# Canada Seeks Lease on Predators/Chinooks



## tomahawk6 (4 Feb 2008)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20080204.aspx

Canada Seeks To Lease Salvation

February 4, 2008: Canada is seeking to lease Predator UAVs and CH-47 helicopters to support their combat troops in Afghanistan. Canada currently has 21 Sperwer UAVs, but these are not as capable as the U.S. Predator, which can stay in the air twice as long, is more reliable and flies higher. Predator can also carry missiles, to hit targets that might otherwise get away. The Predators cost three times as much as the $2.6 million Sperwers, and the Canadians don't want to buy a bunch of them just for the Afghanistan operations (which might end, at least for the Canadian troops, in a year or so). The U.S. manufacturer of the Predator, General Atomic, is currently selling all the Predators it can produce. Israel has some similar UAVs, and seems a more likely source of leased aircraft. But the Canadian commanders have seen the Predator in action, so the Israelis have a tough sales job ahead of them. 

Getting some CH-47s to lease may be even more difficult. These helicopters are in great demand, because of their ability to move troops and cargo quickly and safely across combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the largest user, the U.S. Army is in the midst of refurbishing its fleet of CH-47 transport helicopters. That will produce a fleet of 513 CH-47F helicopters (including 397 rebuilt CH-47D choppers, 55 new ones plus special versions.) The program  makes the rebuilt machines good for another twenty years of service. The F model CH-47 has up-to-date digital communications, is easier to maintain, and cheaper to operate. The CH-47F can carry ten tons of cargo, or up to 55 troops, and has a maximum range of 426 kilometers. Its max speed is 315 kilometers an hour. Typical missions last no more than 2.5 hours. 

The first CH-47s entered service in 1962, able to carry only five tons. Some 750 saw service in Vietnam, and 200 were lost in action. Between 1982-94, 500 CH-47s were rebuilt to the CH-47D standard. SOCOM operates 31 MH-47Ds and Es, which have additional navigation gear. These are being upgraded to MH-47F standards, and the fleet expanded to 61 helicopters. As a result of all this, the CH-47 will end up serving at least 75 years. The CH-47F upgrades and new builds will not be completed until 2018. That means a lot of these helicopters are tied up being rebuilt, while the others are working hard to support troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these helicopters are then sidelined for extensive maintenance, in order to keep them operational until they can get the CH-47F upgrade rebuild. Canada might have a better chance if they bought new Chinooks. Such a deal has been in the works for years, but new CH-47F's cost about $35 million each, and Canadian legislators don't want to spend a lot of money on new military helicopters. 

A possible alternative for the Canadians may be leasing Russian helicopters. This is a second best situation, since the Russians don't have anything quite like the CH-47.


----------



## Mike Baker (4 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> A possible alternative for the Canadians may be leasing Russian helicopters. This is a second best situation, since the Russians don't have anything quite like the CH-47.


Don't tell me that! :-\


----------



## darmil (4 Feb 2008)

> Canadian legislators don't want to spend a lot of money on new military helicopters.



Garbage we need the Chinooks now would help with the IED threat.It would be less convoys to guard for me.Spend the money and protect the troops more.Plus we'll have an excellent heli.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Feb 2008)

MikeH what would the reaction be in Canada for a Ch-47 going down with 30 Canadian soldiers on board ? If you stop convoys the enemy win and they then will focus on bringing down aircraft. Spend the money on more Husky type anti-ied hunters. Use UAV's to augment the effort to take out IED's and the teams that place them.


----------



## Mud (4 Feb 2008)

Tomahawk, do you know how many 47's or any helicopters have been brought down by Taliban? (Not sure myself but the Mujahadeen did have much great anti-aircraft capability during the war with the Soviets right?)  And does'nt this bring up the issue of escorting the 47's?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Feb 2008)

To my knowledge no Chinooks have been shot down YET!.  They can get the capabiltiy but it is easier for them to target a convoy then a chopper.  A loss of 30 plus troops in one shot would be devisating.  
P.S.  All choppers are escorted by Blackhawks or Apache's.


