack helicopters are essential, I'd rather not have to keep saying to other countries 'CAN WE BORROW, DO YOU HAVE, WE CAN'T AFFORD' the basics.  When it comes down to it if country A needs the capability that is theres and we need the same and dont have it we wait, Is that worth a life to save face in Ottawa?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

thunderchild said:
			
		

> i think that our 15 new very expensive CH-47F's Had better be very well escorted because inside thoes helicopters are our kids. I say that if we didn't get rid of the GST, just froze it and chaneled it into northern development and military spending we could afford what we needed.  Attack helicopters are essential, I'd rather not have to keep saying to other countries 'CAN WE BORROW, DO YOU HAVE, WE CAN'T AFFORD' the basics.  When it comes down to it if country A needs the capability that is theres and we need the same and dont have it we wait, Is that worth a life to save face in Ottawa?



The quiet was too good to be true....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I am all for the procurement of more helicopters for the CF, especially ones of the offensive nature.  Understandably, their isn't a lot of political will power to procure something like an apache but heck if the air force can drop billions of dollars on the JSF... (An aircraft which I would argue we don't need at all/ not that we don't need new aircraft, but I believe money we be far better spent on something like the Eurofighter or something similar) why not by a sqn of apaches or tigers for escort and fire support.

I mean are we not trying to develop an air assault capability within the CF, especially with the procurement of the Chinooks and the re-invigoration of the light infantry.  The CF needs to get away from looking at choppers as simply just a transport platform and look at actually developing some basic tactics and structure to how they conduct helicopter ops i.e. aerial cbt team manoeuvres.


----------



## a_majoor

The government putting out a RFP and tenders for any sort of attack helicopter will certainly cause Stephen Staples and his fellow travelers to go into collective shock, so maybe there is something to that suggestion after all  >

There are some fairly low budget attack helos out there such as the Italian Agusta A129 Mangusta, MH-6 "Little Bird" or (real outlier) the Chinese WZ-10, but the real cost is always the trained manpower to operate the machines. Streamlining the headquarters will open up PYs for other things, but I doubt the number of PY's would match what we need now to fill in the gaps in existing organizations, much less entirely new organizations.

Still, as missions and needs evolve, so too will where and how we place resources. It may well be that attack helicopters might be supplemented by UAV or UCAV's, or their roles taken by other technologies (ground attack by aircraft coming in the weeds has been largely replaced by high altitude bombing using smart weapons, for example)


----------



## aesop081

Thucydides said:
			
		

> (ground attack by aircraft coming in the weeds has been largely replaced by high altitude bombing using smart weapons, for example)



Only because the operating environments lately have been permisive as far as the air situation is concerned.


----------



## Good2Golf

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The government putting out a RFP and tenders for any sort of attack helicopter will certainly cause Stephen Staples and his fellow travelers to go into *collective* shock, so maybe there is something to that suggestion after all  >
> ...




T, pun intended?   If so,  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well considering our recent usage, one could likely get Mi-8AMTSh's to act in this role, and we could sell them to the public as dual use SAR helo's inbetween killings... :stirpot:


----------



## FoverF

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> T, pun intended?   If so,  ;D



I absolutely despise puns in all their forms. But this just about made my day.

Oh, and I'd rather see us get AORs, Javelins, HIMARS, a few extra C-17 and CC-150 airframes, a DDH replacement, F-35s, satellites, combat-capable submarines, more U(C)AVs, a fleet of P-8s (with maybe some airframes in a Wedgetail-type configuration), an LDP, maybe some Juan-Carlos I class ships, and while I'm dreaming I'd wish for some means of rudimentary ground-based air defence. Once we had all of that in place, then maybe some AH's. Like Tiger ARHs. 

But let's be realistic. There's no way Canada could afford gear like this. It's impossible... *cough* AUSTRALIA *cough* excuse me.  Things like stealth fighters, AWACS, aircraft carriers, attack helos, and SAMs are outside the reach of middle powers like us.

*COUGH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures *cough*, oh, gesundheit.

(Just to be fair, Australia doesn't have HIMARS. I could live with that.)


----------



## Michael OLeary

*COUGH* http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44917.0.html *COUGH*


----------



## a_majoor

The ROK gets AH-64Es with the new "Arrowhead" system. The ability to track targets in ground clutter and urban environments is very important in today's environment:

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20171215.aspx



> *Air Weapons: The Missile That Sells Helicopters*
> 
> December 15, 2017: In early November South Korea held a live fire exercise off the west coast featuring its newly organized force of AH-64E helicopter gunships. Eight AH-64Es flew sixty kilometers to the coast and then each of them fired at an offshore target using a Hellfire guided missile. This exercise was more for North Korea than anyone else because the 36 South Korea AH-64s began arriving in mid-2016 and were all in service by January 2017. What makes the AH-64 so effective is that it is combat proven, reliable and carries sixteen Hellfire missiles. Each one can be used to destroy individual vehicles (including tanks) or ships (especially the small, fast ones North Korea depends on).
> 
> The current Hellfire II weighs 48 kg (106 pounds), carries a 9 kg (20 pound) warhead, and has a range of 8,000 meters. The Hellfire is fast, travelling at about 450 meters a second, meaning that it can hit a target at maximum range in less than 20 seconds. Hellfire is popular for use in urban areas because the small warhead (with only about a kilogram/2.2 pounds of explosives) reduces casualties among nearby civilian (“collateral damage”). Hellfire was introduced in early 1980, shortly before the AH-64 entered service. Both systems were successful and remain in high demand worldwide.
> 
> South Korea ordered the AH-64E in 2013 and they arrived a year ahead of schedule because of the growing threat from North Korea. The South Korean AH-64Es are equipped with the new TADS/PNVS (“Arrowhead”) all-weather targeting systems. This cost an extra $6.8 million per helicopter but was considered worth it because South Korean Army aviators had seen Arrowhead in action on U.S. 48 AH-64Es stationed in South Korea and urged adoption of the system because they could see how effective it was along the DMZ, which is hilly and often covered in low clouds or mist. Moreover the Arrowhead system had proved itself during combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. Army began installing Arrowhead in its AH-64s in 2005 after two years of development and testing. Arrowhead uses the latest night vision devices (light enhancement and thermal, or heat, based) and fire control electronics to enable AH-64 crews to operate more safely, and effectively, at lower altitudes and in any weather. This is particularly critical in urban areas, where South Korea expects a lot of combat to take place if the North Koreans manage to get across the border (DMZ).
> 
> Work on Arrowhead got a boost after the Iraq invasion in 2003, which was followed by a growing amount of urban fighting. This created the need for an AH-64 that could hover at 800 meters (2,500 feet) altitude (safe from most small arms fire) and use its high resolution sensors to see who was doing what for out to eight kilometers (five miles) away. Arrowhead could do that, and now most American AH-64s have Arrowhead and many transport helicopters as well (to make night flying safer). Whatever an AH-64 can see (or detect via Arrowhead) it can hit with a Hellfire missile.
> 
> Arrowhead was a major shift from the previous Longbow fire control system developed in the 1990s. Longbow was designed for the original AH-64 mission: flying at higher altitudes and looking for and destroying distant enemy armored vehicles. The Longbow allowed the AH-64 to go after armored vehicles at night and in bad weather. In the past, potential American enemies practiced moving their armor at night and bad weather, to avoid helicopters armed with long range missiles (like Hellfire or TOW). Longbow was doubly lethal because it was designed to avoid giving away its position when using its radar. AH-64s also had electronic countermeasures. Arrowhead, on the other hand, made night and bad weather deadly for enemy troops thinking they could sneak through urban areas unobserved. Longbow could not spot these guys, but Arrowhead could and did. South Korea had plenty of evidence that North Korean troops trained to use tactics that Arrowhead proved it could handle. The latest AH-64E exercise using Hellfire missiles made it clear that South Korea was now ready to handle North Korean gunboats and high speed hovercraft North Korea had stationed on the west coast for landing commandos.
> 
> Both American and South Korean forces are using the latest version of the AH-64. This model was originally designated the AH-64D Block III. But the changes proved to be so extensive that the name was changed to AH-64E. The E version had its first flight in 2008 entered service in 2011. The U.S. Army decided to upgrade all 634 of its AH-64s to the new E standard, a process that won't be completed until 2020.
> 
> The E version had a lot of improvements. One of the notable ones is a more powerful and fuel efficient engine, as well as much improved electronics. This includes Internet like capabilities with other aircraft and ground troops. The E version is able to control several UAVs and launch missiles at targets spotted by its UAVs. The E version radar has longer range and onboard computers are much more powerful. The electronics are easier to upgrade and maintain. The combination of Longbow, Arrowhead, and Internet capabilities greatly increased the capabilities of the AH-64. That and all the combat experience it gained after 2001 made it the most popular helicopter gunship design and nations that could afford to (and were on good terms with the U.S.) ordered the AH-64 or the Arrowhead upgrades.
> 
> The 10 ton AH-64E carries a pilot and a weapons officer, as well as about a ton of weapons. The AH-64 can operate at night and has a top speed of 260 kilometers an hour. Sorties average 90 minutes but can be extended to three hours or more by replacing weapons with fuel tanks. Most of the existing 1,100 AH-64s (American and foreign) will eventually be upgraded to the E standard. AH-64Es can fly several sorties a day, for at least a few days. This is the kind of weapon North Korea fears most and the South Koreans are trying to keep their new AH-64s safe from North Korea artillery or commando attack on the first day of any war.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

