# A-10 Warthogs for the CF ??



## jrhume (11 Jun 2004)

A not entirely tongue-in-cheek post 

Whatever the near future holds for the CF, it will need ground support aircraft.  Strangely enough, there are bunches of A-10s sitting in the desert sun, classed as 'not pretty enough' -- I mean -- 'not modern enough' for the USAF.  Why couldn't these be bought at scrap prices, run through the modernization regime at the factory and put into CF service?

I'm sure the depleted uranium munitions would be a no-no for Canadian forces, but I figure compressed moose turds would work as well, if not better. (the preceeding has been identified in certain lowbrow circles as 'humor')

Okay, I'm kidding.  But only a little.  What about Warthogs with a maple leaf on the fins?

You could even rename it.  There must be a Canadian beastie that could supply a fitting moniker for the revamped A-10s.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jun 2004)

Wolverines 8)


----------



## Garbageman (11 Jun 2004)

We don't have enough:
a. pilots
b. techs
c. $$$
to support another airframe.  We seem to be having some trouble even keeping our current fleet up and running.  Besides, the CF-18 is already there for ground support (if we could afford any ordinance for it).


----------



## condor888000 (11 Jun 2004)

The wart hog is good, reliable and effective, yet, they were retired because they are extremely vunerable to missles. Poor manouverability, porr speed, these add up to a huge number of loses if the enemy has any radar-guided missles. Heat seekers have a tough time locking on since the twin tails helps to hide the exhaust..but still they're tough, but too easy to hit.


----------



## Garbageman (11 Jun 2004)

condor888000 said:
			
		

> The wart hog is good, reliable and effective, yet, they were retired because they are extremely vunerable to missles. Poor manouverability, porr speed, these add up to a huge number of loses if the enemy has any radar-guided missles. Heat seekers have a tough time locking on since the twin tails helps to hide the exhaust..but still they're tough, but too easy to hit.


They're using them in Iraq right now.  How many have been hit?  I've heard of only one hit, and it returned safely to base.  Maybe they're only using them on less vulnerable taskings though?


----------



## jrhume (11 Jun 2004)

They used them in Iraq in high-threat environments with mimimal problems.  I don't know about them being 'easy to hit'.  They were designed for Western Europe and to operate against Soviet armored forces.  Their electronic suite is out of date, but that's what the upgrade packages are for.

Remember, the Air Force has never, ever been happy with having to operate mud moving aircraft, especially if they're ugly.

I don't want to see the A-10 go out of service completely, because I think they do a job no other US aircraft can do -- at least not with the loiter time and toughness of the Warthog.  It appears that the USAF has been forced to admit they can't replace it and that some (I don't know how many) will undergo modernization over the next couple of years.  I can tell you this -- if the US Army had control of the A-10s, there wouldn't be any talk of scrapping them.  Tankers and infantry love 'em.

As I said, the suggestion was at least partly for humor.  Wolverines, eh?  Tough, smelly, ugly.  It fits.


----------



## Da_man (11 Jun 2004)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> We don't have enough:
> a. pilots



Well im planing on staying in the army reserve for 7 years including one tour.  In the same time, im getting a Bachelor of Education majoring in Physical and Health Education.  When all this is done, im applying at the Air Force as a pilot.  Hows that for a plan?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jun 2004)

Although in my ideal Army I would love to add the flying tank to the inventory, I think the A-10 is a bit to "niche roll" for our Forces; it would be something I would add along with an AC-130, but both are a bit out our league right now.   We have to work on getting our rotary platforms sorted out in terms of attack and medium lift.

As for CF-18's providing ground support, I thought the air-to-mud (CAS) had been nixed from the doctrine a few years ago?


----------



## Garbageman (11 Jun 2004)

Well im planing on staying in the army reserve for 7 years including one tour.   In the same time, im getting a Bachelor of Education majoring in Physical and Health Education.   When all this is done, im applying at the Air Force as a pilot.   Hows that for a plan?

Good on ya.  Welcome to the dark side!  

