# CH-146 Griffon



## the patriot

JOINT TRIAL- PARACHUTE, RAPPEL AND SLING LOAD CERTIFICATION OF THE CH-146
GRIFFON HELICOPTER 26 JUL TO 14 AUG 98

written by: Sgt Normand Belisle 

The new CH-146 Griffon helicopter has recently been brought into service within the CF. Prior to engaging this impressive helicopter in operations, there were several trials and evaluations which had to take place. The Griffon required "certification" for Slinging of loads, Parachute, and Rappel operations. A joint plan of test was prepared by the Canadian Parachute Centre
Airborne Trials and Evaluations Section (CPC ATES) and Land Aviation Test and Evaluation Flight (LATEF) and approved to conduct all aspects of this certification. After studying all possible sites, CFB Valcartier became the ideal location to conduct these tests as they could provide the personnel, drop zone and equipment. With a total of 50 soldiers provided from
A Cie 3 R22eR and the support of ATES, LATEF and the CF Photo unit, the testing began. 
In order to conduct these trials adequately, in addition to their own Photo Tech a Photo Tech and a Video Tech were added to the ATES team. These experienced cameramen allowed ATES to demonstrate visually, all of the changes to the existing procedures and to produce a procedural and safety video. This video will be used as a training aid in conjunction with the
Canadian Forces Technical Orders written for each item of the tests. 

On the 26th of July, CPC ATES initiated the series of tests. The tests began with the rappelling certification by dispatching troops from a height of 90 feet. A total of 310 dispatches took place including descents with and without rucksack. Several rappels took place with full winter kit including snowshoes/rifle combinations. Toboggans were also lowered to the ground
without any problem. In all cases, the trials proved to be very successful. No injuries were reported and all feedback from the soldiers (beside the burned hands) was positive. 
The slinging portion of training happened in between rappel lifts. These trials were conducted during the first 2 weeks of testing.With only minor damage to the motorcycle and after several different tests, it was determined that all slinging configurations adhered to regulations and safety requirements. During the third week of the trials, the emphasis was on static line parachuting. A total of 204 jumps with CT-2 and CT-1 combined were conducted with only two minor injuries reported (neither attributed to the aircraft or exits) and all dispatches
carried out without any problems. The only limitation observed while using the CH-146 Griffon was that only six jumpers could be dispatched from the helicopter when jumping full equipment (including rifle/snowshoes). While eight jumpers could be dispatched safely without equipment. 

Capt Lafrance from CPC ATES was the test director for this important task and WO Ingram, a Parachute Instructor and Rappel Master, was in charge of the Rappelling and parachuting phases. Sgt Gallant, also a Parachute Instructor, was in charge of slinging different pieces of Army equipment such as Skidoos, Motorcycles, Iltis trailer, and also the 105 LG1 MKII Gun. CFB Gagetown, LATEF provided an aircrew composed of Maj Jerry Demetriadis, Capt Lou Whitaker and Mcpl Liz White. The ATES team was fortunate to have warm and sunny weather throughout. The trials were completed on schedule with no major delays or injuries. The 3R22eR, especially their Commanding Officer LCol Tremblay, the Coy Commander, Maj
Gauthier, their CSM Adjum Poirier, Adj Colbert, Sgt Lakatos, Cplc Boyer and all the soldiers involved, displayed a great deal of professionalism, dedication and discipline, always offering to do more than what had been requested. 

In the near future, all jump companies will receive the authorization to conduct parachute and rappel operations from the CH-146 Griffon. They will also be authorized to sling loads that have been covered during the trials. This sophisticated helicopter will finally become fully operational and the soldiers throughout the CF will benefit from this Army and Air Force
joint venture. 

**************************************************

-the patriot-


----------



## Brock

The Griffon in the way you illustrate it seems like a marvel of modern engineering.  It may be able to perform well under nice sunny conditions and controlled testing environments, but what about it‘s multi-purpose capability in reguards to battlefield and training and its adverse flight characterists (these being essential for a military with limited financial resources).  The Griffon would not be able to withstand a combat environment.  This is due to its very limited flight characteristics.  It is unable to fly at sustained high speeds; its top speed is the averge cruising speed of all other modern battlefield helicopters.  This article points out that it has a limited lift capacity as it can only transport eight troops or the extremely light howitzer, the LG1 MkII which weighs a mere 1500kg.  A section of troops or a howitzer without ammunition or crew.  It would take five Griffons to deliver a platoon to a battlefield or three to deliver one light artillery piece.  Add to this a limited combat radius of action 150nm with a limited payload, at speeds 20 knots slower than modern helicopters and in relatively nice conditions, I think you get the point.  The Griffon is not a modern helicopter it is merely an updated old helicopter of 1960‘s fame spruced up to look as though it is a capable military helicopter, it may be new in terms of age, but is certainly not designed for modern military operations when compared to the capabilities of the Cougar or Blackhawk helicopters.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I‘ll throw in two cents for what its worth; we had a couple of Griffons on an exercise a couple winters ago; it was pretty cozy in there with six of us wearing winter kit and carrying loaded rucksacks.

Don‘t know if it means anything, but the flight engineer (or whatever he‘s called) was really freaked out about us walking into the pitot tubes - he warned us three times that if we walked into the pitot tube while boarding the helicopter, that they would be grounded.


----------



## bossi

A while back, I remember doing some research ... and since the "party line", propaganda article left out these details ... (plus, two adjectives annoyed me in particular: "impressive ", and "sophisticated" - I‘m not impressed - a mentor once told me the truth does not need superlatives, but can stand on its‘ own ...). 

If memory serves me, Bell Helicopter has two major manufacturing facilities; one in Texas (where they make milspec aircraft), and a second plant in Montreal (for civvie pattern product).

I‘m not sure who the Member of Parliament involved was when the contract was awarded (although that quisling Marcel Masse rings a bell), but you can guess where our eggbeaters were manufactured.

In a nutshell, the Griffon was described to me as a civvie version of the Huey, painted olive drab (but definitely not genuine milspec) - this reminds me of when our Air Force bought some Jet Rangers, or when the Canadian Army bought a bunch of civvie Jeeps ... they didn‘t really last too long, compared to real, rough-tough milspec aircraft/vehicles (like the "deuces" made in the ‘50‘s, which were older than me, yet still running when I joined in the late ‘70‘s ...).

Also, I‘ve heard from several pilots who are stuck flying Griffons, and they were unanimous in saying they didn‘t like it (compared to REAL military helicopters).

And, does anybody else out there find it amusing they‘d spell it "Griffon" instead of "Gryphon"?  Just wondering.

Finally, the article said "... The only limitation observed ..." - hmmm ... that‘s quite a limitation, I‘d have to say.  Isn‘t it ironic, or even unimpressive that the Griffon sling load trial included a mere motorcycle, and an Iltis trailer (but not an Iltis ...)?  Heck - a motorcycle can only carry two troopers, and what good is a trailer or a howitzer without a prime mover???

I‘m more IMPRESSED with how the Dutch military bought our Chinooks, and upgraded/refitted them with SOPHISTICATED modern gadgetry - they now have a chopper that is a real workhorse (and not a hobby horse, like the Griffon).  In contrast to Canada, other armies feel it worthwhile to maintain some medium, or even heavy lift capability in their hel fleets.  Equally, most other armies worth their salt purchase genuine milspec choppers (just in case somebody starts shooting at them ... a novel thought, eh?) 

Okay, okay - I can hear the voice of Dilbert telling me to calm down ("... must ... control ... fist ... of ... death ...").  Nothing I say or write is going to change the status quo, but I just had to "vent".  Thanks for humouring me.  We now resume regularly scheduled programming ...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

The CF-18 was never called the Hornet (as the F-18 is in the States) because the French word for "hornet" literally means "useless drone."  I wonder if the (mis)spelling of Griffon has to do with the French as well.


----------



## Mud Crawler

it is the french translation of Gryphon.Bet whoever bought these helicopters wanted votes in Québec.Otherwise they wouldnt have called it griffon and built it in a plant where they do civvie choppers, right?Everything in the army is way too political, even to point where it endangers the soldiers.WE WANT BLACKHAWKS!!!!!! Sorry i‘m a BlackHawk fan.


----------



## Brock

Blackhawks are excellent helicopters, but since Canada already has the Griffon why not upgrade them to UH-1Y standard, for use until 2014-2017 and replace them with the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey and eventually replace the Cormorant with similar aircraft.  The UH-1Y if you are not familar with it is an upgrade of the UH-1N Twin Huey for the USMC.  Basically the same engines in the Blackhawk, the GE T-700, are put into the Griffon and a an upgraded four bladed main and tail rotor replace the Griffon‘s four and two bladed equivalent and a glass cockpit is fitted.  The UH-1Y is much more capable than the Griffon or basically similar UH-1N, it can sling 3000kg, but its flight performance is drastically improved in speed, range, handling, and performance in hot and high conditions.  It‘s cruise speed is faster than the Griffon‘s top speed (140kts).


----------



## Brock

Blackhawks are excellent helicopters, but since Canada already has the Griffon why not upgrade them to UH-1Y standard, for use until 2014-2017 and replace them with the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey and eventually replace the Cormorant with similar aircraft.  The UH-1Y if you are not familar with it is an upgrade of the UH-1N Twin Huey for the USMC.  Basically the same engines in the Blackhawk, the GE T-700, are put into the Griffon and a an upgraded four bladed main and tail rotor replace the Griffon‘s four and two bladed equivalent and a glass cockpit is fitted.  The UH-1Y is much more capable than the Griffon or basically similar UH-1N, it can sling 3000kg, but its flight performance is drastically improved in speed, range, handling, and performance in hot and high conditions.  It‘s cruise speed is faster than the Griffon‘s top speed (140kts).


----------



## RCA

Speaking from a gunner perspective if the army wants a troop lift capablity then it also requires to have sufficient lift for a 105mm How Bty with detachment and ammo (and with the gun having a range of appox 11,000m that is more than sufficent to support airmoble troops and I dare say they would probably appreciate it). The helocopter is the prime mover as well as used for the OP, recce and resupply. (Think of the Falklands). Without this lift capability the troops would have no fire support unless you count on the Griffon with its MGs. (or we move into the realm of gunships.)
  Secondly, the arguments with regards to "field testing" of the Griffon remind me of the same ones for the  MLVW (exhust pipe under the truck bed) and LSVW (non-addjutable drivers seat) which gives me shivers. However in todays climate when we just got around to replacing the Labrdors and Sea Kings I think we are indulging in a lot of wishfull thinking. We will probably have to get use to moving 30 troops at a time anywhere we go. (Too bad they got rid of the Chinooks)
Thats my two cents worth

Ubique


----------



## Brock

I recently read an "Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin" report about expeirence in Kosovo essentially reporting the Griffon is essentially useless for airmobile warefare.  The report indicated that the Griffon can not operate carry more than 4 fully equipped troops if it is to fly a useful mission distance.  The reason being by the time the defensive warfare suite, cockpit armour, and crews weapons and equipment is added on the Griffon has to choose troops or fuel; the latter wins.
Even with the low troop load, the transport distance is still limited, about 100km radius.

Given the importance of support helicoter operations in peace support operations and low to mid-intensity conflicts, the CF desperately needs to build a better airlift capacity.  I suggest this options.  One the CF should buy 10-16 new-build or ex-US uupgraded Chinook heavy lift helicopters.  The cost is relatively low, $50-60 million a pop and the benefits are extremely advantageous.  In the mid-term, say next ten years, a major uprgade to UH-1Y standard is in order for the Griffons.  The UH-1Y program is currently being run for the USMC‘s basically similar UH-1N Twin Huey‘s.  The helicopter is stripped of all avionics, flight and engines systems and the airframe is retuned to zero hour status.  The helicopter is refitted with 2 GE-700-401C engines (twice the power of the current enginces), a passive and active defensive aids suite, a new "glass cockpit", a new four blade main and tail rotor system, and a strengthened and combat durable airframe is added.  The helicopter is now combat capable and can take battle damage and keep on flying at level comparable to a Sikorsky Blackhawk.  Most importantly the helicopter wouldl be capable of transporting an infantry "tactically "--unlike the current Griffon--and doing so at the current Griffon maximum flight speed at its maximum range with a full load.  The cost of an upgrade of this nature would be about $6-$10 million Canadian each.  Although this sound expensive it is relatively cheap compare to the $30 million for a new Blackhawk or $50 million for an EH-101 utility variant.  These are Canadian figures too with all the added political cost.  I would like to note that this option is politically acceptable, because both the Griffon upgrade and Chinook builiding could be done in Canada at Boeing‘s and Bell Heliocopters plants in Arnprior and Mirabel respectively.

Also the time is politically ripe to get upgrades of this sort on the go, because of the current war.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## fortuncookie5084

Canada had Chinooks.  We sold them to the Dutch for next to nothing, right around the same time the Yanks offered to send lots of utility helicopters our way (post cold war downsizing).  Marcel Masse had us buy the Griffon instead.  Sucks, eh?


----------



## Meditations in Green

Another option (I don‘t know about the cost for this one though) would be acquiring helicopters from Eurocopter ( www.eurocopter.ca ). They have a plant in Ft. Erie, which would address a lot of the politcal end job wise. Eurocopter makes the Super Puma and Super Couger transport helicopters and Tiger gunships. An example: the Super Couger AS532 U2 A2 can carry 29 troops or 12 stretchers and is armed with 20mm axial guns or 68mm rockets in addition to machineguns. The Eurocopter models have seen a lot of use with forces around the world, especially within NATO, with good results I understand.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune

Man...The CF is in a mess, I say they elect Generals and a Defence Ministers from the enlisted men. That oughta fix the problem.