----------



## Roy Harding (4 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> To my knowledge no Chinooks have been shot down YET!.  ...



http://www.newser.com/story/2671.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050630/ai_n14690878
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10619502/

There are other news stories - but you get the idea.


----------



## COBRA-6 (4 Feb 2008)

Operation Anaconda, 2002. "Not A Good Day To Die" is a great read...

Very different situation from today, but I bet there are still a few Dishkas HMGs hidden in Taliaban weapon caches...


----------



## geo (4 Feb 2008)

When Canada decided to sell it's "fleet" of Chinooks to the Dutch 10+ years ago, who woulda thought that we were shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot?  

Me!

So now we pay the price & sponge off our friends..... (At least we still have friends  )


----------



## darmil (4 Feb 2008)

What I was meaning is there would be less convoys going out.The choppers would help with the resupply not completely take the jobs away from the convoys.I agree spend more money on IED hunters.


----------



## geo (4 Feb 2008)

- you can dream, but there aren't any magic helicopter fairies around anymore.
There aren't any Chinooks hidden in "war stock" somewhere.... so we have to work with what we have - and that ain't much.

You'll find a new thread that talks about the Poles offering to share some of their Helicopters with us
and the US & Dutch have been sharing their Chinooks with us for a while now....


----------



## Mud (4 Feb 2008)

So if our future Chinooks get to Afghanistan, they would still be relying on our NATO allies to provide escort? And that escort would likely take the form of British/US/Dutch Apaches?

A while back I remember a Toronto Star mentioned in a report that the Tories were considering armed helicopters.  Since the US army's ARH is based on a Quebec-assembled airframe, it would seem  that politically it might be a possiblity, though I've seen nothing about it since.  Would an light armed helicopter like that be of any use in escorting Chinooks?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Feb 2008)

ANY transport chopper will have an escort of some kind provided by whom ever has the ability.


----------



## rampage800 (4 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf

I think you might be a little off with no Chinooks being downed, I didn't read the links Roy posted but I remember at least 2 from Anaconda being downed, 1 from Op REDWING and a couple others as well, I'm not entirely sure that the MH versions fly with escorts either. Anyhow my 2 cents.


----------



## Haletown (4 Feb 2008)

what our American Armed Forces are buying . . . .  or at least want to buy.  

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/Summary_Docs/FY2009_Major_Weapons_Systems.pdf


----------



## stegner (4 Feb 2008)

From http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2007/10/a-medal-of-honor-following-a-d.html on Operation Red Wing.



> I began covering this story in July 2005 after arriving in Kabul a few weeks after the incident, reporting that Murphy’s SEAL team - which included petty officers Matthew Axelson, Danny Dietz and Marcus Luttrell - was hunting a man named Ahmad Shah, aka “Ismail,” who led a band of militants called the “Mountain Tigers” tied to both Taliban and senior Al Qaeda leadership on the far northern border with Pakistan. Intelligence sources in Washington told me later that Arabs also were present during the fight in the Hindu Kush. And eventually NBC News interviewed Ismail in his mountain hideout.
> 
> Among the fresh details released this month is an explanation of how a helicopter ferrying eight operators from SEAL Team 10 and eight crewman from the Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment got shot down as it flew to the rescue of Murphy’s team.
> 
> *The Navy now says that the Army Night Stalkers’ MH-47 Chinook was forced to “outrun” its escort of Apache attack helicopters because the gunships were heavily armored and therefore flying more slowly at high altitude than the Chinook carrying the SEAL quick reaction force. This suggests that had the Apaches been able to fly ahead of the Chinook, they would have neutralized the militants who fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the back hatch of the transport, where it exploded and caused the chopper to stagger for about a mile before tumbling down a mountainside, killing 16 American troops.*


----------



## Roy Harding (4 Feb 2008)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> Lone Wolf
> 
> I think you might be a little off with no Chinooks being downed, I didn't read the links Roy posted but I remember at least 2 from Anaconda being downed, 1 from Op REDWING and a couple others as well, I'm not entirely sure that the MH versions fly with escorts either. Anyhow my 2 cents.



The links are to various news reports.  Depending upon which reports you read - up to 35 Chinooks have been shot down.  That number is in dispute, however, because some claimed "Taliban hits" are reported by NATO as accidents and/or mechanical failures.