*UK recently mothballed sixteen (16) WAH -64 Apache.*    http://defense-update.com/20150321_british_apache.html

We might make an agreement with UK. Bring those WAH-64 (blade folding capability) and upgraded them to AH-64E. 

They will be stationed in BATUS, some with skis (https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/apache-attack-helicopters-don-skis-and-other-upgrades-f-1764321093). 

The Helicopters will remain part of the motherland Army (leased to Canada) in exchange for spare parts for their Apaches. We will need to upgrade our Army Doctrine,  we will train our own pilots in Apache inter operations tactics. We can use as deterrent to our friend from uhumm the Arctic and beyond and use them in our foreign expeditionary UN sponsored missions case in point Mali. It will be cheaper than buying hardware


----------



## OldSolduer

FWIW I think you’re dreaming in technicolor. There is no way the current GoC would consider using attack helicopters IMO.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

You are absolutely right...dreaming still is free  rly:

FYI:

50 New AH64E Apache cost US$ 2.3 Billion (US$ 56 Million a piece).  Re manufacture to AH64E will cost US$ 12.9 Million a piece (US$ 488 Million per 38 Apaches). BATUS for UK is priceless...hope a GoC representative notice this asymetry.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-to-remanufacture-38-apaches-for-uk-437205/


----------



## daftandbarmy

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right...dreaming still is free  rly:
> 
> FYI:
> 
> 50 New AH64E Apache cost US$ 2.3 Billion (US$ 56 Million a piece).  Re manufacture to AH64E will cost US$ 12.9 Million a piece (US$ 488 Million per 38 Apaches). BATUS for UK is priceless...hope a GoC representative notice this asymetry.
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-to-remanufacture-38-apaches-for-uk-437205/



As long as they have unicorn paint jobs, and the ability to fire parkas and teddy bears, the current government would likely support this idea


----------



## tomahawk6

Get some used A-10's instead. 8)


----------



## daftandbarmy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Get some used A-10's instead. 8)



First: more long range artillery (MLRS)
Second: Whatever else is needed to support the infantry and armoured fight


----------



## alexanderpeterson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Second: Whatever else is needed to support the infantry and armoured fight



Apache is a formidable infantry support asset (Do not forget during the first Gulf war a complete Iraqi Battalion surrender to a couple of Apaches. Source: Desert Storm Land Power Osprey Coalition Iraqi Armies Gulf War by Tim Ripley and they were design to combat Varsovia Pact armored tanks in Eastern Europe. Agreed with MLRS, btw...anyone knows what is the status of that purchasing process?


----------



## daftandbarmy

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Apache is a formidable infantry support asset (Do not forget during the first Gulf war a complete Iraqi Battalion surrender to a couple of Apaches. Source: Desert Storm Land Power Osprey Coalition Iraqi Armies Gulf War by Tim Ripley and they were design to combat Varsovia Pact armored tanks in Eastern Europe. Agreed with MLRS, btw...anyone knows what is the status of that purchasing process?



Artillery is an all weather, 24/7, brylcreem free asset


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Canadian Army needs both for different reasons MLRS to improve Artillery Capability and deterrent if our Northern Arctic neighbor became creative. Apache for protecting Infantry and overseas deployment...among other useful things.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Imagine one of this...with the Red Maple on it


----------



## Loachman

We haven't painted red maple leaves on green helicopters for more than three decades.


----------



## Journeyman

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Imagine *one* of this...with the Red Maple on it
> 
> 
> 
> Loachman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't painted *red* maple leaves on green helicopters for more than three decades.
Click to expand...


I think Canada having _any_  Apaches, let alone one, is a more significant "imagine" than the roundel colour.  

But thanks.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Or Cobras?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Lets start a petition. Who is joining? Basically Buy Apaches Helicopter...who is with me? :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Search?category=All&text=apache



You are serious? You come to Army.ca and ask serving military personnel to sign a petition to buy attack helicopters for the CF?

You are delusional.

 :facepalm:


----------



## alexanderpeterson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You are serious? You come to Army.ca and ask serving military personnel to sign a petition to buy attack helicopters for the CF?
> 
> You are delusional.
> 
> :facepalm:



Did not know the rules. Learned the hard way...It was a bad joke


----------



## George Wallace

Not to troll, but this seems interesting in this thread...... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Ie0CwP_EgM0


Propaganda or not?


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Going back on track.

Interesting article about The Ansbach Trials:   http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-canada-doesnt-have-attack.html

Good info in this book as well: U.S. Armed Forces Arsenal: A Guide To Modern Combat Hardware

Disclaimer: I am not the author nor editor nor commercial interest in selling it.


----------



## George Wallace

Interesting read on the history of these policies.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Now that Japan self defense force and Canadian Military signed a Military pact. Do you think they will allow use Attack Helicopter to Canada what about an AH1 or AH64DJP


----------



## alexanderpeterson

AH64DJP


----------



## SeaKingTacco

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Now that Japan self defense force and Canadian Military signed a Military pact. Do you think they will allow use Attack Helicopter to Canada what about an AH1 or AH64DJP



I think it is more likely that Justin Trudeau would go to work tomorrow for Mobil-Exon, than the CAF would get attack helicopters.


----------



## FSTO

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Going back on track.
> 
> Interesting article about The Ansbach Trials:   http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-canada-doesnt-have-attack.html
> 
> Good info in this book as well: U.S. Armed Forces Arsenal: A Guide To Modern Combat Hardware
> 
> Disclaimer: I am not the author nor editor nor commercial interest in selling it.



That post proves to me that Canada as a country is a dilettante when it comes to defence. Come to think of it, we as a nation are a dilettante on many issues.


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I think it is more likely that Justin Trudeau would go to work tomorrow for Mobil-Exon, than the CAF would get attack helicopters.



Or me going to work for the Liberal party.....


----------



## Cloud Cover

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I think it is more likely that Justin Trudeau would go to work tomorrow for Mobil-Exon, than the CAF would get attack helicopters.



He probably owns shares ....


----------



## alexanderpeterson

I think that realistically one option will be to start working with the Motherland at BATUS using the Air-Ground Helicopter Troops Support that British uses.


----------



## tomahawk6

Just get some loaners from the US since they are downsizing aviation assets.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Just get some loaners from the US since they are downsizing aviation assets.



Good option, another get from the British Army as they are shelving Model A...upgrade them to D (Block III)


----------



## dangerboy

You do realize that there is a lot more to getting helicopters than getting the aircraft. You have to have a logistics system to support them, spare parts, training both pilots and technicians (on real aircraft and simulators), infrastructure to house them.  This goes for any piece of equipment, you look at what capability gaps we currently have and what is the best way to mitigate those gaps and whether or not we can afford to invest into that capability (financially or resource wise), can we afford to add another fleet of aircraft into the system.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dangerboy said:
			
		

> You do realize that there is a lot more to getting helicopters than getting the aircraft. You have to have a logistics system to support them, spare parts, training both pilots and technicians (on real aircraft and simulators), infrastructure to house them.  This goes for any piece of equipment, you look at what capability gaps we currently have and what is the best way to mitigate those gaps and whether or not we can afford to invest into that capability (financially or resource wise), can we afford to add another fleet of aircraft into the system.