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay

Sir,

The Cougar has exactly the same problem as the Griffon, it may be able to have 29 lightly equipped troops in its hold.  Unfortunatley it cannot fly very far with them.  Even without the defence suite, any form of weapons system etc, they were in Bosnia/Kosovo only rostered to carry nine fully equipped troops.

Whilst the original Puma version was a manouverable helicopter, the Cougar is not.  It also has the disadvantage in that it is hard for fully ladened soldiers to climb onboard.

If there had been any logical choice, it would have been the Merlin (EH-101) in its utility, naval, SAR versions for the Canadian Forces.  This will however never be (apart from the Comorant), the Griffons are relatively young aircraft, and it is quite obvious that the Sea Kings will fly for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your, 
Jock in SYdney


----------



## McG

> Originally posted by Gordon Angus Mackinlay:
> [qb] . . . it is quite obvious that the Sea Kings will fly for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/qb]



Haven‘t they already flown  _forever_?


----------



## fortuncookie5084

I don‘t think it is too far fetched to say that we‘ll lose them all through attrition---their recent crash record is terrible and sad.  But would they be replaced??


----------



## bossi

Only if it suits the agenda of the Liberal party (i.e. if they can be made in a riding with a Liberal Member of Parliament)

Ooops ... did I say that out loud?


----------



## Yard Ape

Well, they certainly proved that they don‘t really care.  After yesterday‘s budget.  I guess our SF guys will have to ride into battle on some other country‘s birds.

  <img src="cool.gif" border="0" alt="" />  Yard Ape


----------



## Brock

In regard to the "Super Cougar" it is actually called the Coulgar Mk.1, Cougar Mk.2, and/or EC 725.  The Super Puma is a civillian version of the Cougar Mk.1/2.  The Mk. 1/2 stand for short fuselage length (Mk.1) and long fuselage length (Mk.2).  There are also a variety of sub-variants that denoted armed and unarmed capabilities for both utility and maritime roles.  In response to Angus MacKinlay.  The Cougar Mk.2 used by the Dutch in Bosnia/Kosovo carries 13-16 fully loaded troops not nine, the nine would be based on increased fuel requirements for an extremely long range flight (see. Jane‘s International Defence Review August 2001 for more info.).  The EC 725 is essentially a Cougar Mk.2 with new more powerful and fuel efficient engines, a better all new rotor system, a new cockpit, and the ability to be fit with a wide range of standard add-on kits for Combat SAR.  It essentially rectifies existing problems with Cougar Mk.2.  If one want to go with Eurocopter, one should look at its sister company‘s NH-90 form NAHEMA Helicopter Industries (NHI).  NHI is a company owned by Eurocopter France, Portugal, and Germany; Agusta of Italy, and Fokker of the Netherlands.  The NH-90 is an excellent helicopter for both maritme roles and land support roles.  It is produced in two basic variants: the Tactical Transport Helicopter (TTH) and the NATO Frigate Helicopter (NFH) variants.  Both are extremely capabale 10 ton class helicopters.  The TTH can transport 16 fully equipped troops and four crew.  The TTH has two sliding cargo doors to port and starboard and a rear ramp.  The NFH variant is fully equipped for anti-submarine and anti-surface vessel warfare (ASW/ASVW).  Both helicopter are exceptional in terms of performance.  The NH-90 came to late to participate in the Search and Rescue Helicopter replacement project, but likely would have won, had it been available.  Concerns about its lower cabin height (160cm) have been addressed by producing a version with a 183cm cabin.  The NH-90 is truly an excellent all around helicopter and it is set to succeed the Super Puma/Cougar line.    If you want to know more see www.eurocopter.com and follow the links to the products page.


----------



## Meditations in Green

The main reason I had for suggesting Eurocopter as an alternative to the Blackhawk or the EH 101 is the political end of things. The politics will outweigh any operational considerations, especially with our current administration. 

I did some looking around on the net. The NH-90 sounds like it‘ll be a pretty good helicopter. From the looks of things there is quite a bit of interest in the NH-90 from countries around the world.

A gut feeling tells me that even if they did buy new helicopters they‘d still end up making a questionable choice - and with the new budget I‘d be surprised if they even made any significant upgrades to existing choppers. As for the Sea "Kings" (they‘re Paupers now), who knows what they‘ll actually do outside of a report or commitee.


----------



## TR23

Hello All,
I was wondering if someone would take the time to explain some of the problems with the CH-146 Griffon helicopter.   I understand that it seems to have a poor reputation in the forces, and I was hoping to learn more about why.   I believe that the Griffon is based on the Bell Helicopter 412 twin engine design.   I also thought that the 412 was development of the Twin Huey, which itselt stemmed from the original Huey.   Wasn't the original Huey revered as a marvel of design?   I would have thought that an update to the Huey, especially adding twin engine safety and capability to an already sound design would produce an excellent helicopter.   You can probably see by now that I know little about what I'm asking- I'm just hoping to learn more.   Please don't think that I'm suggesting the Griffon's reputation is undeserved, I'm simply trying to understand the problems.   Thanks.


----------



## Inch

First, multiple engines aren't for safety, they're for speed and power. The old saying amongst pilots is that 2 engines just means that you've got twice the chance of having an engine failure. In most cases, a twin engine helo with a failed engine won't be able to hover with that engine out, kind of a problem if you don't have an airport or a long, flat, and hard surface to do a run-on landing.

For the Griffon, it has a higher max weight than the Huey, but the aircraft itself also weighs more. As it works out according to the numbers published in Jane's, the Griffon's payload is 200 lbs less than the Huey's. The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges. If you compare the Huey to the Griffon, the numbers are quite similar and IMO, most of the negative press on the Griffon is unwarranted.  As for the rest of it, I'll leave that to Strike, our resident Griffon pilot.


----------



## mdh

The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges

Inch,

This is probably an unfair question, but how does the Griffon stack up to the Blackhawk overall as a tac helicopter in your view? 

I know that they may not be strictly comparable, but are there some advantages in using the Griffon or is the BH just plainly superior?  Does it just depend on the role?

cheers, mdh


----------



## Inch

mdh said:
			
		

> The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges
> 
> Inch,
> 
> This is probably an unfair question, but how does the Griffon stack up to the Blackhawk overall as a tac helicopter in your view?
> 
> I know that they may not be strictly comparable, but are there some advantages in using the Griffon or is the BH just plainly superior?   Does it just depend on the role?
> 
> cheers, mdh



Keep in mind that my opinion isn't grounded in being a TacHel pilot, but here it goes. 

It all depends on what you're using it for and where you're using it. The Griffon is smaller and lighter, thus it can fit into smaller clearings in the trees and it doesn't put down as much rotorwash as a larger helicopter. The Griffon has skids so I'd be inclined to say that it's probably better at landing on soft surfaces (snow, etc) since the weight is more spread out than the 3 points of contact that the Blackhawk wheels make. I think I've seen pictures of the Blackhawk with skis attached to the landing gear so that would help, but I'm not certain how common this is or if it's a quick add-on.

Overall, I think the Blackhawk would be more suited to the majority of the roles that we use the Griffon for. However, I've said it once and I'll say it again, I believe very strongly that the right kit should be used for the job. The Blackhawk would bring it's own limitations with it, the US Army uses a few different helos for their Tac Aviation, whereas we try to use one and as I stated above, expectations that it should be able to do all jobs well is why the Griffon draws so much flak from the naysayers.


----------



## Garry

The Griffon replaced the Kiowa, Single Huey and the Twin Huey. The CH-47 was, iirc, gone prior to the buy.

The Kiowa was a scout helicopter. Typical tasks included FAC, Recce, RRB, FOO, MFCO, Liason, and Airmobile support. These taskings required low altitude flight (app 3 feet agl) as well as manouvering in tight conditions, at times flying under standard telephone wires (to avoid observation). This is a tough environment for a 3,000 pound aircraft, very (VERY) challenging for a 9,000 pound aircraft. 

The Single Huey was a SAR aircraft, based (by the time of the Griffon arrival) solely at Jet airbases, and used to (primarily) retrieve downed aircrew. The Griffon does a fine job of that....although the winch tends to fail, and the static electricity generated by the aircraft is quite stunning, and tends to make those on the ground pay for any mistakes they make (such as grabbing the cable before it hits the ground)

The Twim Huey was employed primarily as an airmobile platform, transporting troops around the battlefield. It also moved some artillery guns. The Griffon is unable to move the same amount of men and material (weight limited) as the Huey could, nor can it move artillery pieces as far as the Huey could (again, weight limited).

The Griffon has better avionics and flight management sytems than the Huey did.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## TR23

Hey, thanks for the info, this is great.   I'm really enjoying what i've learned from this site, and I appreciate everyone putting up with someone who knows little to nothing.

What Garry said about the Kiowa provided the answer to something that had been kicking around in my head for awhile.   I had been pondering the possibility of reconfiguring some of the Griffons to an armed observation/scouting role, similar to the 'Kiowa to Kiowa Warrior' program in US Army Aviation.   I had thought that since both the Kiowa and the Griffon were Bell helicopters(meaning that Bell has experience in this kind of program), and seeing how Bell has a division in Montreal, this might be seen as a politically 'do-able' upgrade.   In my imagination i had seen new avionics, some sort of MMS (Mast Mounted Sight) like the Kiowa Warriors, and some light weaponry, like direct fired rockets or heavy guns, maybe even light/medium armour.   I imagine that while the troops would love true attack helicopter support, I can't see funding for that coming, even with budget increases.   So i thought any kind of air support would be appreciated.

I also thought that if Canada increased it's aerial recce abilities, and integrated them with the Coyote on the ground, as well as our infantry recce platoons, and UAV assets (which I'm not too sure of how well developed they are) we might be able to offer that as a 'package' option to allied/coalition operations.   I believe the US asked for coyote support on various operations, and it would seem like a 'high profile' operation that would look good for the army and the Canadian government.   This all popped into my head after reading the article on Canada reprocurring Chinooks as heavy lift birds, and i started wondering if their procurement would allow any griffons to be re-tasked.   I've always been impressed with the Kiowa Warrior, it seemed like an economical solution to a problem, by adapting relatively inexpensive aircraft -really Bell 206 JetRangers, I believe.

Anyway, I take from what Garry said that adapting the griffon to this role would be a poor compromise due its high weight, and perhaps lack of manuverablity?
I don't want to seem like i think i'm an expert by any means, i just had this idea and was wondering what you guys thought of it, how/if it would work, etc...

Trevor


----------



## mdh

That's actually a good question TR23 - I was going to ask how the Griffon would stack up as a gunship - I believe that it can carry some rockets now - and that machine guns can be mounted on the doors.


----------



## pipstah

I'm gonna talk about my personnal point of view about the Gryffin. First of all, comparing the gryffin to the blackhawk is like comparing a sport car to a truck... it's fast and agile but cant load as much as we want. The gryffin right now have the option of mounted side HMG on each side. Dont remember if its the C6 or the C9 or maybe both...maybe someone can tell us. Sitting in the back of these littlebirds is kinda a good challenge... but its fun. On the winter sometime it get hard because of the tobogan. The pilots are professionnal and they try to do their best with what they have. The gryffin is doing a pretty good job but maybe for not all the roles its suppose to fullfill in the canadian forces. I dont know about the combat role it could play... if you want to use the gryffin for combat support you will need to put armor on wich mean more weight...less agile...less faster... less carrying load... it would be a nice challenge to solve! We will see with Gen Hillier what will happen... the tact helo world future seems that it will gonna change alot with the arrival of a land Gen... wich I think is pretty good. We just have to wait to see the new ideas...


----------



## TR23

Thanks for all the replies guys- it seems i was under a misconception, I had believed that the griffin was comparable to the twin huey, similar to what the USMC has, which are currently undergoing a refit to UH-1Y standard.  however, it seems that the griffin isn't as capable as the Twin Huey, especially the new standard Y model.  How do the Griffin and Huey compare?  How does a fully upgraded Huey compare to a Blackhawk?  Does the USMC operate them due to cost or preference?  Could Canada upgrade its Griffins to a smilar standard?  Tons of questions, and I hope you guys don't mind, but I'm learning tons.


----------



## Inch

K guys, it's spelled "Griffon".

You don't need a lot of armour, only a bit under and around the crew. If you're thinking along the lines of LAV armour, well that's not feasible for a helicopter. The fact is that the rotor head and blades aren't designed to take a lot of small arms fire, so armouring the hell out of it to protect the crew won't do you a whole lot of good if you take a few bullets in a rotor blade or the tail rotor gearbox. Helicopters rely on speed and agility as their primary defense, they use the contours and terrain to hide and move to where they want to go. They carry C6 GPMGs, an HMG I believe is .50 cal and up and they're not carried on any of our helos.

TR23, the Griffon is comparable to the Twin Huey, the Griffon will carry one guy less, that's pretty comparable if you ask me. I don't know the specs on the Y upgrade but I highly doubt it'll come close to a Blackhawk performance wise. The L model Blackhawks have an all up weight of 22,000 lbs. The rest of your questions I'm not too sure on so I'll leave those for Duey or someone else to answer.


----------



## Strike

Hey guys,

Sorry for the late reply.  I was busy getting ready for the field.

So, let's see what I can answer.  I never flew the Huey so I really can't compare them.  From what I've seen, the main reason some bash the Griffon is because they expect it to do the same roles the Kiowa, Iroquois (single Huey), Twin, and Chinook did.  Well, obviously not possible since it is one helicopter with only temporary add ons to change the configuration for different roles.

It certainly cannot do what a BH can.  Weight limitations (from what I have witnessed) seem to be due to the different head configuration.  Whereas most helo have all the blades attached to a single point, the Griffon has two plates laying on top of each other with the blades attached at the ends.  This generally adds for a smoother and quieter ride (unless these elastomeric bearings are cold) but also makes them a little more susceptible to torque.  You certainly can't treat it like you would a Sea King taking off from deck.  Even a Jet Ranger (of which the Kiowa is a derivation) is much more forgiving when it comes to pulling torque.