Just a heads-up; the recruiting process for pilots is pretty painstaking and long.  But if you can get through it, I think it's definitely worth it.


----------



## ags281 (11 Jun 2004)

Ugly? What are you talking about? Except for when they put that stupid fang painting on the nose A-10's look sweet! They actually look like a real plane; none of this spaceage junk. If we had A-10's - especially if none of the flyboys wanted to touch them - I'd be back in the recruiting centre trying to switch to 32 so fast. 

It's a flying tank... :tank: how can anyone not like it?
It's always been a bit of a fantasy of mine to get my own for personal use. Can you imagine one of those things with the armour stripped off? It would climb like a homesick angel and look badass doing it   :evil: However, as you said, the CF can't afford them right now, and sadly, neither can I. :'(


----------



## Garbageman (11 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for CF-18's providing ground support, I thought the air-to-mud (CAS) had been nixed from the doctrine a few years ago?



They were used for both air to air and air to ground (both precision guided and dumb bombs) in Yugo in 99.  Unless things have changed since then?

I know this isn't strictly the true definition of close air support, but it's the most recent example I could think of.


----------



## ags281 (11 Jun 2004)

> They were used for both air to air and air to ground (both precision guided and dumb bombs) in Yugo in 99.   Unless things have changed since then?



I can't recall the details exactly, but I remember a pilot telling me a couple years ago that they had stopped practicing one of the bombing methods   (wish I could remember details about what maneuver exactly). Reason he gave was that they couldn't keep enough planes up and running, due to airframe life concerns, long enough for the pilots to maintain currency on all their roles, so that one was written off as nonessential. Don't know if that was just a temporary thing or if it's continued up until now... damn, I'd almost forgotten about that, but now I'm curious.


----------



## jrhume (11 Jun 2004)

I dug around for some up to date info on the A-10.  All in the inventory are undergoing a major upgrade.  The inventory is supposed to remain at around 250 planes for the next few years.  However, the Air Force made another attempt to get rid of it within the last couple of years.  Only the bright light of publicity made them back down.

I agree.  It's a lovely airplane.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jun 2004)

In the states some warthogs were buzzing us doing low fly by's. probably showing off. Amazing aircraft. I would dig in pretty fast if i knew someone was throwing those suckers at me.

Due to Canada's lack of resources and personal on the ground (especially to make, maintain and run a runway etc..) wouldn't a harrier be a better choice of support aircraft?

That or the seaking of the plane community, the ospray


----------



## scm77 (11 Jun 2004)

The Harriers Ghost speaks of would go perfect with Steven Harpers hybrid helicopter carriers.


----------



## Garbageman (11 Jun 2004)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Due to Canada's lack of resources and personal on the ground (especially to make, maintain and run a runway etc..) wouldn't a harrier be a better choice of support aircraft?
> 
> That or the seaking of the plane community, the ospray



Harriers can't pack the same amount of armour as an A-10 since they already require so much fuel to take off and land vertically.  That and the A-10's got a sweet chain gun that's pretty effective.  Ospray's?  Shudder.  Those things are nothing but problems.  

Still, the '18s will have to be replaced eventually, and it doesn't look like the incoming '22s will have much of a ground support role.  I must admit, our ground support role seems to be shrinking by the moment.  Griffons provide nowhere near the same capability as the airframes they replaced (Chinooks, Kiowas, and Hueys).

Maybe the Sperwer & Silver Fox is the fleet of the future?!  :evil:


----------



## Da_man (11 Jun 2004)

Why dont we get attack helos instead?   I think the US is replacing the AH-64  with RAH-66 in the near future, so why not buy them?


----------



## Garbageman (11 Jun 2004)

Da_man said:
			
		

> Why dont we get attack helos instead?   I think the US is replacing the AH-64   with RAH-66 in the near future, so why not buy them?



If it happens, I think it'll be a long, long way down the road.  The Air Force has too many other priorities to deal with first (replacing the Sea Kings, replacing the Hercs & Buffalos, bringing air-to-air refueling back online with the Airbus, modernizing the CF-18s & Auroras, and bringing in some heavy lift capability).