You are wasting your breath. Once a fanboy gets a platform stuck in their head, there is no point in using logic...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would like a medium lift helicopter capable of mounting missiles, rockets and MGs without a major loss in performance or range, along with the systems to do so.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would like a medium lift helicopter capable of mounting missiles, rockets and MGs without a major loss in performance or range, along with the systems to do so.



Blackhawk? I’m an infantry dude so small words please


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would like a medium lift helicopter capable of mounting missiles, rockets and MGs without a major loss in performance or range, along with the systems to do so.



Yes, we can go back to the 60s and use this as a role model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohcvIHNbOHc

Maybe they'll throw in a few bugles for free?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't forget the surfboards and napalm.


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would like a medium lift helicopter capable of mounting missiles, rockets and MGs without a major loss in performance or range, along with the systems to do so.



CH-148 or 149??


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Technically we have both in the system and either would do, replace 1 squadron of Griffons with these and then replace the remaining Griffons with the more powerful updated version (or rebuild them like the USMC is doing) to the later variant. Develop an armament suite for both airframes including rockets, perhaps Hellfires or similar and guns. Add in a sensor package. They can be switched from transport to escort/support as required. It's the 50% solution, but I don't see any other hope. We can call them Conflict Resolution Providers or Force Protection Platforms and quite a bit of the work can be done in Canada, meaning jobs. Never use that ugly word : "Attack".


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> Technically we have both in the system and either would do, replace 1 squadron of Griffons with these and then replace the remaining Griffons with the more powerful updated version (or rebuild them like the USMC is doing) to the later variant. Develop an armament suite for both airframes including rockets, perhaps Hellfires or similar and guns. Add in a sensor package. They can be switched from transport to escort/support as required. It's the 50% solution, but I don't see any other hope. We can call them Conflict Resolution Providers or Force Protection Platforms and quite a bit of the work can be done in Canada, meaning jobs. Never use that ugly word : "Attack".



The press already calls the Griffon an attack helicopter, so with upgrades they'll start to call it a flying-battleship or something.

I've always thought that would be the plan for the Griffon life-extension project. Have it all done in QC as an excuse to throw money at the aero industry there. Rebuild them slowly to keep a line going, throw money at PW Canada for new engines. Then buy some Cobras in a rush to protect the Griffons after something horrible happens on a peacema...peace support mission after an outcry over why we sent people in aircraft so lightly armoured (iltis, Gators ring a bell). Have those Cobras sustained on a nice fat maintenance/support contract out of QC.


----------



## NavyShooter

Let's call them PEACE Griffons.


*P*r_ojectile and_ *E*_xplosive_ *A*_rmed_ *C*_onflict_ *E*_liminator_ Griffons.


Get the pilots to start wearing Man-Buns, and growing hipster beards (see the Dress Regs thread) and make sure they're bluetooth equipped so that we can suggest that we are on the cutting edge of system integration.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

dangerboy said:
			
		

> You do realize that there is a lot more to getting helicopters than getting the aircraft. You have to have a logistics system to support them, spare parts, training both pilots and technicians (on real aircraft and simulators), infrastructure to house them.  This goes for any piece of equipment, you look at what capability gaps we currently have and what is the best way to mitigate those gaps and whether or not we can afford to invest into that capability (financially or resource wise), can we afford to add another fleet of aircraft into the system.



Indeed. There are the logistics behind implement this kind of hardware: supply chain, training, etc.Totally worth it and thats why I do think that the optimal and cheapest option is to go under the British Army Umbrella.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Look this modified Black Hawk called Level III by Israel https://www.youtube.com/embed/PUJja7V5VGw?Autoplay=1rel=0&wmode=transparent


----------



## OldSolduer

A fanatic - one who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> A fanatic - one who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.



fa·nat·ic
fəˈnadik/Submit
noun
noun: fanatic; plural noun: fanatics
a person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for something, especially an activity.
"a fitness fanatic" . 

I thought that Apaches name on the thread was the whole purpose  ;D...and also thought that study after study. It has shown that there is indeed a gap in terms on ground support. How to close it that's the US$65M question - cost of a new Apache - no pun intended-
I like that idea of replacing Griffons with improved "support" versions Made in Canada of course.


----------



## Jarnhamar

AH-1s would be a better pick than Apache's.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Just get some loaners from the US since they are downsizing aviation assets.



This was looked at, once, years ago.  One of my former COs in the Reserve's was an exchange Cobra pilot with the US (before becoming CO 413 in Sside...so this was a while ago).  There was interest and talk on the US 'loaning' the CAF some Cobra's they considered surplus (something like that).  The idea was put to bed when the cost of operating/arming/maintaining/etc attack helo's and/or political considerations of Canada 'owning' dedicated attack helo's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> A fanatic - one who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.



Mind you they sometimes succeed in changing things, because they won't let go and wear out/out live their opponents. Keep in mind we got our first subs because of the actions of a BC Premier that would not be shuffled off by the Navy.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

AH1 advantage is that they can operate on ships...I don't know about cold winter.
Reiteratively (Fan...) is that those British second hand Apaches were adapted to operate in UK Navy carriers.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Mind you they sometimes succeed in changing things, because they won't let go and wear out/out live their opponents. Keep in mind we got our first subs because of the actions of a BC Premier that would not be shuffled off by the Navy.



We need a few good fanatics https://www.berlineaton.com/blog/good-fanatics


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Going back to capability gap and I don't want to quote "We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist" phrase, but I see the gap in two aspects:
1. Defense and deterrence. 
2. Overseas Projection. Peace keeping.

1. Having them will increase our defense capabilities in case of an unlikely but plausible scenario from the North/Arctic (Bear) or Pacific (Dragon) and at the same will serve as a deterrent knowing our rivals that we do have that formidable hardware and 2. We can support other countries ground forces in UN sponsored initiatives: Mali as an example and the use of Holland Atta..err Support Helicopters.

How to close it: Here is where we have to be creative seeing all edges: Taxpayers and Canadian jobs. 

One idea to upgrade Griffons into a UH1Y Venom (Bell 412 Mirabel Hardware) installing Rocket Launchers for Hydra or equivalent and both automatic Gatling -
Other is to bring those mothballed Apaches from UK in exchange for the future spare parts for their newest-there are models in the Army to calculate it-. Upgrade them to 64D and share expenses related to Logistics and Training with UK as they will replace Gazzeles and join the Linx in BATUS.


----------



## Good2Golf

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> ...Other is to bring those mothballed Apaches from UK in exchange for the future spare parts for their newest-there are models in the Army to calculate it-. Upgrade them to 64D and share expenses related to Logistics and Training with UK as they will replace Gazzeles and join the Linx in BATUS.



You mean, upgrade them to the current standard, right?  The AH-64E 'Guardian.'


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You mean, upgrade them to the current standard, right?  The AH-64E 'Guardian.'



You are absolutely right. I thought I have wrote D Block III.

AH-64E Guardian (formerly known as AH-64D Block III)


----------



## Loachman

Reality:

We are stuck with Griffon in its current configuration, with a few minor tweaks, for the foreseeable future. It will be replaced outright, eventually, but not for another decade or three. Or more. No Griffon is ever going to be "upgraded" to a UH-1Y. That is a completely new helicopter. Yes, one could stick old CH146 builder's plates on the new machine and call it a CH146B "upgrade" for political reasons, but that is not very honest.

We already have, from the government perspective, a new toy helicopter, and that should be enough to make us happy. Santa won't be back for a long time.

Chinook, despite careful and thorough planning, still lags. Introduction of a new fleet is more of a challenge than most people realize. Way more of a challenge. A radically different fleet - we have no history of attack helicopters whatsoever, beyond a few exchange Officers - brings even bigger challenges, and not just within the Tac Hel community.