The main role we seem to be tasked with and train for is troup transport but, after the role 430 Sqn played in Haiti, we are exploring other options.  The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry.  One of their main roles was to monitor various areas with the FLIR and send reports back.  Can you imagine hearing a helicopter but not seeing it because all of their lights are out?  Suddenly you are lit up by the "Night Sun" and a dozen Army troups are shouting at you with rifles at the ready.  They did a great job.

This bring the whole Recce aspect of our job into play.  It really isn't something we do enough of but, once again, the community is trying to change this with keeping Recce quals up to date.  There once was a project called ERSTA (before my time in the Griffon) which focused on kitting the aircraft with the latest in recce equipment.  With the added bonus that these helos can quite successfully hide with the appropriate back-drop or cover, this would have been a great addition.  There's nothing better than playing 1 vs 1 (our version of hide and seek) and never being found -- even when you give the other a/c the grid where you are hiding.  Maybe Gen Hillier will revive it (or some form of it).

WRT armour, well, never had the chance to fly with it.  There are special armoured seats which are installed and are protected under, on the sides, and on the rear.  Armour is also placed in the chin bubble which is an annoyance for those who like to use the bubble when in a high hover or going into a confined area.

My personal thoughts on the Griffon?  I compare it to an SUV.  It's certainly not the beater pick-up like the Twin may have been -- works hard no matter what you do to it.  Of course, if you treat it with a bit of finess (which I am still learning; still no overtorques for me though ) you can do some great stuff.  Nothing beats zipping over the trees at 15 feet and 100 knots!


----------



## Bograt

Having spent the last two weeks in Beautiful Farnum, the only thing that kept me sane was watching the Griffons doing their low level stuff.

It kept a smile on this baby pilot as I was humping through the sticks with a ruck. -32 and the wind. I love Quebec in the winter. ;P

Cheers,


----------



## mdh

The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry

Strike,

Is this similar to the problem most aircraft have operating in hot and humid climates? Or is the Griffon especially vulnerable? I remember being paranoid (getting my PPL) flying shortfield practice in a C150 when it was very hot/humid (30C plus) in southwestern Ontario. (Not to mention roasting to death in the cockpit on the ground, but I digress). 

Are there occasions when the Griffon was just not operational under those conditions - or is there just extreme vigilance on the weight and balance?

Cheers, mdh


----------



## Strike

mdh said:
			
		

> The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry
> 
> Is this similar to the problem most aircraft have operating in hot and humid climates? Or is the Griffon especially vulnerable? I remember being paranoid (getting my PPL) flying shortfield practice in a C150 when it was very hot/humid (30C plus) in southwestern Ontario. (Not to mention roasting to death in the cockpit on the ground, but I digress).
> 
> Are there occasions when the Griffon was just not operational under those conditions - or is there just extreme vigilance on the weight and balance?



It's exactly the same.  If the density altitude (density of the air at ground level when taking into account pressure and humidity) is too high more power is required to get in the air.  DA is basically an equivalent Alt reading using ICAO standards (15 degrees, 29.92) at ground level.  That's why right now if you were to take that 150 up it would feel like a little rocket.  The DA is probably somewhere around  minus 1000 feet right now out here in Pet -- the air is nice and dense.  Service ceiling of the Griffon is 14 000 feet (Not taking into account the whole oxygen thing).

Jeez, those hours of Met and IF are really starting to pay off.


----------



## mdh

That's why right now if you were to take that 150 up it would feel like a little rocket.

That's for sure! - the rate of climb would be anemic in the 150 on hot days (II RC 150 feet per minute)   - and then on cold days almost 300 or more. (a stunning 100 HP don't ya know! not really much of a rocket at all - but I do miss that old trainer.)

Then again the real challenge was landing at the Island Airport in TO - some of the weirdest cross winds and wind shear around because of the city scape. (nothing like being on short final and the IAS drops by 10 knots).   

Thanks for the info Strike,

cheers, mdh


----------



## Good2Golf

Gents, Garry gave a good back ground on the three helos that were removed from service and portions of their separate capabilities were provided by the Griffon.   Garry and I were quite involved in the implementation of the Griffon (its entry into service) in the mid-to-later 90's, then he went on to fly them while I kept flying my desk.   There were a number of challenges including determining how the Griffon really was going to be operated by the Tactical Aviation community once it was fully entered into operational service.   There was much discussion of how much of the Kiowa's and Twin Huey's roles would the Griffon be used to provide.   In the end, the direction was principally to provide roles that the Twin Huey had provided earlier and to save until later the employment of the Griffon in the kind of recce and surveillance missions that Garry noted earlier for the Kiowa.

I'll start off by saying that the Griffon is what it is...a single main-rotor, utility helicopter that can perform a variety of tasks, either as a basic aircraft or with the addition of several mission kits (FLIR, Nitesun searchlight, C6 MG, cabin armour, skis, hoist, etc....)   Folks love to make comparisons, but a direct comparison is not always a fair thing to do.   The closest comparision to the Griffon is obviously the Twin Huey, but there are noticable iddferences between the two helicopters...both in their characteristics and in the way that they were/are employed.   Some folks (myself included) like to compare the Griffon and Twin as a Ford F-150 Lariat-trim, Super Cab with a/c, cruise, p/w, p/s, p/b and a short-bed (Griffon) with an older regular cab, long-bed, vinyl seating, no a/c, no cruise, base-model F-100 (Twin Huey).   You could put a bit more in the F-100 but the F-150 was much nicer to drive for extended periods.

As noted earlier in the thread, the Griffon is a little heavier than the Twin and even with the four-bladed rotor (vs. the Twin's two blades), leads to a noticably heavier rotor loading.   Guys may tell you that the Griffon is not quite as solid hovering on its column of air as the Twin was, until you get down into "ground effect" (by definition 1/2 the distance of the main rotor, in practive around 4-5' above the ground).   The Griffon's avionics are far more integrated than the other previous helicopters in the CF...the first of the "electric aircraft" if you will.   The Avionics Management System (AMS) uses a dual digital databus (MIL-STD-1553-B) and has Cockpit Display Units (CDUs) that the pilots uses to program the avionics, communications and some of other mission systems.   Ironically, though, it was a hybrid system that took much of the digital information running through the data-buses and reconverted it back to analog signals and (aside from the two CDUs) presented the information in a traditional "steam-driven" instrument panel.   We are missing a few flat-screen MFD (multi-function displays) that would have kept the modernization theme throughout the aircraft.

Operationally, the Griffon is not without its challenges...mind you, nor is any other helicopter.   Depending on the mission kits installed, the Griffon is limited to how much paylod it can carry.   The Griffon also has some performance limitations based on how it manages torque...which tends to oscillate more than the Twin.   This means guys will usually add a bit of a "buffer" to how much power they pull, so that they don't overtorque the aircraft inadvertantly.   Interestingly, many of the missions, like those that Spike referred to in Haiti, don't use the aircraft at its AUW (all up weight) and the capability the Griffon then provides (surveillance, overwatch, illumination, small reation team insertion, etc... vs. large fore mobility) it quite useful to the Task Force commander.   I think it's more an issue of finding what and where the Griffon can be best leveraged...moving large numbers of troops in an airmobile is perhaps not the best employment of the asset.

Where it's future leads (as with just about everybody else in the CF, right about now, eh?) remains to be seen.   Time will tell how the Griffon can be developed in the future to contribute to the CF.

p.s.   Just to caveat my words, I only have two hours in the Griffon...my op time was all on the CH147 and CH135 (including the infamous trip of 29 April 1992 to transport Marcel Masse to Bell in Mirabel to anounce the 100 Griffons to be purchased  ).   Much of my words above were based on dealing with supporting the Griffon from a number of different positions (EW, systems, life support, engineering, employment, ops management, torque-sensitivity solutions, etc...) now for almost a decade.   I feel I know the beastie pretty well and have worked with others to make it as much as it is today (which to be honest, could have been a lot worse were it not for the contributions of lots of motivated folks).   That said, I'm still holding out for a little "something else" before I get back in the cockpit... *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*   ;D

Cheers,
Duey 

*edit* - Got my Garry/Gary's mixed up...I worked for Gary, not Garry although both flew on Kiowas...mea culpa....P.S. Garry's summary of the helos was still very good, though!


----------



## TR23

Duey, that truck comparison was exactly what I needed!  I think I understand better what the Griffon is all about now, thanks to all you guys taking the time to educate a layman.  So much of what I've read bashes the Griffon, but from some of these comments I can see that it has it's role, and can be quite useful in it.

So if Duey get's his dream machine, which seems to be a new Chinook fleet to fly around, would that take some of the load of the Griffons for logistics/troop movement, perhaps allowing them to be used more in the surveillance, overwatch, illumination, small reation team insertion, etc... role that Duey and Strike brought out?  Or would the Chinooks do their thing, and the Griffons remain tasked pretty much as they are now?


----------



## Good2Golf

TR23, you're pretty much bang on! 

"Hypothetically"    I think you'd see the focus of air mobility and air logistical sustainment responsibilities move to the Chinook...or whatever the medium lifter is.  Note:  I have many guys ask me why a Chinook is 'only' a 'medium' helicopter...it's a NATO designation (which is different from designations of the ICAO - Int'l Civil Avn Org)...IIRC medium is from 10,000kg to 30,000kgs. Heavy is anything over 30,000kgs max gross weight - currently only two helicopters are "heavy" that I can think of off the top of my head...MH-53E Super Sea Stallion and the Mi-26 Halo.

It would be reasonable to assume that the Griffon would take on more of a "sense" role...recce, surveillance, tactical security, observation, etc... and retain some of the lighter utility transport tasks where a medium or heavy lifter might not be best employed.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## LordOsborne

Just adding on here... do you TacHel guys think that there's a need for a light recon / close support helo? It seems obvious from what you guys have posted that the Griffon isn't exactly cut out for that line of work    And if we're not going to use Kiowas, what else is out there? MD-500 defenders perhaps? the israeli versions can carry quite a bit of firepower from what i've seen. add a mast-mounted sight and you get a tidy (probably overloaded) little machine.. what do you think?


----------



## Good2Golf

LordOsborne, personally, I do believe that there is a place for a recon and close support helo in todays battlespace, even if Tac Hel were to get heavy lift and the Army gets UAVs.  There is a niche in the midle where helos can still contribute (if properly equipped) to the combine-arms recce team.  Interestingly, the US Army ARH (armed recconaissance hel) project looks like it will be advancing with a militarized variant of the Bell 407 helicopter.  Also interesting is that the ARH is supposed to have a nose-mounted EO/IR pos, not mast mounted.  It seems that the mast-mounted benefit (which manufacturers always capitalize on in promo videos) no longer outweighs the benefit of being able to drag a few helos onto a C17 or C130 for a quick deployment around the world in support of expeditionary forces.   The US Army also has an LUH (light utility helo) project which is rumoured to look pretty much like a Bell 212/412 type helo...no final word yet on whether it's a 2 or 4-bladed maint rotor.

So, it you loook at the functionality that the US Army is looking for in the near future, both ARH and LUH, and you look at what the candidate aircraft for those projects are, and you also look at what the Griffon is today, with some power and performance modifications, there's no reason why the Griffon could not conceivably perforam a reasonable amount of those types of missions in the future.  Before we "throw the baby out with the bath water" we should make sure what aviation tasks would remain aside from medium/heavy lift and UAV functionality and see what the CH146 could do for us there.  I don't doubt that "tomorrow's" Griffon fleet might be smaller than it is today, but I do believe there is still some capability left there that would be pretty useful for the future CF.

My 2  ¢,

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## LordOsborne

thanks for your 2 cents, Duey. It's interesting why someone hasn't managed to find a compromise to the Mast mounted sensor problem.. i wonder why industry hasn't developed a quick-detatch/re-attatch mount so that the pod can be removed and replaced prior to and following transport...  :-\


----------



## Good2Golf

Good question, LO.  I suppose it's because the US Generally move Kiowa Warriors around in C-5's and C-17's.  Given the move to more tactical deployment, I think the good 'ole Herky bird is still the "gotta fit this" standard.  Engineering-wise, I suppose you could make an electrical connector and some way to detach the MMS, but I'm thinking that it would be removing lock-wired bolts vice some "quick-disconnect" type of mechanism...it sure would hurt having that baby undo in flight!  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Strike

The fact that the mast mounted system seems to be attached to a control component, maybe there are also maintenance issues when it is reattached -- i.e. they may require a test flight after reattachment.  Of course, I am no test pilot, but given our own regs wrt any changes regarding main control systems and quals required to ground run/fly after such changes, this may also be a factor in the nose placement of any visual sensors for the US.

Like I said, I am no TP.  Any thoughts?


----------



## Good2Golf

Strike said:
			
		

> The fact that the mast mounted system seems to be attached to a control component, maybe there are also maintenance issues when it is reattached -- i.e. they may require a test flight after reattachment.   Of course, I am no test pilot, but given our own regs wrt any changes regarding main control systems and quals required to ground run/fly after such changes, this may also be a factor in the nose placement of any visual sensors for the US.
> 
> Like I said, I am no TP.   Any thoughts?



Strike, 

Intersting point.  I'm not sure if it would need a T/F to certify airworthiness.  I was a CH135 Maintenance Test Pilot and we would do a T/F everytime we pulled a Twin apart to fly it on a Herc.  I belief the Griffon now needs what is called a "flight functional check", baby brother to the Test Flight, and only requires a qualified AC to fly, not an MTP.  That's pulling the head off and the tranny mast...pretty big stuff.  