Regardless which numbers you choose to believe (and I have a tendency to go with the NATO stats), there HAVE been Chinooks brought down by enemy action in Afghanistan.


----------



## NCRCrow (4 Feb 2008)

why are we always leasing or going to garage sales...I feel so cheap and dirty


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Feb 2008)

I must admit I haven't heard of many but upon reflection I do remember an American 47 being shot down early on in the war in A Stan and according to those news links so have others.


----------



## armyvern (4 Feb 2008)

MCpl Darryl Priede, a member of 3ASG Gagetown serving in Afghanistan with Combat Camera, was killed on Wed 30th May 2007, when the CH-47 Chinook that he was flying in was shot down, along with 5 American and 1 British servicemen.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/plocal/CTVNews/20070603/priede_trenton_070604/20070604/?hub=OttawaHome


----------



## Dissident (4 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> MCpl Darryl Priede, a member of 3ASG Gagetown serving in Afghanistan with Combat Camera, was killed on Wed 30th May 2007, when the CH-47 Chinook that he was flying in was shot down, along with 5 American and 1 British servicemen.
> 
> http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/plocal/CTVNews/20070603/priede_trenton_070604/20070604/?hub=OttawaHome


Yeah, I remember that one.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> MCpl Darryl Priede, a member of 3ASG Gagetown serving in Afghanistan with Combat Camera, was killed on Wed 30th May 2007, when the CH-47 Chinook that he was flying in was shot down, along with 5 American and 1 British servicemen.
> 
> http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/plocal/CTVNews/20070603/priede_trenton_070604/20070604/?hub=OttawaHome



Hey Vern do you know if he worked at LFTEU? as he seems very familiar to me


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Feb 2008)

Helicopters give a commander alot of mobility and flexibility but like any aircraft they are susceptible to the vagaries of fate enemy fire, weather, mechanical failure and pilot error. They are NOT a magic bullet and if the command thinks that way then its a question of time before a bird goes down. The Predator on the other hand has alot of capability and would really be a benefit for the command. Unlike the current Canadian UAV the Predator can carry armament so if on patrol spots a target of opportunity it can respond or vector in an air strike.


----------



## armyvern (4 Feb 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Hey Vern do you know if he worked at LFTEU? as he seems very familiar to me



He was an Image Tech here in 3ASG. It's quite possible that you'd have seen him out and about snapping pics of trial kit though.


----------



## NCRCrow (4 Feb 2008)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4071

states a helo crash....interesting

Nice article and fitting commemoration for MCpl Darryl Priede.


----------



## Loachman (5 Feb 2008)

Chinook will not significantly reduce the need for convoys, nor significantly increase survivability, and is, yes, as vulnerable to destruction as anything else.

What it will do is increase the capability of ground forces.

Should we indeed get sixteen as suggested, don't expect anymore than three to be deployed for long periods for several reasons, mainly personnel ones, and especially during the first few years.

We can direct Arty and CAS from Sperwer. Predator adds duration and limited onboard weaponry.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> The Navy now says that the Army Night Stalkers’ MH-47 Chinook was forced to “outrun” its escort of Apache attack helicopters because the gunships were heavily armored and therefore flying more slowly at high altitude than the Chinook carrying the SEAL quick reaction force. This suggests that had the Apaches been able to fly ahead of the Chinook, they would have neutralized the militants who fired a rocket-propelled grenade



The Chinook "out ran" its Apache escort?

A) Disregard the fact that the AH-64's speed is about 60km/hr faster than the MH-47
B) Ignore the drill (let alone the common sense) that the AH trails, specifically in order to engage anything that threatens the lift helo (if they lead, the bad guys just wait for the softer target, leaving the AH in poor position to do much beyond launching flares)
C) Understand that as part of their trailing sheepdog routine, the AH's constantly change altitude and weave (I believe the technical term is "not getting dead"), and so at some point they may quite likely be above the escorted aircraft
D) Believe strongly that the NAVY author of the "outrunning escort" theory was mis-quoted, either accidentally or in order to "justify" some pre-established point by a crack-whore blogger who has unlikely been in a combat-situation requiring coordinated lift/fires.