We do not have anywhere nearly enough people to adopt a third fleet into the Tac Hel community. We are as-close-to-never-as-one-can-possibly-get going to have enough people. That is the same situation that every other community in the whole CF (save, perhaps, ever-more-numerous and ever-more-bloated HQs). CF total strength is capped. To increase positions in one place means reducing positions in others. To gain something, we must give up something else. What should that be?

People take years to recruit and train (much, much too long - and that is a whole other rantable subject), and even longer to develop operational experience. We cannot knit or buy Pilots and Techs. We do not have enough as it is, and experience levels are already low across the community. There are huge delays between courses, and three or four years wasted in university or RMC in the case of Officers. We cannot retain enough of the people in whom we have invested so much for a variety of reasons, many of which are correctable if the right people in the right places cared enough and truly wanted to.

The government cannot even buy simple _trucks_ as it is, or _decent boots_, or maintain sufficient quantities of basic operational clothing. It cannot buy ships, maritime helicopters, fighters, or a host of other items, "cheap" or otherwise, in a timely fashion.

There are so many other priorities, and always will be.

And it is far easier to not get something that one has never had than it is to give up something that one views as absolutely essential in order to pay for it.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Well said :goodpost:


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Loachman] 

The government cannot even buy simple _trucks_ as it is, or _decent boots_, or maintain sufficient quantities of basic operational clothing. It cannot buy ships, maritime helicopters, fighters, or a host of other items, "cheap" or otherwise, in a timely fashion.

[/quote]

For sure. I think most if not all of our air assets would be grounded or taken out pretty quick if we came up against a Russian Motor Rifle Brigade. 

Its insulting to a lot of these other countries were hypothetically squaring off against to call them "near peer" with Canada.


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> For sure. I think most if not all of our air assets would be grounded or taken out pretty quick if we came up against a Russian Motor Rifle Brigade.
> 
> Its insulting to a lot of these other countries were hypothetically squaring off against to call them "near peer" with Canada.



Unless it's overflying them after they were 'tuned' with a fire mission of American ATACMS...  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Unless it's overflying them after they were 'tuned' with a fire mission of American ATACMS...  :nod:



I don’t know what a ATACMS is but I like the sound of it .....


----------



## PuckChaser

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I don’t know what a ATACMS is but I like the sound of it .....



If sound is what you want, sound is what you get: https://youtu.be/UZ5PXC4oSXk?t=46

You're right, it sounds pretty.


----------



## daftandbarmy

$2.3B to upgrade the British Apache fleet, in 2016. I can't imagine Canada being able to find the political will and financial capital to invest that much, and more, to maintain an attack helicopter fleet:

https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defence-systems/rebirth-british-army%E2%80%99s-apache-fleet


----------



## tomahawk6

Army Tactical Missile System fired by HIMARS or the MLS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr_hPAcR_Q

HIMARS video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3Jpuwd6Js


----------



## Kat Stevens

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> Going back to capability gap and I don't want to quote "We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist" phrase, but I see the gap in two aspects:
> 1. Defense and deterrence.
> 2. Overseas Projection. Peace keeping.
> 
> 1. Having them will increase our defense capabilities in case of an unlikely but plausible scenario from the North/Arctic (Bear) or Pacific (Dragon) and at the same will serve as a deterrent knowing our rivals that we do have that formidable hardware and 2. We can support other countries ground forces in UN sponsored initiatives: Mali as an example and the use of Holland Atta..err Support Helicopters.
> 
> How to close it: Here is where we have to be creative seeing all edges: Taxpayers and Canadian jobs.
> 
> One idea to upgrade Griffons into a UH1Y Venom (Bell 412 Mirabel Hardware) installing Rocket Launchers for Hydra or equivalent and both automatic Gatling -
> Other is to bring those mothballed Apaches from UK in exchange for the future spare parts for their newest-there are models in the Army to calculate it-. Upgrade them to 64D and share expenses related to Logistics and Training with UK as they will replace Gazzeles and join the Linx in BATUS.



How many of these units do you expect Canada to buy to be a minor inconvenience, let alone a deterrent, to these bears and dragons?


----------



## alexanderpeterson

I think 16 will be sufficient...


----------



## Infanteer

Why not 17?


----------



## OldSolduer

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Why not 17?



20


----------



## Infanteer

19 + Airwolf.


----------



## OldSolduer

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 19 + Airwolf.



For sure!

Can we get Kiowas too?


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 19 + Airwolf.



Only if the Army gets Knight Rider as well.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Only if the Army gets Knight Rider as well.



What does the Navy get?


----------



## PuckChaser

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> What does the Navy get?


The Red October.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Red October.



Well played sir!

I like that!


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Best thread ever  :rofl:


----------



## Loachman

The last few posts have been a huge improvement, at least.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I think it's pretty clear from those that know the military and government, that this fantasy is an absolute non starter. Canada's debt is now to the point where we can't even lease Sopwith Camels in any quantity. Never mind the training, spares, maintenance contracts and the possible stadup of a new squadron and it's facilities. The Canadian government, it seems at this time, has no interest at all in the CAF or their tribulations of rust out and obsolete and subpar equipment.


----------



## tomahawk6

typicalLiiberal government.


----------



## NavyShooter

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Red October.



Only if we can get Alec Baldwin and Sean Connery to steal it for us.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think it's pretty clear from those that know the military and government, that this fantasy is an absolute non starter. Canada's debt is now to the point where we can't even lease Sopwith Camels in any quantity. Never mind the training, spares, maintenance contracts and the possible stadup of a new squadron and it's facilities. The Canadian government, it seems at this time, has no interest at all in the CAF or their tribulations of rust out and obsolete and subpar equipment.



This has been the Liberal Party of Canada's MO for six decades.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This has been the Liberal Party of Canada's MO for six decades.




In fairness, Prime Minister Harper threw the defence budget under the bus in 2012, but, also in fairness, only after all the admirals and generals persuaded MND Peter MacKay to outright disobey the PM's direction to cut real property and our already bloated C2 superstructure. (Did MacKay suffer, I wonder, from some form of '_Stockholm Syndrome_' after being locked up in 101 Colonel By Drive with all the brass?) Equally, Brian Mulroney proposed a lot ~ even nuclear submarines ~ but offered no new money ... not after one had factored inflation into the equation. 

It's not a uniquely Liberal issue. The fact, and I assert that it is a demonstrable fact, is that most (maybe 85%+) Canadians think governments already spend enough or too much on defence. (I can dig up the polling if someone insists, but, recently, last couple of years, I saw that support for increased defence spending was down at 10 to 15% ... just above support for more money for symphony orchestras and concert halls.) The notion of new ships, tanks and aircraft being just "toys for the boys" is well entrenched in Canadians' minds. Conservative and Liberals governments are just doing what their constituents demand ... which is a constant demand of many members of the ill informed political right wing. 

So, if you want to know why we can't have new kit ...

     + Ask the admirals and generals why they thought they knew more than the prime minister; and

     + Ask the admirals and generals why they keep "low balling" costs: are they afraid of the real numbers or do they not understand basic accounting?

     + Ask your fiends and neighbours why they don't want a properly funded military ... 

But don't blame politicians for doing what the people want ... that's dishonest.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Except that politicians don't do what the people want, once elected. They do what the party wants. 

Broad, over the top, I know. However, I don't think I'm that wrong.


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> Except that politicians don't do what the people want, once elected. They do what the party wants.
> 
> Broad, over the top, I know. However, I don't think I'm that wrong.




We'll have to agree to disagree ... political parties have advanced the science of "market research" father, faster than the retail industry ever did. Political parties poll regularly and assiduously because their success is measured in votes ... you need to campaign and govern on a platform that people want, and, very, Very, VERY often what most people want is less or, at the very least, no more spending on symphony orchestras, opera halls and the military.