My hunch is that re&re of the mast sight would only require C-level sign off by the maint auth. then a functional to ensure it performed correctly.  As the pilot accepting the aircraft though, you'd definitely see me up top checking the lock-wiring!  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Strike

> I belief the Griffon now needs what is called a "flight functional check", baby brother to the Test Flight, and only requires a qualified AC to fly, not an MTP.  That's pulling the head off and the tranny mast...pretty big stuff.



...provided there have not been any adjustments to the blades.  Same for the tail rotor.  Given the config of the Griffon head it would be impossible for such a mast mounted system and therefore a moot point.  Depending on the head system fo these helos (specifically the 412) the US is talking about, this may also be the reason they are going for a nose mounted system.  I remember Smytty sending the flight an article wrt their move towards this sytem and the reasoning behind it.  Of course, with my 90 emails that I had to go through that day, I think it ended up getting tossed in the shuffle -- or lost in my "personal" folder.  :


----------



## Good2Golf

Strike said:
			
		

> ...provided there have not been any adjustments to the blades.   Same for the tail rotor.   Given the config of the Griffon head it would be impossible for such a mast mounted system and therefore a moot point.   Depending on the head system fo these helos (specifically the 412) the US is talking about, this may also be the reason they are going for a nose mounted system.   I remember Smytty sending the flight an article wrt their move towards this sytem and the reasoning behind it.   Of course, with my 90 emails that I had to go through that day, I think it ended up getting tossed in the shuffle -- or lost in my "personal" folder.   :



Strike, you mean one of these? 

Bell Helicopter Responds to Army's RFP for Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter with the Bell ARH

Aviation Today article on US Army ARH and LUH programs


Cheers
Duey


----------



## Rammy

Hey Guys, 

Since I was young, a Helicopter pilot has been a dream for me and I'd like to tryout to be a griffon pilot.

I just have a few questions for pilots here(if any) or people with a good knowledge,

As far as physicaly fit, what would be a good training and what exacly do I need? I'm not that fit right now, but I plan on working out starting this summer and watching everything I eat etc...I'm almost 16, so I have a long way to go.

Also, in how many stages and how long does it take to be a Pilot? Where does the training take place ? I'm in Montreal at the moment. 

I've read that I need a university degree to apply, would a Technique in piloting(forgot the exact name) at Chicoutimi count as that ?

Thanks in advance

-Rammy


----------



## Inch

Good to see someone with a desire to fly helicopters, most guys complain about having to go, but then end up loving it when they get there.

You don't need to be Olympic athlete fit, but you still have to meet the minimum fitness standard for the CF. 2.4km run in 12 min, 30 pushups, and 30 situps is a good place to start.

Pilot training in particular (not including basic training, aircrew selection and second language school), is done in 3 major parts, with a bunch of other 1-2 week courses in between. The first part is primary flying training in Portage la Prairie, followed by basic flying training in Moose Jaw, then basic helicopter school back in Portage la Prairie. After BHS you'll get your wings and posted to a sqn, the 3 realistic choices are 408 Sqn in Edmonton, 427 Sqn in Petawawa and 430 Sqn in Valcartier. After that there's the operational training unit (OTU) at 403 Sqn in Gagetown where you learn to fly the Griffon in it's tactical helicopter role.

Depending on the demand, the Chicoutimi diploma may be sufficient, I have a diploma in Aviation Technology from Sault College and I got in, though for a while they stopped taking people with college diplomas. They still prefer the university degree though since the CF wants a degreed officer. You would probably end up having to get one later just like I'm supposed to.


----------



## Sf2

don't forget you can go CSS (combat support) at Cold Lake, Bagotville, or Goose Bay in a search and rescue role - in which case you'd only have to do the Basic First Officer course in Gagetown, about 2months, and skip the TFO, Tactical First Officer course, which is another month.


----------



## ArmyAviator

Short Final: I think this young lad was talking about becoming a real Griffon Pilots  ;D  (Shields up Mr Sulu)

Rammy

   Inch laid it out pretty good for you.  You are old enough now to talk to a recruiter.  They can answer some of the specifics for what type of education you need.  CEGEP by itself will not be satisfactory but I believe there are follow on programmes in Chicoutammi (Spelling?) that will meet the requirements.  After that it is hard work, determination and a little bit of luck that will carry you through.  

   As for exercise.  The minimum is just the basic fitness and you must pass the Aircrew medical (The medical itself is more comprehensive and discriminating than the general CF medical).  If you want to reduce the risks for long term back a neck problems I suggest you add exercises that strengthen those muscles to a general fitness programme.  Helicopters and particularly Griffon pilots using NVGs all the time are hell on your back and neck.


----------



## Sf2

REAL griffon pilot huh?   ;D


----------



## Rammy

Thanks guys for all the info, I think my next step will be to talk to a recruiter....Oh and ArmyAviator, telling me that Griffon pilots often use NVG, just makes me want to be a pilot way more  ;D (I'm that kid that simulates everything in real life to helicopters)


----------



## Sf2

good luck!

And you think the NVG's are heavy - have you felt 2 G while fiddling for that damn GPS AUTO advisory with a HUD on yet?


----------



## Rammy

short final said:
			
		

> good luck!
> 
> And you think the NVG's are heavy - have you felt 2 G while fiddling for that darn GPS AUTO advisory with a HUD on yet?



Saddly no, but I did intend on trying the orbite at laronde this year  ;D

No Heads Up Display there though


----------



## ArmyAviator

> Oh and ArmyAviator, telling me that Griffon pilots often use NVG, just makes me want to be a pilot way more   (I'm that kid that simulates everything in real life to helicopters)



Rammy

Excellent attitude.  I wish you all the best.  keep up the hard work, stay healthy and be persistant with the recruiter (respectively so).  Looking forward to seeing you bashing about the battlefield at 15 ft.


----------



## Good2Golf

Rammy, if you read page 30 of the recently released Defence Policy Statement (DOWNLOAD HERE), you'll note that there are some interesting capabilities coming down the road for tactical helicopters, in particular medium/heavy-lift for Special Operations and the Standing Contingecy Task Force.   Let me just say that by the time you've trainined through to Wings' Standard, you will have some very cool kit to aviate!   Used to be years back that helos were considered beneath many "true pilots" in the CF...never true, but especially true in today and in the years to come.   Keep a very close eye on the media in the near future...you will see the glimmer of some very, very interesting projects to come...folks will be kicking down the doors to be part of the Tac Aviator team"!   Hu-ah!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## pipstah

Yup, I think its the perfect timing to get in and by the time you get qualified you get all the new toys  8)

Nothing beats flying at 15 ft and make the troopers going down  :


----------



## Sheerin

Hey how's it going?  Anyway I was just walking to my library this morning when I saw what looked a lot like a griffon painted in SAR colours.  

Are the Griffons being used because of the lack of availbility of the cormorant or have there always been griffon's used as backup for SAR helicopters?

Thanks

Oh and i'm sorry if there is already a thread on this - did a quick search and came up with a lot of threads about both aircraft but didn't see anything about griffon for SAR.


----------



## AmmoTech90

There are Griffons in the SAR role, in Goose Bay and elsewhere.  After the crash in Goose Bay a couple of years ago the Griffons were repainted in SAR colours so that they are more visible.


----------



## Sheerin

Thanks... was just kinda surprised to see a SAR griffon flying over Peterorough this morning....


----------



## Sf2

CS Griffons (Combat Support) are painted yellow, and are based in Goose Bay, Bagotville, and Cold Lake.  They are also being used in Trenton right now to augment the Cormorant.


----------



## Zoomie

short final said:
			
		

> ...augment the Cormorants...



Trenton no longer has any CH-149 Cormorants in its fleet.  The CH-146 Griffon is carrying the entire Helo SAR response for 8 Wing.  424 lost their Shags to 413 and Gander - their tail rotor assemblies were in short demand.


----------



## rhfc_pte

I am currently going to Canadore College for Aviation Maintenance Technician program. I am thinking about joining the Airforce as an AVN Tech. I have two questions, First how hard is it to get to work on your aircraft of choice, and second I would like a comparison of the Griffon Squadrons.





Thank You for your time,

PTE. Plantz, G.A.


----------



## Good2Golf

Pte Plantz, 

Firstly, like many things in the military, your selection on a particular aircraft type after the many months of basic technical training may have only a small portion of your personal wishes taken into account.  There is often more variance in which postings to particular fleets are plentiful at the time you would commence your training and apprenticeship on a particular aircraft type.  Some of the folks in CFSATE might be in a better position to comment on the selection process of a MOC-500 tradesman to a particular aircraft. 

Secondly, there are nine Griffon squadrons, one operational training unit (Gagetown), three combat support squadrons (Goose Bay, Bagotville and Cold Lake), two reserve-heavy tactical helicopter squadrons (St-Hubert and Borden), two regular force-heavy tactical helicopter squadrons (Valcartier and Edmonton) and a special operations squadron (Petawawa).  There is also a Cormorant SAR squadron in Trenton that is currently operating Griffons as a temporary measure while engineering issues are being addressed with the CH149 Cormorant's tail rotor assembly.  The CSS units support operations at fighter bases and provide a secondary SAR response to augment the primary rotary-wing National SAR capability.  The Tac Hel units generally support the Army and other CF elements as may be required from time to time.  There are quite a range of differences amongst all the squadrons, so you might narrow down your Q's to something a bit more specific.

Cheers

G2G


----------



## aesop081

Your poll is equaly vague......

What do you mean "best" ?

Are you refering to amount of work ? ease of maintenance? Most changes for deployed operations ?  gucci trips ?


----------



## rhfc_pte

With respect to being an AVN Tech.


----------



## Astrodog

What is the difference between Combat Support and Tac Hel?


----------



## aesop081

rhfc_pte said:
			
		

> With respect to being an AVN Tech.



Thats what i meant........as to what ?

working hours ?

Amount of work ?

oportunities for trips....

Be specific...... :


----------



## Good2Golf

Well, for a 514 AVN tech, the CSS squadron has yellow Griffons, the Tac Hel Griffons are green...all units are AF9000 (maint standard) compliant.  More time on field exercises and support during land ops for tac hel squadrons, more support to SAR ops for the CSS folks.  Technically, there is probably more impact on lifestyle to the actual physical location of the squadron than to the actual employment, but I'm on the edge of my lane here.

G2G


----------



## bison33

I'll step in, being a former fitter/AVN tech and have worked in all 3 enviroments. First, what's better? Depends on what turns your crank. You like to travel? I've worked on tutors, t-birds, cosmos, dash-8's, hercs, seakings and griffons and the one I spent the longest on was the one I never wanted to work on at first, the herc. My fav was seakings (more reliable than many think), and not a hard bird to learn. Sailing around the ocean blue is not that bad, the fish heads tend to leave you alone for the most part and you can get bored of going to Hawaii...well, maybe not. 

The herc is a good plane but quite hands on, travel is good and no tents. 

Griffin world, well, tachel anyways....welcome to the army life.  I cannot speak for fighter types (been deployed with the tankers with them though) but from what I've seen, they have it pretty good. Many of the techs I know love the plane but hate the location.

As for the Griffin Sqns, well, it's been said already. It's the same helo, only thing that makes a sqn good is the people running it and those in it. And that applies to any unit. You may love the hornet but if you have cannon fodder for bosses or bitter techs who don't care, you'll be miserable. Wherever you end up, be happy, do your job and then some.....and in the long run, you just might get rewarded, or the shaft  Kind of short but anything else, ask away.....and do try to be more specific with your question, if possible.


----------



## rhfc_pte

Thats what i meant........as to what ?

working hours ?

Amount of work ?

oportunities for trips....

Overall!


----------



## aesop081

rhfc_pte said:
			
		

> Thats what i meant........as to what ?
> 
> working hours ?
> 
> Amount of work ?
> 
> oportunities for trips....
> 
> Overall!



i give up........


----------



## rhfc_pte

I am just trying to find out the opportunities in the trade as a whole.


----------



## bison33

Working hours........a day worker will do the 37.5 to 40 hr work week but the techs hours will depend where they work and the type of shift. Then toss in sports, admin, leave, etc........but shifts vary. I've done shifts where it was a 35 hr week........a 30 hr week one week then 40 the next.........50+ in a week and then you can toss in staying late during nights to get a bird ready for the next day (esp in a SAR Sqn), but then also, when nights are slow, the crews will split down "occasionally". And if you deploy, expect long days/nights.

Workload....geez. Some days are insane, going from one plane to another....then other days, you are doing nothing. But that depends on where you work. Day workers usually have a steady job where as shift workers (the techs on the plane vice the techs in the day) don't have a set job to work on. When you get to work is when you find out what you maybe doing. Maybe an engine change, fuel tank entry, landing geart change, etc....And joe jobs are a staple of military life. Nothing flying and guess what? Hangar clean-up, moving crud around, etc..........

Trips........guess I wasn't CLEAR enough........depends on the type of aircraft your on. Always some oppurtunity for a trip or 2 or 3 or 4 and so on. Herc world is good for trips, Dash-8 world is not. Griffin world, not really........SeaKings, well you get to go with the ship when an AirDet is on board......Auroras, some trips........CF-18s, some........Tutors, only the Snowbirds use them now, so lots of travel. Then there are MRP's (mobile repair parties) to exotic locations if a plane breaks down away from base and cannot fly back. Working on a herc up north, outdoors at -45 is a hoot   But usually only the experienced techs go. Courses...there's more travel for you. 

Overall........Not that much travelling or too much, hours are not set in stone (no union here) ,the workload is hit or miss (usually busy)and the conditions can be great or lousy. But one thing, being an AVN tech is not like an AME in the sense that as a AVN, you may end up working a job that takes you off the plane for years, go to some bleep hole place for a deployment or somewhere nice, get a hotel w/o a pool or with one that's closed...grrr , and then toss in all the military stuff.  AME's go to work, fix planes and go home.