----------



## rdschultz (11 Jun 2004)

The RAH-66 was cancelled in February.


----------



## Bert (11 Jun 2004)

I think the Garbageman is realistic. But, if you look at how efficiently the A-10s and apaches obiterated iraqi armour in both gulf conflicts, the acquisition of attack helos 
or fixed wings is quite the bag for the buck especially when co-ordinated with AWACS.  The challenge is not only the money, the techs, and the $$$, its also how 
attack helos or fixed wings would be useful or integrate into the context of the candian army and armour regiments.  A post in another thread suggested modifying 
a small standard military class helo with a missles and other armament.  With more toys running and flying around, the Canadian military may have to adopt integrated
battlefield IS platforms like the US marines use.  Interesting topic.


----------



## Yard Ape (11 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for CF-18's providing ground support, I thought the air-to-mud (CAS) had been nixed from the doctrine a few years ago?


When we bought it, the CF-5 was Canada's first CAS fighter in almost half a decade.   The Air Force was happy to carry on in the roles of air supremacy (Voodoo) and Nuclear Strike (Starfighter), but the Minister of Defence decided that CAS was an important role & Canada would have that capability.   Unfortunately, he chose the CF-5 (the A-10 existed back then).   The CF-18 was bought to replace all three fighters and it was chosen because it was multi-role.   It was not a bad choice, but it was pushed by a political desire to buy American over European (the Tornado was another contender).  It would not surprise me if the airforce wanted to drop everything else and focus on developing what it did well over Kosovo, but that just means we (Army folk) have to reminde our highers of the need for CAS.  A new MND can still tell the Air Force to keep the CAS capability.



			
				Garbageman said:
			
		

> Still, the [CF-]18s will have to be replaced eventually, and it doesn't look like the incoming '22s will have much of a ground support role.   I must admit, our ground support role seems to be shrinking by the moment.


I have not heard any talk of us getting the F-22.   However, we did invest significant $$$ to be part of the JSF development.   The JSF is the fighter the US intends to replace the A-10, Harrier, and F-16 (and probably the F-18).   This may be the way for Canada to go, but it will have a steep price tag.


 8) Yard Ape


----------



## condor888000 (11 Jun 2004)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> Still, the '18s will have to be replaced eventually, and it doesn't look like the incoming '22s will have much of a ground support role.   I must admit, our ground support role seems to be shrinking by the moment.   Griffons provide nowhere near the same capability as the airframes they replaced (Chinooks, Kiowas, and Hueys).




OK, my last post was a bit off but...

The F-22's aren't meant to be much in the way of ground attack. They're meant to destroy the other guy's aircraft in the air. The new JSF or F-35 is meant to be a ground attack aircraft as well as being able to take out aircraft if necessary. They are also much cheaper and will be replacing the Harriers as the marines are starting to run out. I believe that it will also be taking over the ground attack role in the navy as well as the airforce and marines.


----------



## Garbageman (11 Jun 2004)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> I have not heard any talk of us getting the F-22.   However, we did invest significant $$$ to be part of the JSF development.   The JSF is the fighter the US intends to replace the A-10, Harrier, and F-16 (and probably the F-18).   This may be the way for Canada to go, but it will have a steep price tag.



My apologies, I did mean the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35).  Getting my aircraft confused!  We sunk about $150-200million into the JSF already, so it looks like that's the direction we're heading.  Given the current update of the CF-18 though, it likely won't be for another 10-15 years that we order any.