Now, I'm happy to agree that, in the case of the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democrats, too, the party establishment is, for the most part, found amongst the so-called _Laurentian Elites_ and they are, broadly and generally, anti-military or, at least, "for" peace and the UN and so on and _believe_ that e.g. peacekeeping can be done safely and cheaply. But they, like the campaign teams, must fall into line with what the public wants ... and all that polling says that the public wants a cleaner environment and less carbon emissions and better treatment for First Nations and gender and racial equality right along with more, better jobs, more generous social programmes, better health care and lower taxes. The people, writ large, the voters don't care about their national defence until it is (almost) too late. The government ~ Conservative or Liberal ~ is only too happy to oblige because it already has too many difficult to impossible fiscal balls to juggle ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Some governments, Paul Martin's and Stephen Harper's between 2004 and 2012 probably did care and probably did have ambitions to give Canada a better and maybe even bigger and better funded military but, even with Afghanistan, there were always too many other, often more politically important priorities ... absent a real big, costly (I mean casualty lists in the dozens or more every single day) war or a HUGE scandal defence will never climb to the top of the "importance" poll.

So, my old friend, politicians are doing what most people want, most of the time ... it's just that they, the people, almost never want what is important to you and me.


----------



## Loch Sloy!

The Griffins will need replacing sooner rather than later. 

The USMC "rebuild" of their Hueys into UH-1Ys was a very clever procurement bait and switch that resulted in a really capable aircraft that they may not have got otherwise... given the Griffon lineage this might work for us too.

As a side benefit we might be able to sell the parts commonality with the AH-1Z to get 10 or 20 Cobras while we're at it. Not sure the Airforce would be interested in the above, but it sure would be comforting for us grunts if something like that came to pass.


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for Canadian govt's--all stripes--and defence procurement balls-ups over time and now, Kim Richard Nossal's _Charlie Foxtrot: Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada_ is, er, bang-on (though he makes few historical errors about details).  Excerpt from a review:



> ...Ultimately, he attributes the cause of this mess to the Canadian “security imaginary,” that is, how Canadians’ view of their position in the world has led to their preference to spend miserly on defence as there are no attendant great national risks in so doing. For Nossal, this “imaginary” has two major effects: first, a highly permissive environment is created for Canadian politicians as voter indifference to defence issues is mirrored by an indifference to mismanagement of defence policy; and, second, a contradiction develops between the model of a military cabinet ministers might prefer and the one they are willing to fund...
> https://cdainstitute.ca/book-review-no-10-roy-of-nossal-charlie-foxtrot-fixing-defence-procurement-in-canada/



More at Amazon.ca:
https://www.amazon.ca/Charlie-Foxtrot-Fixing-Defence-Procurement/dp/1459736753

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It is up to us the informed persons to educate people around us on the importance of defense and having a proper strategy for the replacement of major items. every voter we can educate is another small step in the right direction.


----------



## Loachman

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> The Griffins will need replacing sooner rather than later.



Why?


----------



## suffolkowner

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why?



Yeah I don't understand this either I know they're over 20 years old but that's pretty young for the Canadian Forces. Plus every other platform in the RCAF are probably older and in more dire need of replacement


----------



## Loachman

The mid-range ones began arriving at 400 Squadron in the summer of 1996. I cannot remember when the first and last of the one hundred machines were delivered, but the average age is 22.

The first Sea King replacement programme began when? The Sea King replacement programme will end when?

There has not even been a _*hint*_ of a Griffon replacement programme yet. So take the duration - or a best guess - of the whole, sorry, Sea King replacement misery and add about ten years.

One of my grandchildren may fly it, and he/she/it/whatever they'll call themselves by then isn't even born yet.

There will not be any upgrades, beyond those absolutely required to allow it to continue flying in controlled airspace. Nothing that increases performance.


----------



## Good2Golf

Loachman said:
			
		

> There has not even been a _*hint*_ of a Griffon replacement programme yet. So take the duration - or a best guess - of the whole, sorry, Sea King replacement misery and add about ten years.



Actually the RCAF briefed the Tactical Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter (TRUH) project at the CADSI Outlook Conferences a couple of weeks ago. TRUH would replace Griffin in the early 2030s.  Sounds like a long time, but 10-12 years for a project to deliver first articles is not unheard of. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

G2G: Your keyboard must be broken. Your "3" key is wiggly and generates "1"'s.

I am sure you meant "30-32 years", right


----------



## OldSolduer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> G2G: Your keyboard must be broken. Your "3" key is wiggly and generates "1"'s.
> 
> I am sure you meant "30-32 years", right



The CAF struggled for 10 years to equip the soldiers with boots and even then messed it up


----------



## dangerboy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The CAF struggled for 10 years to equip the soldiers with boots and even then messed it up



You missed a zero there, we have been screwing up boots since WWI (and probably before that) https://canadaatwarblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/first-contingent-c-e-f-first-world-war-boots-purchase-scandal-aug-1914/


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> G2G: Your keyboard must be broken. Your "3" key is wiggly and generates "1"'s.
> 
> I am sure you meant "30-32 years", right



 :rofl:

I sprinkled some Unicorn dust on it, that should fix it OGBD.   ;D

I've seen from 8 months to many decades to provide major capabilities, and a lot in between.  For TRUH, I figure early-2030s isn't bad, all things considered. :nod:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Loch Sloy!

I was referring to this;

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/aerospace-systems-913.page



> Replace Existing Systems
> 
> 
> Objective
> 
> To acquire a replacement capability for the CH146 Griffon.
> 
> Requirements
> 
> The TRUH project must provide a replacement for the fleet of CH 146 Griffon helicopters with an Initial Operational Capability prior to 2030. TRUH must have the ability to transport a 3500lb load in excess of 100kms at a minimum cruise speed of 140kts. It must also be equipped with weapons for self-protection and EO/IR sensors to enable operational missions day or night.
> 
> Preliminary Estimate
> •More than $1.5 billion
> 
> Anticipated Timeline
> •2020 ◦Options Analysis
> 
> •2021 to 2025 ◦Definition Approval
> ◦Implementation Approval
> ◦Request for Proposal Release
> ◦Contract Award
> 
> •2026 to 2035 ◦Final Delivery



I'm well aware of the low (nil?) likelihood that the timeline above will actually be followed however the plan is in the works. There is staff work and money going into the project so who knows? The UH-1Z program for the USMC will be winding down in a few years, would be a pretty good time to leverage that into the TRUH program.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why?



Because it would be the logical thing to do is to replace a piece equipment prior to it falling out of the sky on a regular basis and actually having some resale value, considering we could have the replacement 412EPI helicopters made right here in Canada and already in service with the CCG. We have a good idea of costs as well (156mil for 7). Order 10 a year, in a decade you have replaced all the Griffions, or 20 a year and do it in 5, You likely get 1-2 mil for each Griffon as well. I realize forward planning in procurement is not the Canadian way, but hey dare to dream.


----------



## jmt18325

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think it's pretty clear from those that know the military and government, that this fantasy is an absolute non starter. Canada's debt is now to the point where we can't even lease Sopwith Camels in any quantity.



If by that you mean the lowest of any G7 country, sure.


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If by that you mean the lowest of any G7 country, sure.



Ah but JMT when it comes to Defence procurement its "We can't afford it! The cost, the cost!!"

Though when it comes to a favourite social program its "Debt and cost be damned! LETS DO IT!!!!!!"


----------



## AirDet

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> One idea to upgrade Griffons into a UH1Y Venom (Bell 412 Mirabel Hardware) installing Rocket Launchers for Hydra or equivalent and both automatic Gatling -



I agree that may be the easiest COA to sell to the politicians and public, but the Bell412 has a critical flaw. She's too slow. The Chinhooks had to slow down so the "escorts" could keep up in Afghanistan.

It may be easier to have any used AH we purchase refurbished and upgraded in Canada thus providing high tech jobs. We know that no matter what used helo we purchase it'll need to be modified. Use that as a selling feature to our political masters and the public.


----------



## suffolkowner

AirDet said:
			
		

> I agree that may be the easiest COA to sell to the politicians and public, but the Bell412 has a critical flaw. She's too slow. The Chinhooks had to slow down so the "escorts" could keep up in Afghanistan.
> 
> It may be easier to have any used AH we purchase refurbished and upgraded in Canada thus providing high tech jobs. We know that no matter what used helo we purchase it'll need to be modified. Use that as a selling feature to our political masters and the public.