----------



## cp140tech

They seem to be fairly accomodating with regards to initial postings out of Borden.  If there is a particular type you'd like to work on, be certain to ask for more than one base that houses it.  Traditionally, it seems like Tac Hel is a difficult place to be posted as an apprentice.  We were told that Griffons were not an option for initial posting, but it does happen for some people.  
  I can't offer you any insight into the different Griffon squadrons, or their work environment... I've only been employed on the CP 140/A.  Bison33's posts have been right on the money, he paints a very accurate picture.




			
				rhfc_pte said:
			
		

> I am currently going to Canadore College for Aviation Maintenance Technician program. I am thinking about joining the Airforce as an AVN Tech. I have two questions, First how hard is it to get to work on your aircraft of choice, and second I would like a comparison of the Griffon Squadrons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You for your time,
> 
> PTE. Plantz, G.A.


----------



## rhfc_pte

Thank You for the info. I was wondering what kind of advantages i could get for going to college.


----------



## bison33

rhfc_pte said:
			
		

> Thank You for the info. I was wondering what kind of advantages i could get for going to college.



Only time towards a promotion to Corporal.........You'd get 12 months credit (I'm 90% sure but I'll e-mail a buddy of mine who had his AME then joined, Bit I know he got at least a year). Otherwise, your AME means jack squat. There are many guys who have their AME. Just means they make more money if working part time with some company across the tarmac or to fall back on when they pull the pin.


----------



## Scoobs

As a former D/SAMEO of a Tac Hel Sqn, I will tell the new Pte that there is a chance that you can go to a Tac Hel unit, but it is more likely that you will go to another fleet.  Also, are you in the Air Force or not?  You say that you are "thinking" about joining and then you sign off as a Private???????????????

The reality is that we tended to prefer to have non-apprentices since they are more employable, i.e. deployments and time to get authorized to at least "A" level.  We did have apprentices and most of them were very hard workers.  However, each had to be supervised and that equaled taking a journeyman or above off the a/c in order to supervise the apprentice.  Thus, another reason why Tac Hel prefers already trained personnel.  Most newbies found the Griffon a good a/c to learn.

Here's a little on the locations, starting from West to East:

1. Edmonton, never physically been there.  The base is close to a major city and thus is a good place (I assume) for a young guy.  Lots of flying in support of LFWA;
2. Cold Lake, 417 CS Sqn.  Last time I knew they only had 3 Griffons.  I've heard that Cold Lake is a good place to live if you like hunting, fishing, outdoors.  I'm not so sure of the night life for a young guy.  
3. Borden.  Very busy at the moment.  Total force Sqn.  Borden is where you will do some training since CFSATE is here.  Location is okay.  Borden is close to Toronto (1 hour drive), but bring a car if you want to go anywhere.
4. Petawawa.  427 SOA Sqn.  Now only support Special Ops.  Busy and will only get busier.  Pet is a great place for hunting, fishing, outdoors, etc.  Not a good place for a single and young guy.  Most young guys in Pet head out onto Highway 17 on Fridays and race down to Ottawa.  Pet is a great place to raise a young family as the support from the mil community is tremendous.
5. St. Hubert.  Total force Sqn, plus Tac Hel School for AVN and AVS techs.  If you are lucky to get Tac Hel and are AVN, you will spend some time here.  St. Hubert is just south of Montreal and easily within driving distance.  Accomodations at the school are less than good, unless you love the smell of marijuana!  The school is within an aviation technology college and the accomodations are shared with the civys.  If you don't get in the civy dorm, you may end up in St. Jean.  What fun I had there, not!
6. Valcartier.  Just north of Quebec City.  I highly recommend that you are able to speak French if you want to go here.  Busy Sqn as well.  Base is nice looking.  My wife wanted me to be posted here after she saw it.  Quebec City is easily within driving distance.
7. Gagetown.  403 HOTS or otherwise known as the training Sqn for pilots and FEs (some trg is done at the other units such as 400 Sqn in Borden).  Nice base and very close to Fredericton.  Freddy has a good night life.  Sqn is very busy and the serviceability must be high due to the need to get the pilots and FEs trained.  My neighbour was posted there and he loved it.  403 also houses LATEF, but you won't go there as a new AVN.
8. Bagotville, 439 CS Sqn.  Similar to 417 Sqn in Cold Lake.  Also, I highly recommend that you can speak French if you wish to be posted here.  I've heard that Bagotville is a good place to be posted, but I'm not sure how good it is for a young guy.
9. Goose Bay, 444 Sqn.  This is an isolated posting and I'm pretty sure that newbies don't get posted there.

I hope this helps.  Tac Hel is fun and isn't so Army as most Air Force pers think.  Yes, we are more "Army" than the rest of the Air Force, but some people like this.  I love it!


----------



## aesop081

Scoobs said:
			
		

> The reality is that we tended to prefer to have non-apprentices since they are more employable, i.e. deployments and time to get authorized to at least "A" level.  We did have apprentices and most of them were very hard workers.  However, each had to be supervised and that equaled taking a journeyman or above off the a/c in order to supervise the apprentice.  Thus, another reason why Tac Hel prefers already trained personnel.



Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.


----------



## rhfc_pte

I am a PTE in the Army Reserves (Infantry). That is why i am interested in the Griffon. Because I like Helicopters and the Army aspect.


----------



## eurowing

Actually, Tac Hell is somewhat special.  Aside from maintaining fling wings with a utterly goofy supply setup which encourages rob actions at a dizzying rate, Tac Hell techs must hit the ranges twice a year, must maintain all the LSVW's ML's etc and maintain skills in driving them.  For example an HL driver must drive the dang thing on a regular basis to stay qualified.  No Techs do this normally. Wing transport takes care of the civilian pattern trucks on a normal AF Base.  In addition, field ex's require that a Tac hell Tech hold all kinds of kit that is not seen by most other techs.  For example, snowshoes and rucks!  Not to mention, training in the most basic of fieldcraft.  You would be amazed at the amount of people that have never lit a Coleman stove.  Practice setting up arctic tents, Modular tentage. Training in sentry duties, Stand To, defensive fire perimeters, arcs of fire,  unknown to most air force unless they are remustered from the Combat Arms.  All this is time away from doing the primary task of getting those rotors spinning has a tremendous toll in manhours available to fix airplanes.
Tac Hell units are remote from support, they stand alone unsupported by a large wing infrastructure and unsupported by on-site engineering assistance (large AMS's with Labs and workshops). 
I have had employment in my 32 years in a wide spectrum of elements, aircraft, bases, units and even a staff job :crybaby:.  Tac Hell is most certainly the most demanding environment I have seen.  Fighters/Maritime Patrol/Transport have the life of Riley compared to Tac Hell and I will say it with the voice of experience.  I can't speak for Maritime Helicopters though, but they do get hot meals and dry beds at least.

I know there is a move afoot to train all service members with a basic soldiers knowledge, but I wonder how much will be retained after 10 years, and I have not heard how effective this training is.  It may make a difference, but not for a few long years.

Anyhow, for all the extra work involved in Tac hell, an apprentice requiring direct supervision all ALL tasks has a bigger impact in a Tac hell unit than it does in elsewhere.  

Edited to say  Hi "Alice"! ;D


----------



## bison33

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.



Your wrong cdnaviator, TacHel is "special"  :rofl:.........cannot wait to the day I get posted back to the real Air Force


----------



## rhfc_pte

cp140tech said:
			
		

> They seem to be fairly accomodating with regards to initial postings out of Borden.  If there is a particular type you'd like to work on, be certain to ask for more than one base that houses it.  Traditionally, it seems like Tac Hel is a difficult place to be posted as an apprentice.  We were told that Griffons were not an option for initial posting, but it does happen for some people.
> I can't offer you any insight into the different Griffon squadrons, or their work environment... I've only been employed on the CP 140/A.  Bison33's posts have been right on the money, he paints a very accurate picture.



What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.


----------



## aesop081

rhfc_pte said:
			
		

> What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.



all of them !!!

except the ones maintained by civvies


----------



## cp140tech

rhfc_pte said:
			
		

> What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.



   Pretty much anything, except for the Twin Otter....  I'm guessing here, but I expect that is an impossibility for an apprentice.  There aren't many positions for techs on them, and there is no shortage of people who would like to get onto that type.


----------



## eurowing

cdnaviator and cp140tech are correct.  The only exclusions are Scarebus, Challenger, Hawk, Harvard, Jet Ranger, Grob 90, C9 King Air,Comorant and the Twotter.  Hmmm, the list of civvie maintained ac is almost tied. 8 to 9  I count the two 140 versions as one (unless we divvie up Herc models) and the Cyclone is still a dream.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1_e.asp will give you a list of ac and a write up of capabilities and locations.


----------



## Scoobs

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.



cdnaviator, I'm not talking about "ready-made" techs.  I was talking about apprentices.  Even though the young Pte may be taking a course at an aviation college, he will still need to be an apprentice once he comes into the Air Force.  Therefore, he will need some trg, just like other apprentices.  As was said in other responses, Tac Hel is a unique environment that has additional burdens placed on its personnel, in addition to fixing a/c.  I was only stating that at Tac Hel units, it is prefered to have already trained techs, such as journeymen and above.  Tac Hel does not send apprentices on deployment overseas.  Of course, every fleet will have to take on some apprentices or that fleet will eventually have no one to work on the a/c.  Also, all fleets do not just want journeymen.  You want a mix of some apprentices, journeymen, "A" level, and "C" level techs.  "A" level techs can sign off on a maintenance action, while "C" level techs can release an a/c for flight.  Therefore, you need to have some "A" and some "C".  Without them, no a/c would be able to get fixed.


----------



## childs56

I think that Tac Hel is shooting itself in the foot by not taking on many apprentices. Most guys who are new want to go Tac Hel in their younger years. This way they can have the snot run out of them early on in their carrer. Then look forward to a more relaxed job after 10 years or so on the 18's or others. 

I would think that the new apprentices after their quick OJT period and type course should be able to be receiving POM's with in 8 months, Depending on the length of the type course. This is what is happening on the F18 fleet right now. 

I would have gone Tac Hel and done 10 years or more. 

To receive a fresh new Apprentice means that they are not tainted yet, they have the drive to complete the job and do not have that union mentality that we see all to often with some of the older breed of Air Force technicians. You can also shape and mold the new guys into what you need. 

That is just my opinion.


----------



## Loachman

The problem with apprentice-level techs, as mentioned previously, is that they are not deployable. Because of that, 1 Wing built up to over twice the number of apprentice techs during the Bosnia years - they couldn't go, so those who should have been training and supervising them did instead.


----------



## Inch

eurowing said:
			
		

> Actually, Tac Hell is somewhat special.  Aside from maintaining fling wings with a utterly goofy supply setup which encourages rob actions at a dizzying rate, Tac Hell techs must hit the ranges twice a year, must maintain all the LSVW's ML's etc and maintain skills in driving them.  For example an HL driver must drive the dang thing on a regular basis to stay qualified.  No Techs do this normally. Wing transport takes care of the civilian pattern trucks on a normal AF Base.  In addition, field ex's require that a Tac hell Tech hold all kinds of kit that is not seen by most other techs.  For example, snowshoes and rucks!  Not to mention, training in the most basic of fieldcraft.  You would be amazed at the amount of people that have never lit a Coleman stove.  Practice setting up arctic tents, Modular tentage. Training in sentry duties, Stand To, defensive fire perimeters, arcs of fire,  unknown to most air force unless they are remustered from the Combat Arms.  All this is time away from doing the primary task of getting those rotors spinning has a tremendous toll in manhours available to fix airplanes.
> Tac Hell units are remote from support, they stand alone unsupported by a large wing infrastructure and unsupported by on-site engineering assistance (large AMS's with Labs and workshops).
> I have had employment in my 32 years in a wide spectrum of elements, aircraft, bases, units and even a staff job :crybaby:.  Tac Hell is most certainly the most demanding environment I have seen.  Fighters/Maritime Patrol/Transport have the life of Riley compared to Tac Hell and I will say it with the voice of experience.  I can't speak for Maritime Helicopters though, but they do get hot meals and dry beds at least.
> 
> I know there is a move afoot to train all service members with a basic soldiers knowledge, but I wonder how much will be retained after 10 years, and I have not heard how effective this training is.  It may make a difference, but not for a few long years.
> 
> Anyhow, for all the extra work involved in Tac hell, an apprentice requiring direct supervision all ALL tasks has a bigger impact in a Tac hell unit than it does in elsewhere.
> 
> Edited to say  Hi "Alice"! ;D



You think all that is unique to TACHEL?

MH techs need to learn all about firefighting, both the ship and the helo, ship's damage control, all the deck director/hand stuff like hooking up the hauldown wire and straightening the helo in sea state up to 5 degrees of pitch and 20 degrees of roll, HIFR, hoists, and slinging in sea states of 3 degrees pitch and 10 degrees roll. And when the helo is put to bed, there's cleaning stations and other related ship's tasks. 

This is why we only send qualified techs to sea, no apprentices. I don't see why TACHEL couldn't do the same for exercises, I have a hard time believing that there's no room for apprentices in the TACHEL world, especially when you're on the ground and not limited by bunk space.


----------



## Loachman

We send everybody on exercises, unless there's a good and valid reason not to. We can't send apprentices on operations, though, and that's where the Bosnia mission was killing us. We were established for eighty-odd apprentices in 1 Wing then, and this bloated up to over 180 actual ones stagnating and clogging up the system. They could not go, and more of the ones who should have been training and supervising them had to, so they were not learning at the rate that they should have, and the cycle continued. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is like right now, but I'll become reconnected with that as I start my latest attempt ot get recurrent (if G2G would only stop bogging down our tiny operational training flight).