----------



## 63 Delta (11 Jun 2004)

Found an intresting link for the JSF. Looks like the Americans are going to buy over 2500 JSF. Approx cost of the JSF is around $30 Million. Thats not much more than what Canada paid for all the CF-18s they got is it? Correct me if im wrong?  :warstory:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (11 Jun 2004)

The A-10 and Harrier are pipe dreams even if Canada could afford them.  Both airframes are outdated and no longer in production.  While the A-10's stored would be cheap to acquire the knowledge and technology to make them would be anything but cheap.  Either as already mentioned the CF has niche roles that it is adapting to and the A-10 certainly has no part in any of those roles.  
As for the Harrier, even if Canada does acquire an Aircraft Carrier capable of accommodating it, by the time the ship is built the new Joint Strike Fighter that is replacing the Harrier will be either in or close to service.  It also looks like the JSF is the runaway early favourite to replace the CF-18's although in the CTOL version as opposed to the STOVL version needed for Carrier ops.  
Lastly if Canada finds itself in need of an Attack helo I would argue that the last choice should be the Apache, not only due to the cost, but moreover because of it's lacklustre operational record in the four major operations it has tried to participate in over the last 15 years.  The Apache always has some malfunction when it is needed and more often than not the Marines and their Cobras come to the rescue.  Apaches are tempermental at best and a challenge to keep operational whereas the Cobra, although not perfect, has a far better track record than the Apache.  The Marines are about to receive a new version in the next couple years the AH-1Z which will address the faults of the previous AH-1W Super Cobra and vastly improve an already great airplane.  
That is just my two cents in response to what has been posted so far and all I hope is that whomever wins the upcoming election finds that no matter what foreign policy initiatives they wish to adopt they find that the world we live requires a lot more than soft power to back up the right things.


----------



## 30 for 30 (11 Jun 2004)

I'm thinking the most affordable, though not ideal, option would be to arm our Griffons. I like the Corporal's Report idea of giving Griffons a Hellfire/Stinger capability. They're clearly inadequate for transport or lift, so might as well turn them into basic attack helos? Not sure how do-able this would be. Might be a nice addition to a battlegroup.


----------



## Garbageman (11 Jun 2004)

RNW said:
			
		

> I'm thinking the most affordable, though not ideal, option would be to arm our Griffons. I like the Corporal's Report idea of giving Griffons a Hellfire/Stinger capability. They're clearly inadequate for transport or lift, so might as well turn them into basic attack helos? Not sure how do-able this would be. Might be a nice addition to a battlegroup.


Missile systems need guidance systems to make them work.  Since the Griffon doesn't currently have any weapon platform (other than bolt-on C6s), this would require a big addition to the electronic systems of the aircraft.

That and money.  Lots and lots of money.  Again, something the Air Force doesn't have enough of, and has different priorities for.


----------



## Fogpatrol 1.0 (11 Jun 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> The Harriers Ghost speaks of would go perfect with Steven Harpers hybrid helicopter carriers.



I think Harper plan include buying brand new f35 jsf when they become active.

Forget about F-22s, they will cost over 130 millions.


----------



## Spr.Earl (12 Jun 2004)

The Wart Hog is a good bang for the buck.


----------



## RCD (12 Jun 2004)

Why would they be out of date?
First what type of enemy are we going to be facing? (3rd world)
I don't think they will be that soficated.
If we can make old equipment work this long. Imagine what we can do with a little bit of ingenuity


----------



## Slim (12 Jun 2004)

Hey Gents

Sorry...After reading this I couldn't resist putting my 2 cents into the pot.

The Griffon is not really a military helicopter and, as such, does not fit any military role very well. It doesn't have the power or space to make a good troop carrier or attack aircraft and was bought for carrying generals around in. Period

If we want a good troop carrying helo I would put my money on the BlackHawk series of aircraft. They are strong, powerful with a lift capacity double that of the Griffon. The have many variants including a special ops bird (NightHawk/Stalker) a sea variant (Seahawk) a medivac/SAR variant ( I don't know the name of that one.) and, best of all, replacement parts and airframes are just around the corner!

A good attack helo for Canada would be the latest variant of the Cobra, which could operate in a marine enviorment as well as over land.

Just my thoughts. 

Slim


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jun 2004)

I agree with you 100% Slim.