In this hypothetical I'm guessing CH-146 get upgraded powertrains just like the UH-1N/Y's, although I'm guessing the government would prefer to stay with PWC engines.

Can Mirabel do this work? Can the 412 be turned into a UH-1Y? Or would it end up as a my grandfather's axe situation much like the UH-1Y or the LAV program?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Going by Wiki, the Chinook F is still faster than a Apache, from reports I read there is no helicopter in NATO that can keep up with a Chinook and flight scheduling had to be done to ensure the escorts arrived just before the Chinooks did in Afghanistan.


----------



## Jarnhamar

What about a weaponized chinook.

Swap the C6s with HMGs.  Maybe put some TOW missiles on it like the cobra has.  Auto cannon under the nose?
Fill the back with a gps jammer and cell phone spoofer.


----------



## Loch Sloy!

> Can the 412 be turned into a UH-1Y? Or would it end up as a my grandfather's axe situation much like the UH-1Y or the LAV program?



I think that was exactly the point of the USMC approach. Similar to the Lav 6.0 it was sold as an upgrade to an existing platform when essentially it was (and now truly is- approval for new airframes has been given) an entirely new aircraft. They are quite a bit faster (only 11km/hr slower than a chinook) and more powerful than the old Hueys let alone a Griffon. 

In a way this is a clever (albeit somewhat sneaky) approach to military procurement. We can learn a lot from the USMC; like them we are an underfunded force that needs to scrimp and economize.


The parts commonality with the Cobra makes that a more realistic (although still unlikely) prospect than buying Apaches.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What about a weaponized chinook.
> 
> Swap the C6s with HMGs.  Maybe put some TOW missiles on it like the cobra has.  Auto cannon under the nose?
> Fill the back with a gps jammer and cell phone spoofer.



Although I'm in danger of thread jumping, if we really want a cost effective and flexible ground support platform in the face of a cost shy, pacifist oriented prevailing government culture, we should buy something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx58ig-dZSA

Call it a 'trainer with teeth'.


----------



## garb811

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Call it a 'trainer with teeth'.


As a reminder of what our last, "Trainer with teeth," looked like.

Sorry for the further derail...


----------



## alexanderpeterson

AirDet said:
			
		

> It may be easier to have any used AH we purchase refurbished and upgraded in Canada thus providing high tech jobs. We know that no matter what used helo we purchase it'll need to be modified. Use that as a selling feature to our political masters and the public.



Another adept to the cause...I really think the cheapest way is for British Army to hand over their used old Apaches (name of the thread), us to upgraded them here (job, Jobs,Jobs)...use them at BATUS (deterrence) improving/creating our inter arms doctrine...leveraging their experience and logistics (cost)


----------



## George Wallace

I am curious, why you would want them to stationed at BATUS?


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am curious, why you would want them to stationed at BATUS?



I'm assuming that it's because the 'Limey LAD' is located there.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Good one...No. My assumption is related to creating an agreement for the used former British Hardware ergo they will need something in return and as we all know we don't have enough Loonies...what best that use as a leverage something more valuable that training ground


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Also, the British will be soon retiring Gazelles, perhaps replacing them by Lynx Helos...they will prefer "replace" them by CAD Apaches


----------



## AirDet

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> In this hypothetical I'm guessing CH-146 get upgraded powertrains just like the UH-1N/Y's, although I'm guessing the government would prefer to stay with PWC engines.
> 
> Can Mirabel do this work? Can the 412 be turned into a UH-1Y? Or would it end up as a my grandfather's axe situation much like the UH-1Y or the LAV program?



If we had the Griffons built to MilSpec that would be a great plan. As they are now, the frames are getting stressed.


----------



## Good2Golf

Less the cross-beam baffling surrounding the underfloor fuel-cells, the physical airframe is nearly identical to the CH-135 Twin Huey’s. Electronics and some EMI/EMC shielding was only approved to civvy specifications, engines actually upgraded, but the structure and transmission, hydraulics are close to being identical.  Considering how the Huey’s were looking just before retirement, the Griffin is actually doing relatively well for the same age now. 

:2c:

Regards, 
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for the madly militaristic killer Dutch (they had four Apaches in Mali with MINUSMA, killed some bad guys: http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37618:dutch-apaches-strike-mali-rebels&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107 ] :



> Defense Wants Modern Apache Combat Helicopters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Dutch defense ministry has told Parliament it has launched the upgrade of its AH-64D Apache attack helicopters to “E” Guardian standard, but only said the cost will vary between “€250 million and €1 billion”. (NL MoD photo)_
> 
> Defense wants to modernize the fleet of 28 aircraft AH-64D Apache combat helicopters. After about 20 years, they are technically and operationally outdated. The aircraft are being thoroughly modernized so that the Air Force can continue to operate Apaches until 2050. This is what State Secretary for Defence Barbara Visser reports today in a letter to the House of Representatives.
> 
> The Apache is especially important in joint operations with other air force units, and provides firepower and observation capabilities during land operations. However, technical and operational factors make the deployment of the helicopters more difficult. This already leads to operational restrictions in circumstances with high threat levels. The limitations are increasing because of rapid technological developments...
> 
> Remanufacture means rebuilding and overhauling the existing AH-64D helicopters. They are equipped with new fuselages, transmissions, rotor blades, and the power of the engines is increased. If everything goes according to plan, the Air Force will again have brand-new aircraft from 2022 onwards.
> 
> The modernization costs between € 250 million and € 1 billion.
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/192966/dutch-launch-apache-helicopter-upgrade.html



Theme song for RCAF (and Canadian Army):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnpbzmjcxQM

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## alexanderpeterson

So...28 AH64D to E cost between 384.4 MMCAD - 1.5 Billion meaning low end 14 MMCAD per Helo converted...so 10 - 16 will cost 140 MMCAD - 250 MMCAD


----------



## tomahawk6

The Dutch may well need the Apache in the anti-tank role living on the continent.Canada has different needs IMO.During Vietnam 4 CH-47's were built as gunships,a helicopter version of the AC-130.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WttpWwcSjy4


----------



## Good2Golf

alexanderpeterson said:
			
		

> So...28 AH64D to E cost between 384.4 MMCAD - 1.5 Billion meaning low end 14 MMCAD per Helo converted...so 10 - 16 will cost 140 MMCAD - 250 MMCAD



Given that the Government doesn't do "aircraft-only, nothing else in support" acquisition, I'd be willing to bet more accurate numbers would be:

16 AH-64E at FMS rates (US cost (page 21 - $32.25MM + 10%) of 35MM USD per aircraft (560MM USD) + initial provisioning of associated equipment and sparing at 50% (280MM USD) plus 75% of airframe acquisition for infrastructure and simulators and courseware (420MM USD) plus 3 x acquisition costs for 20-years of in-service-support (1,680MM USD) + 15% of airframe cost for annual O&M (84MM x 20 = 1,680MM USD).  Consider that both ISS and O&M are planned in BY not CY, and for 20 years, you have to apply an accrual factor of (approximately) 1.63 (using 2.5% annual increase, in reality defence inflation is closer to 5-7.5% technology dependant) so both your ISS and O&M budgets of 1,680MM USD becomes 2,740MM USD, so your running total is (560MM + 280MM + 420MM + 2,740MM + 2,740MM = ) 6,740MM USD.  

Let's use today's exchange rate of 0.78 USD / CAD, so the total CH-164E program cost including acquisition of helicopters and equipment, simulators, course-ware, infrastructure, in-service support and life-cycle management would be 8,640MM CAD CY (current year).