----------



## GAP

Loachman said:
			
		

> We send everybody on exercises, unless there's a good and valid reason not to. We can't send apprentices on operations, though, and that's where the Bosnia mission was killing us. We were established for eighty-odd apprentices in 1 Wing then, and this bloated up to over 180 actual ones stagnating and clogging up the system. They could not go, and more of the ones who should have been training and supervising them had to, so they were not learning at the rate that they should have, and the cycle continued. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is like right now, but I'll become reconnected with that as I start my latest attempt ot get recurrent (if G2G would only stop bogging down our tiny operational training flight).



Was there a good reason why a higher level apprentice could not go on operation and continue to learn in the field?


----------



## Loachman

Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.


----------



## GAP

Loachman said:
			
		

> Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.



There is no better training than actually doing it under real time conditions and getting it right.

Room for error....can't afford that here either

I think there is a good argument to made for reassessing the minimum standard.


----------



## aesop081

Loachman said:
			
		

> Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.



Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).  Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.


----------



## Inch

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).  Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.



Not in MH it can't, not enough bunk space on the boats since the navy fills them up with their trainees.


----------



## cp140tech

Sending apprentices away isn't a great idea for us.  The people that get deployed are usually chosen to fill spots requiring certain skill sets.  An apprentice wlll not be able to sign for his or her own work, let alone an 'A' level signature to certify maintenance action.  Pound for pound we need people who can carry the most weight and who are very comfortable on their respective systems.  

  Not to mention, small errors can take days to fix... it's surprisingly easy to u/s a plane with some pretty rudimentary jobs.  

  If nothing goes wrong and simple servicing is all that's required, anybody can do it.... when things go to crap, you really need good people.


----------



## Loachman

GAP said:
			
		

> There is no better training than actually doing it under real time conditions and getting it right.



That does not translate to learning a technical skill, and it requires more people in-theatre to both do the job and teach/supervise/correct errors made.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Room for error....can't afford that here either.



Not for an aircraft about to fly, but an error by an apprentice that delays a training flight in Canada does not have the same effect as one that delays an operational flight overseas.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> I think there is a good argument to made for reassessing the minimum standard.



Which exists to ensure that the tech is capable of doing the required jobs effectively, safely, completely, and in time.


----------



## Loachman

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).



Well, that's all relative - I have far less experience in my little niche than you do in yours.



			
				cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.



But this was about "Comparing GRIFFON Squadrons", not Aurora Squadrons.

Each flying community has its own unique circumstances.

The apprentice problem is a recent one. There was no such thing in the good old days when we (10 TAG) had three aircraft types and more aircraft, more Squadrons, more people, and green uniforms. "Peace dividends", FRP, and such disastrous policies set the stage for the shortages that we have now, and Bosnia fertilized them.


----------



## Loachman

cp140tech said:
			
		

> Sending apprentices away isn't a great idea for us ..... when things go to crap, you really need good people.



And all of the stuff in between - most definitely.


----------



## PMars

Speculation exists that the Griffon fleet will be reduced 20-25%. 

Now, the AF site says 75 Griffs are in service; media reports generally say 85. The count should be 98 including stored machines (there were 100 purchased for the CF and two were lost.) So one argument is that the CF has already reduced the fleet by 25%.

However, if we take the 75 figure and subtract 20%, we end up with 60 machines.

Base support and SAR require 12 (four for Cold Lake [including one on det at Moose Jaw], three for Goose, three for 424 vice Cormorants and two for AETE) and that leaves 48.

Add nine to 439 for its new deployment role and there are 36 (three existing machines plus nine). 

Reduce the two air res squadrons to five each and there are now 26. Assign ten to 403 for training and there are 16 left to divide between 408, 427 and 430.

That does not seem to leave enough machines unless each of the reg force squadrons get five each. That would leave one over for a spare. It would allow for a lot of folks to be detached for Chinook training in advance of the machines arriving, but that is at least three years out.


----------



## geo

part of the argument for the reduction goes with the addition of the CH47 fleet.
do we need as many griffons if we have chinooks

Once we get the CH47s, will we need gunships Cobras or A10ish kinda vehicle to ride shotgun?

Does that mean the griffons will be sold off or does it mean that the Griffs will be transfered to such organisations as the CCG, the RCMP, OPP/QPF.....?


----------



## Sf2

439 new deployment role?

What does that mean?


----------



## armyvern

Moderator warning:

Lanes...stay in your lanes.

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## Welshy

Your estimates seem a little extreme. Right now there are 67 aircraft under 1 wing doing tac hel. I really couldn't see them getting rid of any of those aircraft any time soon, because they are heavily used as it is. There will be a need for griffins as they perform as different role than the Chinooks, not to mention, it will be a quite a few years until the Chinooks squadrons will be fully operational


----------



## Mortar guy

WARNING - Following comments are not in my lane by G2G can correct me if I'm Ray Oliver

The Griffon fleet will stay steady at about 64 airframes in 1 Wing although there is talk of configuring the remaining a/c as I-BRUH or Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter (IIRC). They are to get sensors and weapons to enable them to act as armed escorts to the CH-147s.

The reserve squadrons will be reduced/eliminated as well.

Sound right G2G?

MG


----------



## Welshy

I forgot to mention that 17 Chinooks will hardly be enough to replace or severely reduce the Griffin fleet


----------



## Strike

PMars,

Keep in mind that some of the aircraft that were "in storage" have been (are being?) sent to Portage for the wings course and I don't believe they are being considered in the reduction.

dan, why would we want aircraft that are no longer being used?  There is a reason they are getting rid of them -- they are OLD!  Take away the cool factor for a bit, which I suspect is the only reason you want to see them in Canadian airspace.  There is absolutely no reason why the Griffon could not be used as an escort, provided it was fitted with the right equipment and tactics put in place for such.

Edited to add:  BTW, if you want to discuss Canada purchasing attack helicopters, suggest you contribute to that thread, and not this one.  As for the spelling, consider every forum being written in the english language an english forum.

And to everyone else...it's spelled "Griffon."


----------



## pipstah

A little question for you guys (strike, G2G, Inch, Zoomie and whoever can answer ), I'm just wondering about the speed of the griffons fleet compared to the chinooks. Wouldn't it be too slow for the chinooks? I'm trying to compare those two aircrafts but I do lack the expertise of helicopters world I would like that if anyone can light my lantern it would be greatly appreciated


----------



## Sf2

Griffon top speed - 140 kts
Chinook - 170 kts (according to a quick google)


----------



## dan_282

arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?


----------



## KevinB

dan_282 said:
			
		

> arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?



NO - the hooks are new off the assemly line 

Secondly the CH146 Griffon buy was for 200 airframe -- what happened to the others -- or did the other 100 never happen?


----------



## pipstah

Thanks SF2.... have any idea about the manouevering speed of those two ?


----------



## Sf2

There's no manouevering speed per se.....especially with a helo - you can do whatever you want between 0 and 140 kts in a griffon!!


----------



## pipstah

DOH! I will have to go read somes documents about helicopter aviation because I know nothing on rotary wing  ;D as you can see


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Everything you ever wanted to know, but were afraid to ask:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/index.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/index.html


----------



## armyvern

dan_282 said:
			
		

> arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?



Dan,

Here's how it is at Army.ca...and many of the users here have given you nice hints and advice already. Listen to it.

Use your spellchecker, no MSN speak, use proper grammar/punctuation/capitals etc.

You would have received the "Must Read" notification upon joining the forum, I suggest that you go back and read it again.

Try this:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html
Consider this your freebie, you've had a few in this thread already.

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## Globesmasher

dan_282 said:
			
		

> Do you think our forces have the option of buying state of the art?



Yes - we just purchased the C-17, brand new block 17 models fresh off the assembly line.
ACP-T will see the acquisition of the C-130 J.  They don't come much newer than that.
FWSAR will be modern.
The avionics in the Cormorant is pretty impressive.
The proposed Sea King replacement, S-92 is about to roll off the drawing board.

There's very modern equipment in the pipe coming down to us.


----------



## Good2Golf

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> WARNING - Following comments are not in my lane by G2G can correct me if I'm Ray Oliver
> 
> The Griffon fleet will stay steady at about 64 airframes in 1 Wing although there is talk of configuring the remaining a/c as I-BRUH or Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter (IIRC). They are to get sensors and weapons to enable them to act as armed escorts to the CH-147s.
> 
> The reserve squadrons will be reduced/eliminated as well.
> 
> Sound right G2G?
> 
> MG



MG, you da joint-integrated-interoperational-combat operations understanding man!  I-BRUH leading to BRUH as MHLH comes on line with an MHLH/BRUH/SOA package of operators, yup....sounds about right.  8)   Don't know what's going to happen with the non-tactical folks, though....  ???

PMars, do you mind if I ask why you started your mission analysis with the CSS squadrons having priority?  To end your analysis with 16 Griffon left over for the combat operators seems a bit strange.  That's a COA that is not at the head of the pack for presentation to CAS or the CDS methinks.

G2G


----------



## Good2Golf

pipstah said:
			
		

> A little question for you guys (strike, G2G, Inch, Zoomie and whoever can answer ), I'm just wondering about the speed of the griffons fleet compared to the chinooks. Wouldn't it be too slow for the chinooks? I'm trying to compare those two aircrafts but I do lack the expertise of helicopters world I would like that if anyone can light my lantern it would be greatly appreciated



Pipstah, without getting into specifics, the limiting factor in aviation packages is almost always the shooter.   Hook is fast when it's not slinging.  Utility is middle of the pack (Griff, Hawk, Puma, etc...) and the guns usually have so much stuff hanging off them that everyone else slows down when element integrity is required.  Clean, you'll see 130-150 out of a 'hook and they'll pull G along with the best of them. The Griff isn't bad, as you know...element form speeds are not "significantly" less than Vne anyway.

G2G


----------



## PMars

SF2 said:
			
		

> 439 new deployment role?
> 
> What does that mean?



. The 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team.

From a news story on new defence posture. The interesting question to me was why 439 and not 430? I suppose it is because of 439's national rescue role? It does suggest, however, that Griffons will go on interesting deployments in the future.


----------



## PMars

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> MG, you da joint-integrated-interoperational-combat operations understanding man!  I-BRUH leading to BRUH as MHLH comes on line with an MHLH/BRUH/SOA package of operators, yup....sounds about right.  8)   Don't know what's going to happen with the non-tactical folks, though....  ???
> 
> PMars, do you mind if I ask why you started your mission analysis with the CSS squadrons having priority?  To end your analysis with 16 Griffon left over for the combat operators seems a bit strange.  That's a COA that is not at the head of the pack for presentation to CAS or the CDS methinks.
> G2G



I started with the CSS and AF requirements as they will probably remain relatively static as part of the national rescue role. The end result, 16, is what struck me as well and is why I posed the question.

Someone posted that 200 Griffons were acquired and this is not so. There were 100, two were lost with 444, leaving 98.

Someone else posted that the "missing" Griffons were going to the Wings course at Portage. Interesting. I posted that possibility last year and was corrected that would not happen. I wonder if the SAR training will be carried out by the contractor, as it is with the RAF, leaving 403 to concentrate on tac helo. It would seem to make sense to transfer the sim to the Wings course as well but I was also told the sim would stay where it is. If the contractor is doing conversion to type training, which 403 used to do, then maybe Portage is the right place for the sim. 

Finally, someone else posted elimination of the air res squadrons. I am not sure if that would become a political issue or not. And finally, there is the SERT requirement for up to two Griffons which 427 used to be responsible for. Could that role be taken on by the air res (438) with a flight at Ottawa?


I will look to others to comment and correct the above.


----------



## KevinB

The only reason I posted 200 is in the intial "hype" when the CH135 was being replaced the number 199 popped up in several areas  as the number of airframes being acquired -- the only reason the number stuck with me was it was identical the the intial Bison buy.
   I never expected the CF to get 200 (ish) airframes - and I must admit I may have misses a comment about the other airframes going elsewhere non CF related.


----------



## Sf2

> The 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team.



That's the first time i've ever heard of that, although I'm not one to really pay attention to what CSS squadrons are doing.  Should they deploy, who would perform base rescue?



> there is the SERT requirement for up to two Griffons which 427 used to be responsible for.


Incorrect.  427 doesn't, and never has, supported SERT.



> Could that role be taken on by the air res (438) with a flight at Ottawa


Absolutely not


----------



## eurowing

Wow, I was worried someone ran over a small brown dog.  Whew.   ;D


----------



## hollywood13

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The only reason I posted 200 is in the intial "hype" when the CH135 was being replaced the number 199 popped up in several areas  as the number of airframes being acquired -- the only reason the number stuck with me was it was identical the the intial Bison buy.
> I never expected the CF to get 200 (ish) airframes - and I must admit I may have misses a comment about the other airframes going elsewhere non CF related.
> 
> 
> http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/ch-146/intro_e.asp#top
> 
> States the quantity in the CF being 85, and total number of Griffons: 64 in 1 Wing, and 11 in the rest of Canada. Two have been destroyed in crashes in Labrador (1996 and 2002).


----------



## magnumcharger

Lets see...As an AVN I've been posted to two TacHel Squadrons, 403 in Gagetown, and 408 in Edmonton.
I much preferred 403, as it was a good Squadron to work in, home every night, and regular hours regardless of working servicing or maintenance.
408 was a much more difficult Squadron to be at, what with the deployments, releases, divorces and generally negative attitude. So much so, that I remustered out of AVN just to get out of the Squadron.
Suffice to say, I'd return to 403 in a heartbeat (but can't, none of my trade there!)