Unfortunately I don't think Canada will likely buy anything in the future that "looks American" or is surplus from the states. I think that Canadian politicians are so bent on NOT looking American they will throw away good deals on military items be they warthogs, M1a1 Abrams, black hawks or hummers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2004)

Not to mention Arleigh Burkes


----------



## ags281 (12 Jun 2004)

If we want a helicopter for the army that can actually carry out its mission, then why not do what the brits have done? EH-101 can carry far more than any Blackhawk variant - 30 or so people if I remember correctly - and has also proven itself capable in theatre over the past little while. This would also keep things cheaper and easier for the supply system/maintenance trades with common parts.


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

Here's a (cheap) idea, if we ever wanted to look towards attack helicopters and looking for a replacement for the Griffon. As was mentioned before in this thread, the USMC is having their SuperCobras (rebuilt?) replaced with the Zulu version, also there are having their twin Huey's (rebuilt?) replaced with a new(er) version. Now if the funds were there, I'd think it would be worth looking at buying mothballed Cobras and rebuilding them to the Zulu version, and well that was being done, rebuild the Griffons to the new "Y" standard.

WRT the A-10s, I'm sure somebody mentioned that the Americans are rebuilding upwards of 250 of them.....I'm quite sure they built over 700 in the 70s......must be a few zipped locked in the Arizona desert that nobody would miss :-



> Not to mention Arleigh Burkes



The Tories _ say_ they are committedto replacing the 280s......I'd wonder what the bill for CADRE is up to now, and what it would look like next to the the bill for four Flight IIAs  :-


----------



## 30 for 30 (12 Jun 2004)

I can certainly see how a Griffon would be a poor attack helo compared to...well...pretty much any attack helo, but I'm just thinking in terms of cost. I would think upgrading a Griffon would certainly be cheaper than buying new or used Cobras, for instance, and I think the bottom line is that the CF is not going to buy new attack helos. I'm just thinking that an upgrade would at least bring something extra to the battlefield ie. some sort of attack helo capability as opposed to no attack helo capability. Wouldn't such a platform be the cheapest attack helo option and better than nothing? I might be wrong but I recall reading somewhere that the CF will be looking into upgrading the Griffon's weapons options. I confess I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but it's interesting to ponder.


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (12 Jun 2004)

The Can Gov does not have a problem buying used  equipment remember the CF101 VOODOO?


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

Yeah and the Vodoo was a piece of flying scrap when we bought it. Should have stuck with the Avro Arrow...  Just my opinion...

I though we just got those Griffons not TOO many years ago didn't we? And we're already replacing them??? Looks like I need to take a look on DND website and update myself!


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2004)

One of the other advantages of buying Cobras...

They are built by Bell, the same people that brought you the Griffon, the same people that have an assembly plant in Quebec (at Mirabel if I remember correctly).   Support for the Quebec aerospace industry??

Hey, maybe they could even re-engine the Griffons with the GE pack used on the AH1Z rather than that half-speed Pratt and Whitney Canada Twin Pack.

Conveniently Bell and Lockheed (Supplier of C130s, P3/CP140s, and C27s) are now allied in the states to produce the US 101 version of the EH101.

Can anyone here say package deal?

Nahhhh.

One other point about support to Quebec Aerospace Inc.  Bombardier makes the aircraft the Brits have purchased on which to mount their ASTOR ground surveillance battle management system. 1600 Million Canadian Dollars for 5.

http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/astor.htm

Don't you wish that we had access to the costs of government contracts?  How come the Brits can do it so easily?


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

> One of the other advantages of buying Cobras...
> 
> They are built by Bell, the same people that brought you the Griffon, the same people that have an assembly plant in Quebec (at Mirabel if I remember correctly).  Support for the Quebec aerospace industry??



Yeah, the same Province that has a certain party that says it won't support another party (when it forms a minority government at the end of the month) if it doesn't support the Quebec Aerospace industry.....hmmmm ???


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2004)

Is that what they said?  Eeeeh.


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

Have a boo:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...71576966_82380776?s_name=election2004&no_ads=


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

Say, does anyone actually know when we will get new aircraft? The F-18 is going to be serviceable until 2020 it says on DND's airforce website. But what about after that? Would they be upgraded to the F/A-18E Superhornet standard of the US Navy? Or would we get some type of European fighter like the new EF-2000???