 :


Oh.....and a Sperwer can provide a valued link for directing Arty and CAS fires _in certain situations_, but for some folks, its noise and the quality of its optics are simply not adequate.


----------



## armyvern (5 Feb 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4071
> 
> states a helo crash....interesting
> 
> Nice article and fitting commemoration for MCpl Darryl Priede.



http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/f/Priede01Jun07.pdf


----------



## Loachman (5 Feb 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> D) Believe strongly that the NAVY author of the "outrunning escort" theory was mis-quoted, either accidentally or in order to "justify" some pre-established point by a crack-***** blogger who has unlikely been in a combat-situation requiring coordinated lift/fires.



That would be my guess.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> A) Disregard the fact that the AH-64's speed is about 60km/hr faster than the MH-47



Not having the proper pubs handy, and realizing that general public information is suspect and simplified frequently to the point of uselessness, from a variety of inadequate internet sources AH64D max level flight and cruise speeds are 141 to 149 kt and MH/CH47D max speed is 170 kt and cruise is 120 kt (MH47 from 160th SOAR site) (approx 40-60 km/hr difference) and CH47 cruise is 130 to 150 kt depending upon source (approx 0-40 km/hr difference). Configurations and environment will affect performance.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Oh.....and a Sperwer can provide a valued link for directing Arty and CAS fires _in certain situations_, but for some folks, its noise and the quality of its optics are simply not adequate./quote]
> 
> I am not sure what "certain situations" are, other than being airborne and in the right place, and I am not aware of any advantages to Predator in that regard. Yes, noise is a factor at the altitudes in which Sperwer operates (below 10,000 feet MSL). The EO sensor system is older technology, but the lift capability of Sperwer is also a limitation in the sensor capability.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Feb 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Chinook will not significantly reduce the need for convoys, nor significantly increase survivability, and is, yes, as vulnerable to destruction as anything else.
> 
> What it will do is increase the capability of ground forces.
> 
> ...



+1   It's important to have the capability for both heli and convoy operations to increase our ability to do our job while being flexible and unpredictable. Right now we only have the latter, and it's therefore much easier for the enemy to pattern and target our logistic networks and the troops contained therein. To try and fight a COIN campaign without the ability to move and protect large numbers of troops, and significant quantities of materiel, by air is madness.


----------



## Loachman (5 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> To try and


...

...conduct domestic operations...



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ...without the ability to move and protect large numbers of troops, and significant quantities of materiel, by air is madness.



This, along with the combat requirement, has been a serious capability lack for years.

We need a much better airmobile capability than we currently have (a handful of Griffons scattered nationwide) - like an airmobile brigade.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Feb 2008)

Agreed. So, beg, borrow, buy, steal or otherwise, I have to support these efforts to get us some kind of decent airmobility in place  -fast.

In Northern Ireland, if we had had to operate in South Armagh, Tyrone or Fermanagh without adequate helicopter support, the number of dead troops would have greatly exceeded the few hundred killed and wounded that we actually suffered. In many cases, IRA skill with IEDs was such that there was no 'green vehicle' movement at all on the roads in some areas for years, and everything was done on foot or by helicopter. And the scary thing is that in many ways, THAT campaign was far less dangerous than the current operational reality in Central Asia from what I can see (from depths of my armchair).

Let's go airmobile and save lives, Canada.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> This, along with the combat requirement, has been a serious capability lack for years.
> 
> We need a much better airmobile capability than we currently have (a handful of Griffons scattered nationwide) - like an airmobile brigade.



Absolutely!  Canada took a step backwards with the disbandment of the Airborne Regt and the dissolution of the SSF.  Time to undo the madness and recreate an effective, quick reaction Force.  An Airmobile Bde would be such an asset.


----------



## stegner (5 Feb 2008)

Is CSOR a quick reaction force or should it be viewed as something different?  I am sure the para units can also be deployed in a quick reaction capacity no? Also, this might sound dumb but instead of the Chinook's should the CF be looking at V-22's with a GAU-19 mounted in the nose?


----------