In other words, that would be about $8.6 Billion total cost to the Department to run 16 Apaches for 20 years.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## MJP

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Given that the Government doesn't do "aircraft-only, nothing else in support" acquisition, I'd be willing to bet more accurate numbers would be:
> 
> 16 AH-64E at FMS rates (US cost (page 21 - $32.25MM + 10%) of 35MM USD per aircraft (560MM USD) + initial provisioning of associated equipment and sparing at 50% (280MM USD) plus 75% of airframe acquisition for infrastructure and simulators and courseware (420MM USD) plus 3 x acquisition costs for 20-years of in-service-support (1,680MM USD) + 15% of airframe cost for annual O&M (84MM x 20 = 1,680MM USD).  Consider that both ISS and O&M are planned in BY not CY, and for 20 years, you have to apply an accrual factor of (approximately) 1.63 (using 2.5% annual increase, in reality defence inflation is closer to 5-7.5% technology dependant) so both your ISS and O&M budgets of 1,680MM USD becomes 2,740MM USD, so your running total is (560MM + 280MM + 420MM + 2,740MM + 2,740MM = ) 6,740MM USD.
> 
> Let's use today's exchange rate of 0.78 USD / CAD, so the total CH-164E program cost including acquisition of helicopters and equipment, simulators, course-ware, infrastructure, in-service support and life-cycle management would be 8,640MM CAD CY (current year).
> 
> In other words, that would be about $8.6 Billion total cost to the Department to run 16 Apaches for 20 years.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



It's almost like you know the process and costing to bring a new capability into the CAF.


----------



## Good2Golf

MJP said:
			
		

> It's almost like you know the process and costing to bring a new capability into the CAF.



...and the scars from the Auditor General's audit to boot!   ;D


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Thanks for that info, it was really interesting. Playing with numbers...

1. We can reduce from 16 to 10…from 560 to 350
2. The cost mentioned is Acquisition not conversion, right? Can be reduce even further
3. We can reduce Spare Parts having an Shared Agreement Cost with US or UK (Consignment Inventory or similar)
4. Simulators can be shared with UK and US
5. As 10 pieces instead of 16 Accrual reduced from 2.7 to 1.7 Billion
6. Idem item above
So cost per year will be around 300 CAD MM or even less


----------



## tomahawk6

Just buy the choppers like Canada bought the C17.I think that was a success.


----------



## GR66

What's the point of 10 Apaches?  Not enough capacity to make any difference in a major conflict with China or Russia (or Iran or North Korea for that matter) and a major drain on resources for an orphan fleet for that negligible return. 

Adding 10 more MPAs, Cyclones, Hercs or fighters would be less of a drain with greater return if you want to add aircraft.  Alternately,  you could add mortars, ATGMs or more tanks to our inventory and get better overall capability increases for the Army for the same cost as a tiny Apache fleet in my opinion.


----------



## NavyShooter

Yes, please, do tell what f***ing good a 'fleet' of 10 Apaches would be?

Let us divide this up - from open source, (google- second link) the 'expected readiness rate' for an Apache Squadron is 80%.

So, of our 10 airframes, only 8 are available.

How many do we need for Force Generation?  

How many do we intend to deploy at any given time?

How many do we want on EX MR? 

What good are 10 airframes....?  It's honestly not even worth the effort to explain to you why this is so dumb, so I'm just going to stop here.

NS


----------



## dapaterson

Sharing simulators is not good. You are forced to maintain the same upgrade path, loose time to travel to and from, and can't integrate the sims into your electronic battlespace.


----------



## Loachman

Eighty percent serviceability is optimistic at best. Yes, one could reasonably expect that during a deployment, but it will drop dramatically in garrison for a variety of reasons. Major inspections on Griffons take a couple of months. If a deployed aircraft requires a major inspection, it goes home in the C17 that brought its replacement in.

We had eight Griffons in KAF, to provide up to three sections of two. Four back in Canada were prepped to go at short notice, partially to cover aircraft due for inspection and partially as replacements in the event of loss, and they did not fly.

So, if, out of ten machines total, one or two are sidelined for major inspections, six are deployed to provide two sections of two, at least one is set aside as a hasty replacement, how many are left for training aircrew and techs (conversion to type) and currency for those qualified (given that over two-thirds of qualified pers will not be deployed in order to provide continuous rotation)?

This is silly.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:
			
		

> What's the point of 10 Apaches?  Not enough capacity to make any difference in a major conflict with China or Russia (or Iran or North Korea for that matter) and a major drain on resources for an orphan fleet for that negligible return.
> 
> Adding 10 more MPAs, Cyclones, Hercs or fighters would be less of a drain with greater return if you want to add aircraft.  Alternately,  you could add mortars, ATGMs or more tanks  *MLRS* to our inventory and get better overall capability increases for the Army for the same cost as a tiny Apache fleet in my opinion.



There, FTFY


----------



## tomahawk6

A jog down memory lane. ;D

http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-canada-doesnt-have-attack.html


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> A jog down memory lane. ;D
> 
> http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-canada-doesnt-have-attack.html



Not a bad piece, T6. A few details need tweaking (ex. original Chinooks retired in ‘91, not ‘74), but overall, the loss of attack aviation proponency post-unification describes a large factor. Arguably (or not?), that is the basis of the issue _inside_ the military, but many would say the more important factor was the lack of will to pursue, or in fact explicit desire by Government to eschew any discussion of  attack helicopters — attack is _such an un-Canadian_ concept, and one to be actively avoided.  It’s why we declined the U.S. Army offer of all the excess AH-1s in Germany that the US needed to divest to comply with SALT II in the early-80s.  The Dutch offered us some of their Apaches in the mid/late-2000’s, that...as with the American Cobras, we quickly declined.  AH in Canada never, I’d say. 

:2c:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## alexanderpeterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It’s why we declined the U.S. Army offer of all the excess AH-1s in Germany that the US needed to divest to comply with SALT II in the early-80s.  The Dutch offered us some of their Apaches in the mid/late-2000’s, that...



Thanks for sharing...do we have a way to know how many AH Dutch were offering, any News link or Government Announcement from Holland or Canada?


----------



## Ostrozac

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It’s why we declined the U.S. Army offer of all the excess AH-1s in Germany that the US needed to divest to comply with SALT II in the early-80s.



It wasn't SALT II, that was CFE. The SALT talks were only ever about missiles. The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty limited NATO to only ever having 2,000 attack helicopters in Europe -- 1550 American, 450 non-American, so there was an incentive for the US to encourage other NATO partners to develop their own attack helicopter capabilities. Canada, as you noted, declined. Surplus AH-1 instead went to Turkey, and the UK, Netherlands and Greece bought new AH-64.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> It wasn't SALT II, that was CFE. The SALT talks were only ever about missiles. The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty limited NATO to only ever having 2,000 attack helicopters in Europe -- 1550 American, 450 non-American, so there was an incentive for the US to encourage other NATO partners to develop their own attack helicopter capabilities. Canada, as you noted, declined. Surplus AH-1 instead went to Turkey, and the UK, Netherlands and Greece bought new AH-64.



Ostrozac, thanks for the pick-up on the CFE/SALT issue.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## tomahawk6

The AH1 cost is around 11m each which might be a good alternative,the Marines like them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fully agree they are still very good and likely we could pick up some airframes from the US reserve fleets and lease them. that would be the cheapest way to go to create the asset if we needed them. Mind you I would do the same for SPG's as well.


----------



## Loachman

Can we can lease Pilots and Techs as well? We're already far too short of those for the fleets that we already have.

Same limitation as Trudeau's stupid F18 "urgent capability gap" plan.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

An "urgent" gap that has been closed by the Trudeau government by now - more than two years after its discovery - right!  ...  Oh! Wait!   :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Can we can lease Pilots and Techs as well? We're already far too short of those for the fleets that we already have.
> 
> Same limitation as Trudeau's stupid F18 "urgent capability gap" plan.



We can adopt the aussie model and rob pilots and maintainers from other NATO countries


----------



## tomahawk6

Colin P said:
			
		

> We can adopt the aussie model and rob pilots and maintainers from other NATO countries



Or bring back retired personnel.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

> Or bring back retired personnel.



The Navy is currently trying this, but I doubt it’ll be successful.


----------



## OldSolduer

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Or bring back retired personnel.


Yes. Then tell them they are double dipping and in order to serve again they’ll have to forgo their pensions until they retire again.


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Can we can lease Pilots and Techs as well? We're already far too short of those for the fleets that we already have.
> 
> Same limitation as Trudeau's stupid F18 "urgent capability gap" plan.



We are not short of pilots.

We are short of pilots in the squadrons.

There's a difference.


----------



## tomahawk6

Retired personnel that return to duty should draw full pay in lieu of retired pay.