Anyone have any idea/heard anything? I was quite dissapointed when I looked for any hope of a replacement jet since there is no official word I've been able to find!


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

I'd say the most likely replacement for the Hornet would be the JSF (your guess is as good as mine when or if that would be)......I'm not sure that the Superhornet or Eurofighter will still be in production in 2020.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2004)

As I understand it the F18-E/F SuperHornet is a completely new airframe.  From what I can gather they took the F18 drawings and hit the scale button.  All dimensions are bigger.

If it is going to be anything the JSF is likely going to be it.  Other options might be the Swedish Grippen or the Typhoon.  You might get a bargain on those.  The Brits apparently don't want all of them that the ordered (of course they are having difficulty getting them to fly properly).


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

> If it is going to be anything the JSF is likely going to be it.  Other options might be the Swedish Grippen or the Typhoon.  You might get a bargain on those.  The Brits apparently don't want all of them that the ordered (of course they are having difficulty getting them to fly properly).



Well if they are British and don't work properly, i don't see why we _won't_ get them


----------



## tabernac (12 Jun 2004)

> Harriers can't pack the same amount of armour as an A-10 since they already require so much fuel to take off and land vertically.



The Harrier does not require much more fuel for VTOL, just lots of water. The engines when running on full power overheat too quickly, hense the water. The Harrier carries around 250-300 L of water, it uses around 90L of water per minute, and it takes at least 2 minutes to slowdown, then land safely. This is if the pilot knows that there is cold water on the ground for his/her jet. I'm sure that some pilots try to speed it up a lot so they have some water for taking off.(if there was no cold water)


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

On the new Superhornet, they did increase size in almost all aspects of the airframe. The wings are long enough to have an additional 2 hardpoints compare to any previous model! This new F-18 can carry a motherload of weapons it would seem then. Also, if you look at nice close crisp pictures of the F-18 and then the F-22, you'll notice they have the SAME air intakes! Nothing too significant but interesting to say the least. Also, the new hornet is suppose to be a lot faster, new engines and all. Anyway, nuff bout that!


----------



## tigersqn (13 Jun 2004)

Da_man said:
			
		

> Why dont we get attack helos instead?   I think the US is replacing the AH-64   with RAH-66 in the near future, so why not buy them?



The RAH-66 program was cancelled a while back


----------



## tigersqn (13 Jun 2004)

ags281 said:
			
		

> If we want a helicopter for the army that can actually carry out its mission, then why not do what the brits have done? EH-101 can carry far more than any Blackhawk variant - 30 or so people if I remember correctly - and has also proven itself capable in theatre over the past little while. This would also keep things cheaper and easier for the supply system/maintenance trades with common parts.



And therein lies the problem. They've already missed their IOC date of March 1, 04. Besides, civvie contractors do the maintenance on them.


----------



## Goober (13 Jun 2004)

Lockhead Martin won the JSF contract over Boeing mainly because it could take off in less than 500 meters, go supersonic, and land vertically all in one configuration. Boeing's plane on the other hand had to be reconfigured for supersonic flight, and couldn't land vertically while configured that way.

The contract was estimated to be approximately 200 billion dollars, the US said it will probably be the last maned fighter plan they will buy.

Since then the US already said they are going to buy less than they originally thought.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2004)

Just a couple of quick thoughts:
1)   If I was procuring a runway-based (as opposed to helicopter carrier-based) CAS 
solution, I would lean towards Predator-B with hellfire.   

Low operating costs. 
Can fire hellfire at target.
Can also provide targetting information for Artillery with Precision-Guided Shells
Could even transmit video to the guys they're protecting.

2)   If I was procuring a carrier-based CAS solution, I would likely wait for JSF-C,
or a STOVL UCAV.   My own take is the age of attack helicopters is just about over
and to procure them now is simply a bad investment.

That's just me....

Cheers all,



Matthew.