----------



## Sf2

> Lets see...As an AVN I've been posted to two TacHel Squadrons, 403 in Gagetown, and 408 in Edmonton.
> I much preferred 403, as it was a good Squadron to work in, home every night, and regular hours regardless of working servicing or maintenance.
> 408 was a much more difficult Squadron to be at, what with the deployments, releases, divorces and generally negative attitude. So much so, that I remustered out of AVN just to get out of the Squadron.
> Suffice to say, I'd return to 403 in a heartbeat (but can't, none of my trade there!)



Its pretty difficult to compare a training squadron to an operational squadron.  Of course there's going to be different working hours, varying deployment levels etc....


----------



## magnumcharger

SF2 said:
			
		

> Its pretty difficult to compare a training squadron to an operational squadron.  Of course there's going to be different working hours, varying deployment levels etc....



Quite true.
It all depends on what you want from your job.


----------



## Good2Golf

Nobody should be under the mistaken impression that life at an operational tac hel sqn is a 8-4 job...

G2G


----------



## goldwing

Kelowna Flightcraft has been awarded a contract to train pilots at Portage la Prairie in Manitoba.  Nine CF-412's are being used for advanced helicopter training.  These a/c are formerly known as Griffons as they have had some conversions back to civilian configurations (such as the cyclic) and are getting glass cockpits.  They will be used as lead-in trainers for the CH-149 Commorant and the CH-148 Cyclone, which have glass cockpits.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17wing/squadron/3cffts_e.asp

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17wing/news/releases_e.asp?cat=170&id=764


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Anyone know what "routine access" means?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060914/canada_dutch_060914?s_name=&no_ads=


> *Canada loans Dutch comrades armoured vehicles*Updated Thu. Sep. 14 2006 11:29 PM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA -- Canada has loaned its Dutch comrades five heavily-armoured Nyala patrol vehicles for use in southern Afghanistan.
> And in an exchange steeped in irony, our European ally has offered up flight time on helicopters -- some of which more than likely belonged to Canada and were sold to the Netherlands by the Mulroney government in 1991. ...
> 
> While there is no specific exchange outlined in the memorandum between the two countries, *the Dutch Defence ministry noted Canadian troops need help getting around the far-flung desert battlefield and have put forward routine access to CH-47 Chinook helicopters. *
> 
> Gaudet was asked whether it was a formal exchange.
> 
> "Yes and no," he replied. ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Anyone know what "routine access" means?
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060914/canada_dutch_060914?s_name=&no_ads=



Maybe it means when we call for a Chinook we will get one  ???


----------



## Scoobs

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> NO - the hooks are new off the assemly line
> 
> Secondly the CH146 Griffon buy was for 200 airframe -- what happened to the others -- or did the other 100 never happen?



This is my lane as I'm a former D/SAMEO of a Tac Hel Unit.  We never bought 200 Griffons.  We only bought 100.  Two crashed and were unrecoverable.  We reduced our overall fleet (including Tac Hel and CSS) to 85.  The a/c that were reduced were put into storage in Edmonton for a while.  I'm not sure if all were sold to the company doing helo trg, but I know that some were.  The a/c being used in Trenton for backfill for the Cormorant were drawn from this 85 and I believe that most units operating the Griffon had to lend at least one a/c.  The 85 a/c are currently distributed among all Griffon operators in Canada and I will not post numbers per unit so as to not compromise op security.

I'm not sure if anything has been finalized, but a reduction in the number of Griffons will occur when the Chinooks come online as we simply do not have enough pilots or maintainers to absorb 17 Chinooks and maintain status quo for the Griffon.  I know this as I heard this when I was physically in 1 Wing HQ.

What will happen with our Griffons I do not know as I'm currently out of 1 Wg (hope to get back in in couple of years).  Please note that the max velocities spoken of in this thread are exactly that, max velocities.  Aircraft rarely, if ever, fly at their max velocity.  Whether or not the Griffon can effectively "cruise" with the Chinook is up to the operators (pilots) and I'll leave that to them as they're the experts on that one.


----------



## peaches

Why are we wasting military pers and equip to conduct base rescue, should this not be the sort of thing we ASD.  They do not deply outside or within Canada, why not ASD this out.

As for Tachel, this should be an easy solution.  We have assault helos, the Grifs, we are getting heavy lift helos, the Chinooks, lets buy some attack helos and we're done.  

Each brigade gets a Tachel squadron with an atttack flight with 8 helos, an assault flight with 8 helos and a heavy lift platoon with 4 Chinooks.  The Spec Ops squadron gets 8 assault helos and 4 heavy lifters also.  Tarining, establish join tarining squadrons/units with teh RAF, RAAF, Dutch and Singapore militaries that train in the USA.  Or we could set up a Canadian tarining unit in Ft Rucker to train our folks.

Example:

1 CMBG Edmonton, 408 Sqn
2 CMBG Petawawa, 403 Sqn
CSOR Petawawa, 427 Sqn 
5 CMBG Valcatier, 430 Sqn

Attack Helos 24+4 spares= 28
Assault Helos 32 +4 spares= 36 (Grifs or perhaps purchase more H92's, do training with 406 Sqn)
Chinooks = 17
Total = 72 + spares for Tachel, doable...  Add the 14 SAR helos and 28 maritime birds is only 123 aircraft, we can do that.


----------



## Strike

peaches,

The guys in Trenton using the Griffon are not doing base rescue.  They are using them for SAR.

As for your example, what about Gagetown?  Each Army base should ideally have access to a tac hel unit.  Although Pet might have a little less acces with 427 now being under the CANSOFCOM umbrella, 400 Sqn is only a quick jaunt away.

Your numbers wrt helos required certainly make sense.  But as cool as it would be to have attack helos, we simply don't have the people (forget the money) to pull it off.  Getting attack helos would mean a reduction in all the other Army aviation support to man this.  The current plan (as I understand it) is to work on getting the Griffon to act as escort for the Chinook when it comes in.


----------



## GAP

Way out of my lane here, but is the Griffon armed, or just supplying an alternate target?


----------



## Strike

GAP said:
			
		

> Way out of my lane here, but is the Griffon armed, or just supplying an alternate target?



 ;D

On a serious note, you can put door guns on the thing, and it is a smaller target than a Chinook!


----------



## midget-boyd91

The Griffons are able to support MGs as door guns for protection at all times. Back when this "article" was written the Griffons were being considered for updating arms to include laser target designators... etc. I'm not sure if they are armed ATM, but this might be able to shed some light.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_03/iss_4/CAJ_vol3.4_10_e.pdf


----------



## peaches

Strike said:
			
		

> peaches,
> 
> The guys in Trenton using the Griffon are not doing base rescue.  They are using them for SAR.
> 
> As for your example, what about Gagetown?  Each Army base should ideally have access to a tac hel unit.  Although Pet might have a little less acces with 427 now being under the CANSOFCOM umbrella, 400 Sqn is only a quick jaunt away.
> 
> Your numbers wrt helos required certainly make sense.  But as cool as it would be to have attack helos, we simply don't have the people (forget the money) to pull it off.  Getting attack helos would mean a reduction in all the other Army aviation support to man this.  The current plan (as I understand it) is to work on getting the Griffon to act as escort for the Chinook when it comes in.



Forgot about YTR, sorry.  With ref to Gagetown, it is a training unit, if we establish co-training with the US Army we would no longer need it, that is why I said 403 Sqn to support 2 CMBG.

Here's another idea, how about consolidating 1Wg on a single base, perhaps Borden or North Bay (NB is under used).  At Borden/NB, with perhaps 28 attack helos, set up an attack helo squadron of 20 a/c, an assault squadron with 20-24 Grifs, and a Chinook squadron of 12.  These three squadrons would support 2 & 5 CMBGs and CSOR, and also conduct type training.  Then stand up a fourth TACHEL sqadron, with the last 8 attack helos and 4 Chinooks out west in Cold Lake to support 1CMBG. By closing down the TCHEL squadrons at the brigade bases and consolidating them on existing airbases we could reduce their need for support services such as fire, ATC, medical, log etc... as these services already exist on these bases.  It is a radical idea I know, and I understand the manning issue, just throwing out some new ideas......


----------



## George Wallace

peaches said:
			
		

> Forgot about YTR, sorry.  With ref to Gagetown, it is a training unit, if we establish co-training with the US Army we would no longer need it, that is why I said 403 Sqn to support 2 CMBG.
> 
> Here's another idea, how about consolidating 1Wg on a single base, perhaps Borden or North Bay (NB is under used).  At Borden/NB, with perhaps 28 attack helos, set up an attack helo squadron of 20 a/c, an assault squadron with 20-24 Grifs, and a Chinook squadron of 12.  These three squadrons would support 2 & 5 CMBGs and CSOR, and also conduct type training.  Then stand up a fourth TACHEL sqadron, with the last 8 attack helos and 4 Chinooks out west in Cold Lake to support 1CMBG. By closing down the TCHEL squadrons at the brigade bases and consolidating them on existing airbases we could reduce their need for support services such as fire, ATC, medical, log etc... as these services already exist on these bases.  It is a radical idea I know, and I understand the manning issue, just throwing out some new ideas......



The above post just shows how little you really know about the CF and how it functions.  I have noticed your lack of knowledge in other posts also, ie. your comments on Shearwater, Greenwood and Bagotville.  You are making comments on matters that you really know nothing about, and as a result drawing totally out to lunch conclusions.  Please STOP!


----------



## Rowshambow

Ya peaches, I am with George on this one! If the 408 (Edmonton) was moved to Cold lake, how could it support the 1 CMBG units. We now can walk over and work with them, if they were at Cold lake, you would need way in advance bookings, the logistics would be a nightmare, just think about how much fuel and training would be lost with units or helos moving to and fro! just one example!


----------



## Loachman

Tac Hel (not TACHEL) exists to support the Army. If you remove it from the troops that it serves, you remove that support and also reduce its ability to train for its prime function.

There are good practical and historical reasons why each brigade group has/had an associated Tac Hel Sqn, just as they have artillery, armoured, and engineer regiments and infantry battalions. Tac Hel is, in reality, another combat arm - its present asinine link to the a** f**ce not withstanding.

Tac Hel is truly an Army function. Look at the US Army Aviation Branch as the best example of that. It began as such in the CF too, but unification set things up to go wrong. The formation of Air Command in 1975 was the first real step in the wrong direction. It was billed as "giving airmen a common identity" among other things - not that too many proud Army and Navy guys felt that they had much in common with either each other or those in light blue. The "common identity" should instead have remained between Army pilots and their ground-bound brethren and Naval aviators and those on the briney ocean toss'd. Separate dress uniforms in the late eighties was another wedge driven between Tac Hel and the Army - when I was flying Kiowas in Pet and working closely with Recce Sqn and the Guns we used to socialize with them in their Mess more than we went to our own, but soon we were no longer part of the same group and became "you a** f**ce guys" instead. Various developments since have continued to pound the wedge deeper.

Travelling from Borden to Wainwright (as we are about to do in August to support LFCA's Ex Maple Defender 07/MILCON) represents a three-day trip each way for hels self-deploying and commercial air for spare aircrew, groundcrew, and other support types plus requires borrowing major equipment from 408 Squadron as deploying it is impractical. This is acceptable for a one-time-only thing (this being the first time in twenty-two years that this Sqn has done this), but would be excessively expensive, place tremendous wear and tear on equipment, and major stress on personnel and families on a regular basis. I spent nine months away from home on various exercises and deployments and courses in my first year at 427 Squadron alone, and such a move as you are suggesting would push that to over twelve months per year. Even for shorter distances, you'd be burning up more hours in transit to Army training areas than you would in actual support.

What would be the advantage of locating in Cold Lake rather than Edmonton anyway?

And then there's the matter of local tactical low flying training areas...

We'd have the less-patient local citizenry gathering at the main gate to ambush us on the way out if we plonked everything in one place, and claims against the Crown would be astronomical.

Savings would be illusory, if they occurred at all after all of the construction of necessary facilities. All Tac Hel Sqns are on major bases, with medical and fire services etcetera, as it is.

As for eliminating our training capability: _if_ we had _exactly_ the same equipment as the US, had _exactly_ the same unit and formation structures, followed _exactly_ the same doctrine _to the letter_, and operated in _exactly_ the same manner then maybe (maybe) it would work - but then why not go all the way and just contract everything out to the US Armed Forces as most provinces contract policing out to the RCMP?

There are enough official bad ideas being bandied about out of stupidity or desparation as it is.


----------



## peaches

GW,  I am fully in tune to how the CF works, thanks... 

All I am hearing these days from every corner in the CF is *"we have no $$, we need more $$"*.  If the CF is not going to get more $$ then we have to find other ways to get it, better ways to do business.  Is consolidation of bases the answer, I don't know, just asking??  *The whole idea of this website is for military people to openly discuss ideas, not to bash each other, we get enough of that from the NDP.*

Perhaps a good hard look at our basing system could free up some badly needed money.  $170 million to upgrade Shearwater, could that money be put to better use somewhere else??  That's a legitimate question.  Is there a better way to do business?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Haven't we already trimmed Shearwater to basically the minimum to support shipborne flight ops? (I don't know, so I am asking.)  Even if we moved the last flight support functions out of Shearwater, doesn't the Navy have other elements there that would preclude shutting down the property?  A similar assumption was made with respect to London in moving 1RCR in 1992.  I have been told that in one of the last planning meetings regarding the 'closure' of Wolseley Barracks, someone said "and that puts the end to CFB London."  That comment was quickly followed by the question "what about the third-line maintenance facility in London?", a comment which was met by stunned silence, because it wasn't an Army asset, they didn't think of it at all.