----------



## Blackadder1916

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Retired personnel that return to duty should draw full pay in lieu of retired pay.



But the difference between US military retirees and Canadians is that we don't receive "retired pay" but a pension that we contribute to over our period of service.


----------



## NavyShooter

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> The Navy is currently trying this, but I doubt it’ll be successful.




One of the civilians in my shop got the 'letter' about a month and a half ago.


It was received with peals of laughter...others I know have had similar responses when they got theirs.


I do not believe that this will be a very successful tool for drawing any of the specialists back that they are hoping to.  In fact, I think it may be having the opposite effect.


As for Apache crews - there's more to train than just a pilot and gunner - who is learning to fix these machines?


NS


----------



## Baz

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> One of the civilians in my shop got the 'letter' about a month and a half ago.
> 
> 
> It was received with peals of laughter...others I know have had similar responses when they got theirs.
> 
> 
> I do not believe that this will be a very successful tool for drawing any of the specialists back that they are hoping to.  In fact, I think it may be having the opposite effect.
> 
> 
> As for Apache crews - there's more to train than just a pilot and gunner - who is learning to fix these machines?
> 
> 
> NS



I'd put out there it is different with aircrew; as DAPaterson pointed out (and I was discussing just Thurs at work with some other retired aircrew) we aren't short aircrew, we are short aircrew on the squadrons; the HQs have ate a disproportionally large number, and telling people you have to go to an HQ and not fly is a demotivator at best for the very types of aircrew you want on the squadron.

You *might* find that offering retired aircrew attractive offers to *only* fly might give surprising results...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Baz: Your last post just triggered a thought with me, when considered together with the thread on the need for a degree for officers, where numerous posters agreed that one is not needed to fly airplanes.

Considering that, would it make sense for Canada to institute some form of "Warrant" officers, US style - not commissioned officers, but above the "enlisted" personnel - who are technical experts in their field.

In this case, create a whole class of technical expert aircrew. They would not need to have a university degree, just flight training, but on the other hand, they would be limited (so to speak - in no way meant as a put down) to flying in squadrons their whole career, not having to go (or very, very, very seldom) into staff positions.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Baz: Your last post just triggered a thought with me, when considered together with the thread on the need for a degree for officers, where numerous posters agreed that one is not needed to fly airplanes.
> 
> Considering that, would it make sense for Canada to institute some form of "Warrant" officers, US style - not commissioned officers, but above the "enlisted" personnel - who are technical experts in their field.
> 
> In this case, create a whole class of technical expert aircrew. They would not need to have a university degree, just flight training, but on the other hand, they would be limited (so to speak - in no way meant as a put down) to flying in squadrons their whole career, not having to go (or very, very, very seldom) into staff positions.



Seems like a good idea to me; as long as you remember that they would have to be compensated in a way that keeps them competitive with the civilian aircrew world.

I also think you need at least one officer to Command crew served aircraft, and at least one in the flight to Command a flight of aircraft.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I agree you would still need a certain percentage, say 25 to 30 percent, of aircrew that would come from the officer corps. They would be the "career" driven ones actually seeking to go up the chain of command all the way to air generals.

For the "Flying Warrants", if you provide three grades, as the Americans do, and about 8 to 10 pay incentive levels in each grade, you should be able to compensate them properly and in a competitive manner.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I agree you would still need a certain percentage, say 25 to 30 percent, of aircrew that would come from the officer corps. They would be the "career" driven ones actually seeking to go up the chain of command all the way to air generals.
> 
> For the "Flying Warrants", if you provide three grades, as the Americans do, and about 8 to 10 pay incentive levels in each grade, you should be able to compensate them properly and in a competitive manner.



You could say the same thing for just about any "military centric" officer occupations.  Other than those that because of legal requirements to have a specific education and licensing (doctors, dentists, nurses, lawyers, etc . . . ), is there a "real" need for every position now filled by a university educated officer to be filled by a "commissioned" officer?  If the only reason for "25 to 30 percent of aircrew" to be commissioned officers is succession planning then why not apply the same reasoning to 25 to 30 percent of current officer positions in infantry battalions or service battalions or ships.

I find the usual automatic suggestion of adopting the US Army model of aviation WOs to be more knee jerk than thought out.  And I emphasize "US Army" because they are the only American service that follows that model (so should Canada adopt that model only for tac hel?).  Though, the US Navy did institute a flying Warrant Officer program (trial?) back a decade or so to address the very issue being discussed here but they shitcanned it after only a few years as not being successful.  One of the things to remember about the large number of CWOs flying US Army aircraft is that those numbers are not counted against the maximum number of commissioned officers as authorized by Congress; that was one of the considerations back in the late 1940s (when the Army first started getting a larger number of aviation assets) and the early 1960s (the next major expansion of US Army aviation).  Even with flying Warrant Officers being the cheap and cheerful way of keeping pilots in cockpit seats rather than having to go off and do other things in order to be promoted, the US Army are having some difficulty retaining them.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/09/07/the-army-is-bringing-back-pilot-retention-bonuses/


> By the numbers, the Army has 110 percent of the certified aviators it needs. The issue is keeping the right experience levels in each formation.
> 
> To get at the problem, the service is eyeing a new set of retention bonuses to encourage seasoned pilots to stay in the Army.
> 
> A revival of the bonus program is due later this month, the director of aviation in the Army G-3/5/7 said Thursday at an Association of the United States Army aviation forum outside Washington, D.C.
> 
> “In terms of attracting aviators, that’s not a problem,” said Brig. Gen. Frank Tate. “Everybody wants to be an aviator. Just about.”
> 
> But not everyone wants to stay an aviator.
> 
> The Army particularly needs to retain pilots at the seven-year mark — when they finish their initial service obligations — and the 17- to 22-year mark, when many are weighing the benefits of retirement, Tate said.
> 
> He did not provide any additional details about when the bonuses will be available, how much they might be worth, or how someone might qualify for the payments.



Or should Canada look to our traditional fount of heritage, the British Army.  They have flying Sergeants in the Army Air Corps.  But that, again, is only for tac hel.


----------



## YZT580

We had sergeant pilots during WW2 and there was never a problem except with finding a place to eat as the British refused to allow the ranks into the officers mess.  From a capability standpoint there is no reason why pilots need to be officers except to enhance their ego, particularly if you are looking for aircrew for helicopters.  In fact, one of the chaps associated with training for American Airlines told us that the best pilots had superb reflexes, were in excellent physical shape with an IQ towards the bottom end of the normal scale.  They were the most trainable and the least likely to experiment.


----------



## quadrapiper

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ...the US Army are having some difficulty retaining them.
> 
> https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/09/07/the-army-is-bringing-back-pilot-retention-bonuses/


Wouldn't that be something to build terms of service around? Figure out how much time the CAF is hoping to get out of a pilot specialist post-training and make that the obligatory term - assume that most _will_ disappear to commercial aviation. Would expect that number's already been determined somewhere in the career management and training/recruiting worlds.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

ringo said:


> British Apaches have a folding blade mechanism for shipboard storage to support amphibian operations.
> IMO Apaches would be good for CAF, besides escort recce and fire support missions, a foldable rotor would enable Apaches to be embarked in new JSS or even aboard a frigate/destroyer for littoral operations.
> Could Apaches be adapted to naval helicopter hauldown equipment.


I didnt see this post until now. I re started the conversation around Used British Apaches -now more than ever they are thinking on retiring the Gazzeles-


----------



## alexanderpeterson

I read that UK is lookin to replace Gazelles helicopters. They provide support for Batus in Canada. It would be great to see a British Apache replacing it instead of the Lynx. Airbus H135


----------



## KevinB

alexanderpeterson said:


> I read that UK is lookin to replace Gazelles helicopters. They provide support for Batus in Canada. It would be great to see a British Apache replacing it instead of the Lynx. Airbus H135


I doubt you will see much in BATUS these days from the UK - the British want their Military somewhere relevant, and sure as SH*T they aren't going to put Apaches in Canada.


----------



## AmmoTech90

There are no Gazelles left in SU/C.  Apaches would not do the job the Gazelles do there.  They have brought Apaches over in the past to do Apache things.


----------