----------



## Garry (13 Jun 2004)

someone was asking about the Canadian air to mud role being gone- not so. The low level delivery has been replaced by high level delivery. In the "old" days, pilots stayed alive by going low level, under radar coverage, and being faster than the missiles fired at them. Worked well, but we lost a lot of people due to the inherent risks of low level/high speed flight. As equipment progressed, we were able to suppress enemy air defences to the point that low level radar avoidance was no longer necessary, and have dropped the capability. Air wars are now fought from high level.

Close air support is a role that is still being carried on today, but insted of roaring in low level, troops are suported by high altitude drops. The Mission hasn't changed, the Air Force still exists solely (as we all do) to support the 19 year old with muddy boots and a bloody bayonet hold the ground we helped him win.

As for airframes- the USAF got rid of the A-10 many years ago- the Reserves fly them now. They do very well when air superiority has been gained. As for the Harrier/AV8-B - no thanks. It's not as "field compatabile" as they make it out to be.

The Apache is a superb platform, but needs maintenance regularly. Spare parts and a clean maintenance facility will keep it airborne, but you need both, along with down time, to maintain a long push.

In my opinion, Army helo's need simplicity and durability. The Kiowa and Single Huey were great examples of what the Army really needs- simple, robust aircraft that are easy to fly and maintain, and have enough capability to do the job.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Slim (26 Jul 2004)

I noticed that you didn't mention the "Supermarine Seacobra". What's you opinion on that aircraft?

Slim


----------



## ramy (26 Jul 2004)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> condor888000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I remember seeing seeing footage of one shot down  over baghdad the day the regime fell... or maybe a day or 2 before i forgot.


----------



## Pugnacious (26 Jul 2004)

Personly I think for the cost, and low risk to the operator that remote a combat UAV ie..Predator Drone is a good idea.
Think of all the X-boxers out there in the CF that could do the job. ;D

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122

I'd jump on that job line in a second. 

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Kilted Mayhem (28 Jul 2004)

What about some Russian choppers such as the Ka 52 Alligator or the Mi 24 Hind? The Ka 52 is state of the art and could be a great assault chopper.


----------



## canuck101 (28 Jul 2004)

If you are looking for a attack helo then i think the  The Tiger UHT by eurocopter is the best option.  The Australians are buying them. 

Cheers


----------



## Inch (28 Jul 2004)

Everybody keeps coming back to how great the Blackhawk is, it's a 30 year old design and it's been in service since 1979. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great helo but it's time for something new, and don't anyone mention "if it ain't broke...", I'd like to think there's far better stuff on the horizon that stuff that was designed when disco and platform shoes were all the craze. Everybody is so pumped to replace the Sea King so why not a 25 year old Black Hawk?   The Griffon while not suited to to the job we bought it for is less than 10 years old and we won't be replacing it anytime soon. We've got more pressing concerns like, well, the rest of our inventory.

By the way, those G-Wagons are pretty sweet looking, I saw a bunch down by Shearwater the other day all wrapped up, not sure if they were incoming or outgoing but they looked sweet nontheless.

Cheers


----------



## canuck101 (29 Jul 2004)

If it is a money issue, just upgrade 10 Griffons so they can handle heaver weapons and then we have our ligth attack helos.  It shouldn't cost us to much to only do 10. ;D



Cheers


----------



## Gunnerlove (29 Jul 2004)

Cutting edge and the aerospace industry are not one and the same (they would like to be but just can't risk it). Technology takes a long time and allot of money to develop and prove. This is why there are so few aircraft under development and in production today. 
Aircraft do not have a best before date. The hardest thing to keep current in aircraft today is the electronics. They say that by the time you get your home computer home it is out of date. Well by the time you get your new electronics in your aircraft it is well over a decade out of date due to the development and testing periods. Our little Bell412s (Griffons) are a militarized civilian helicopter that is based on a military helicopter, the Huey. Originally the Huey was intended to be a utility chopper and in that role they excel. For heavy lifting and moving a platoon of infantry at a time you had the Chinook. Well the shithook is gone and if you want something moved start pushing. 

We missed the boat, we could have standardized down to one rotary wing airframe across the forces and maintained much of our capability. Replaced the Kiowa, Huey, Chinook and Sea king with the Hawk series(Black Hawk, Sea Hawk, etc..). By cutting back to one aircraft we would reduce the maint costs through economy of scale. 

Here comes the boat again the US is offering surplus Hawk airframes for sale and with our purchase of the new H-92 Super hawks which use the same power plants and flight dynamics we could still say we only had one aircraft model to maintain and the supply inventory to prove it..  
Allot changed between 1956 when the Huey first flew and 1976 when the Black hawk first flew. We would also benefit from the ongoing research in the US as we would be flying the same aircraft as our major defence partner who plans on keeping the type in service until 2025-2030.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (1 Aug 2004)

there was a reason canada did standardize their helo airframe to the black/seahawk.  first off the seahawk was not suitable for the navy for many reasons.  mainly it was too small and was not up to the job in the north atlantic.  as for the blackhawk, the political angle of bell helicopter being in montreal pretty much sealed the deal.  there were also concerns with the blackhawk as the aussies were having a lot of trouble with theirs around that time with corrosion and durability.  was the griffon a bad decision of course, but the boat was missed by not rationalizing the airframe when the eh101.  canada has little need for a helo the griffons size considering the size of the armed forces and the abilities of the ch146.  as for upgrading the griffons to carry weapons it just isn't possible to mount anything other than maybe mg pods and small rocket pods.  a hellfire would down the airplane as quickly as it would knock out a tank, the airframe just isn't strong enough to support firing a missile that powerful.


----------



## Zoomie (2 Aug 2004)

Sorry Ringo, but the Griffon can support Hellfires.  Under the ERSTA (Electro-optical Reconnaissance
Surveillance and Target Acquisition) project, the mounting of machine guns, rockets and Hellfire AT missiles was theorized.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/html_files/html_view_e.asp?page=vol5-20airforce


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (4 Aug 2004)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Sorry Ringo, but the Griffon can support Hellfires.   Under the ERSTA (Electro-optical Reconnaissance
> Surveillance and Target Acquisition) project, the mounting of machine guns, rockets and Hellfire AT missiles was theorized.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/html_files/html_view_e.asp?page=vol5-20airforce



i believe the key word there is "theorized".  all they are saying is that ersta system would allow the griffon to carry the hellfire and provide guidance the truth is though the airframe is not strong enough to support a hellfire launch.  i have this on good authority from people who were involved with the ersta project.  the system is meant to be just a surveillance device and a designator if ever needed.


----------



## Mortar guy (4 Aug 2004)

Ringo,

Your good authority is not so good. A trial was done a few years ago with a Griffon equipped with a floor plank (looks like a plank that bolts to the floor and sticks out either door a few feet) that would allow it to carry 4 Hellfire and a .50 HMG. It was all made public in the Infantry Journal (sorry, no longer on the internet).

As for upgrading the Griffon, 25 are to be equipped with the ERSTA package (including armament). Also, 1 Wing was looking at a remanufacture program to bring the Griffon up to the standard of the UH-1Y. According to the people at Bell, this is totally feasible and would nearly double the load of the Griffon.

Alex


----------



## Inch (4 Aug 2004)

I forgot I had a pic of the Griffon avec Hellfires


----------



## Mortar guy (4 Aug 2004)

Thanks Inch! That's exactly what I was talking about. As for a Griffon airframe not being strong enough to withstand a Hellfire launch.... huh? Its not a cannon, its a missile. The recoil forces of firing a Hellfire are so small that they are almost negligible. This is totally do-able and would finally give our Tac Hel guys a real firepower role.

Alex


----------



## Korus (4 Aug 2004)

The Predator UAV can fire the hellfire, and it's not exactly a heavily armoured, tough airframe..


----------



## Gunnerlove (4 Aug 2004)

What "new" choppers are on the horizon? 

I am looking but not really seeing great leaps forward.


----------