----------



## Good2Golf

Michael, yes, there are remaining functions required at Shearwater that make any more "divestment" at the base a negative effort.  The worst part of the early-mid 90's "peace dividend" gutting of capability and off-loading of many functions through alternate service delivery (the dreaded ASD) was that it simply redirected where the money was flowing from CF to contractors and once the bit of "excess" capability remaining with the CF assets (while the ASD was fully taking hold) was gone, we were pretty much hooped to do anything other than what the bean-counters saw as "making things work"...short-term gain on somebody's balance sheet with long-term pain losing the military depth that we once had.  Shearwater is but one example.

Peaches, Tac Hel units sitting in the location of their prime user (the Army, as Loachman correctly points out) is already the most economical AND effective expenditure of resources for capability that the Air Force has.  It is a fallacy to think that massing all army aviation assets in a single geographical location, especially in a country the size of Canada, would be effective.  Apply your argument to the Army and Navy and even other elements of the Air Force...all Army in Petawawa (I picked that as the closest single location to Army center-of-mass), all Navy in Halifax, and all Air Force in Winnipeg.....it just doesn't work.  1 Wing HQ in Kingston very nicely effects "centralized control, decentralized execution"...I can tell you, there are a lot more units in all three services that are more "broken" than 1 Wing.

G2G


----------



## peaches

I know 1 Wg is not broken, they do a great job.  My whole point is/was, if we trimmed a few bases/Wings, could we free up $$ for other things??  Consolidate/Reduce infurstucture, more $$ for ops.  Perhaps if we looked at how we do business we could come up with some more money....  that's all......

I was in Halifax on a course in Feb, a Seaking Nav Maj spoke to us about the problems between the helo communities and the Airforce.  He mention that there is and idea out there about creating another Air Div, 2 CAD to handle helo issues.  One CF helo force.  I thought it odd.  He also went on about the new "joint ops" world order, on how the maritime helo and tachel units would be required to work more closely together.  An example he gave was along the loines that, "an army BG deploys to some world hot spot, and not only does it take a few Griffons along, some H92 are attached as well".  It sort of was that way in Somalia in 1992, Seakings doing some limited air support to the army......


----------



## Rowshambow

So how would consolidating them away from the army units help?


----------



## geo

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> So how would consolidating them away from the army units help?



Uhhh... think he was talking about separating the Helos from the fixed wing flyers...


----------



## Loachman

The PRIME employer of Tac Hel is the Army. The PRIME employer of Sea King/Cyclone is the Navy.

Moving them AWAY from their rpime employers achieves nothing useful, and a lot bad.

The current locations make sense.


----------



## Rowshambow

uhhh actually geo
 if you read all of peaches prior posts, you would see that they were suggesting moving (for instance) 408 from Ed to cold lake, so thanks!


----------



## geo

Doh!


----------



## Welshy

peaches said:
			
		

> I know 1 Wg is not broken, they do a great job.  My whole point is/was, if we trimmed a few bases/Wings, could we free up $$ for other things??  Consolidate/Reduce infurstucture, more $$ for ops.  Perhaps if we looked at how we do business we could come up with some more money....  that's all......
> 
> I was in Halifax on a course in Feb, a Seaking Nav Maj spoke to us about the problems between the helo communities and the Airforce.  He mention that there is and idea out there about creating another Air Div, 2 CAD to handle helo issues.  One CF helo force.  I thought it odd.  He also went on about the new "joint ops" world order, on how the maritime helo and tachel units would be required to work more closely together.  An example he gave was along the loines that, "an army BG deploys to some world hot spot, and not only does it take a few Griffons along, some H92 are attached as well".  It sort of was that way in Somalia in 1992, Seakings doing some limited air support to the army......


Bringing all the Sqn to one location would not save money nor be practical. Think of all the new infrastructure that would have to be built to house all the additional aircraft and personnel. In no way would this save money.

The people who have been commenting here know what they are talking about. Working were I do I have one of the best pictures of what the 1 Wg aircraft are doing and ss it is right now the aircraft are always in demand in their respective areas. Consolidation would destroy much of the capability to be anywhere in the country within 24 hrs (minus the north).

Additionally with supporting the army in Pet we do use 427 when they have excess capacity and as mentioned 400 and 438 are not far at all, and therefore we would not need another Sqn in Pet.


----------



## RetiredRoyal

Would someone with knowledge on the topic care to expand on the thought that the reserve squadrons, ie 400 Sqn, would be eliminated or lose their rides?

Is this fact or is it speculation and if it is fact, what is the time frame? I thought 400 Sqn was a 'total force' sqn? Would that concept have impact on the future of the reserve THS's.


----------



## Sf2

i dont see it happening in the near future....with 427 no longer supporting 2CMBG, someone close needs to backfill.


----------



## Loachman

RetiredRoyal said:
			
		

> Would someone with knowledge on the topic care to expand on the thought that the reserve squadrons, ie 400 Sqn, would be eliminated or lose their rides?
> 
> Is this fact or is it speculation and if it is fact, what is the time frame? I thought 400 Sqn was a 'total force' sqn? Would that concept have impact on the future of the reserve THS's.



I've seen nothing concrete, but a few concepts and rumours are floating around.

400 and 438 Sqns are "reserve-heavy" squadrons.

As far as I am concerned, shutting down these two units would be a huge mistake.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two relevant stories:

Air force to beef up its helicopters  TheStar.com - News - Air force to beef up its helicopters
Existing Griffons will be refitted with machine guns, rockets until gunships arrive
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/225291



> *Canada's air force wants to buy a fleet of gunship helicopters to protect its new transport choppers as they haul troops and equipment in enemy zones* [emphasis added].
> 
> But until these new attack choppers arrive, the air force plans to outfit its existing Griffon helicopters with machine guns and rockets to do the job.
> 
> The danger facing the big transport helicopters was driven home last month when insurgents downed a U.S. Chinook chopper in Afghanistan, killing all seven people onboard, including a Canadian military photographer.
> 
> "We have officially recognized that there is a requirement to have a helicopter that would accompany the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter ... in a battlefield type environment," said air force spokesperson Capt. Jim Hutcheson.
> 
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor last summer unveiled the Conservatives' $4.7 billion plan to buy 16 medium-to-heavy lift helicopters, likely the Boeing Chinook.
> 
> While the twin-rotor Chinooks will have their own anti-missile gear and other defensive aids, air force officials say they're still too valuable an asset to fly around a battlefield unguarded...
> 
> As a result, the air force has launched a program to outfit some of its Griffon choppers to serve as flying bodyguards to the Chinooks when they arrive in the air force fleet in 2011.
> 
> Under the program, it's expected the Griffons, already able to carry machine guns, will be outfitted with extra armament as well as infrared and optical sensors to spot enemy forces on the ground .
> 
> In the long-term, the air force hopes to buy helicopters designed as flying gunships.
> 
> "Further down the line, they would be looking at a helicopter that was more specifically dedicated and designed for that role," Hutcheson said.
> 
> The air force was making plans for this new capability before the downing of the Chinook last month. But Hutcheson said the crash drives home the need to give the Chinooks some protection.
> 
> "Certainly we can learn lessons from the experience in Afghanistan," he said.



Troops still waiting on helicopters
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070614/CASWELL14/



> No relief is in sight for Canadian troops in Afghanistan who are hankering for more helicopters to fly them over the country's deadly roads.
> 
> As it stands, soldiers in Afghanistan rely on U.S. and Dutch helicopters to travel to forward operating bases, but officials acknowledged yesterday that there is a "high demand and a limited supply" of coalition aircraft in the country.
> 
> The next possible option for Canadian troops would have been the delivery of 28 Sikorsky maritime patrol helicopters. Federal documents show that in late 2005, the federal government changed its contract with Sikorsky to ensure that the new Cyclones - replacements for the aging Sea Kings - could be transformed into troop carriers with 22 seats.
> 
> However, a Sikorsky official said yesterday that the fleet of Cyclones will not be suited to transport troops in hot and high-altitude regions such as Afghanistan, where dozens of Canadian soldiers have died on the roads.
> 
> "If you really want to employ it in that environment predominantly, you probably want to look at giving it more capability," said Lloyd Noseworthy of Sikorsky.
> 
> "You could upgrade the engine, more powerful engines, and you could upgrade the rotor system, through a more lift-capable rotor system."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

The Griffon IBRUH (Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter) is still just a pipedream, and is forecast to be a small fraction of the current fleet.

A lot of this will indubitably be driven (or, more likely, reigned in) by funding as well as manpower. Crewing and maintaining the incoming Chinook fleet will suck up Griffon crews and maintainers.

That's another reason why, in my opinion, cutting the two res-heavy Squadrons to redirect a few PYs is an error as it would result in the loss of the reservists from those Squadrons and that would be a stupid loss.

I have seen a concept calling for beefing up the base rescue squadrons, however they are not necessarily located anywhere near ground troops plus that would eat up about as many PYs that cutting the res-heavy Squadrons would free up. I see no gain in that, and it entails the loss of reserve crews, maintainers, and support pers as well.

Plus, would half of each squadron have yellow helicopters and half green? Given the serviceability issues, a mixed bag would show up for an airmobile. Robin Williams/Good Morning Vietnam comes to mind: "You're going into combat - CLASH!". Training would also be a problem with dual roles.


----------



## fighter puke

Straight out of the AEO's mouth.........that will be the F***** day..........! There are no plans for the Griffon except for the SPS mod (ongoing), this is something cranked up in someones imagination!!


----------



## Mortar guy

fighter puke said:
			
		

> Straight out of the AEO's mouth.........that will be the F***** day..........! There are no plans for the Griffon except for the SPS mod (ongoing), this is something cranked up in someones imagination!!



Wow. 23 years of experience according to your profile and yet you seem unaware of the "plans for the Griffon". I suggest you get on the DIN, visit the new CFAWC web pages and look at the plans for the Griffin. Or there's always DAR's website which has some info on Griffon plans. Or better yet, go to the CID web page and look up the IBRUH project.

Enjoy!

MG


----------



## fighter puke

Don't believe everything you read on someone elses webpage.........perhaps if you are really interested in what is going on with the Griffon, contact the AEO of the fleet at DGAEPM (TH6).....I am sure he would enjoy a good laugh.......just like the one we had yesterday and again today! It is amazing how folks will fill in the blanks of an ATI request to spin a great fairy tale! Waht amazes me more is the people who actually buy into stories like this......


----------



## fighter puke

Oh I forgot to mention......feasibilty studies about IBRUH..........not practical at this time...........major modification work needed......big bucks........That is from those in the know..........


----------



## Good2Golf

fighter puke said:
			
		

> Oh I forgot to mention......feasibilty studies about IBRUH..........not practical at this time...........major modification work needed......big bucks........That is from those in the know..........



..so say the engineers...

G2G


----------



## Strike

;D


----------



## BadEnoughDudeRescueRonny

I have a few questions regarding the Griffon:

Now that Griffons are being armed with M-134d's, how suitable/effective would they be in a gunship role? How would they compare to a Huey in this role, given that the Huey has been effectively employed as a gunship for ages now. Does the Griffon have any limitations or advantages that would impact it being an effective gunship? Does the Griffon itself allow for modifications that would improve its ability to deliver ground support (e.g. rocket pods) or would it be best for the CF to consider a dedicated heli for ground support?

Oh, just one thing, here's an EPIC vid of US close air support with MH-60L DAPs and Little Birds. I'm SO jealous that our Allies to the south get to play around with these wicked pieces of kit  !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcWFsXkdl4E


----------



## Kalatzi

I have no idea where I heard or read this, so treat it a a rumour. As follows. One reason that it usually didnt even carry C6 door guns is that that airframe was not strong enough. to absorb the recoilon a long term basis. 

If that's the case they would have required a lot of mods - since the minigun puts out a LOT more recoil. 

Too much stress on an airframe is not a good thing. 

If we want gunships - I feel that we should get the real deal.  Don't hold your breath. 

I expect other on here no better than I.


----------



## HeavyHooker

The Griffon did serve as a gunship up until our very recent pull out from Afghanistan (air assets only, not including the training cadre up north).  The Griffon is an adequate weapons platform to carry M134D and the GAU-21 .50 cal weapons.  Although there are limitations due to the extreme temperature ranges and relatively higher elevations they were quite effective in their role.  Although their primary role was CH 47 escort, the Griffons flew several convoy escorts, reconnaissance missions for the Army guys, as well as interrogating targets for JTAC ground controllers.  

In comparison to a "Huey" (I am thinking that you are referencing the UH-1 airframe), the CH 146 compares quite well although it does carry a considerably higher weight considering all of its avionics, radios, etc and this limits performance.  It does not stand up quite so well to the UH-1Y model of Huey as it is newer, more powerful, with better components with more redundancy built in for a fighting machine.  Same goes for the UH-60.  Those machines were built to carry weapons and troops in a war zone and we simply modified a Bell 412 to suit our needs.

That being said, the Griffon is a capable UH and considering what our budget is projected to do in the next little while, don't hold your breath for Yankees or BHs.  Especially considering that our new CH147s will start coming in the door next year.

HH


----------



## Loachman

Define "gunship".

If you mean attack helicopter, it does not come close.

If you mean armed helicopter, yes, it qualifies.

In a low-threat environment it has its uses - high-threat (real war) not so much.

For Kalatzi: The reason why neither Twin Huey nor Griffon didn't/don't "usually" carry door guns is because there is no need for most missions, more weapon maintenance would be required for no reason, and crews would frighten civvies at civ airports when they carry machineguns into terminal restaurants when they stop in for lunch. They are mounted for operations that require them, range practices, and some (but not all) exercises.


----------



## Messerschmitt

Anyone happen to know the numbers at each squadron for Griffons?

The website says 88 total, and the locations, but I can't find anywhere the amount each squadron has.

Also, are Borden and St-Hubert full time postings or part-time only for Griffons? 

Cheers.


----------



## Scoobs

I think that your question about the numbers of how many helos are at each unit is bordering on operational security issues (thus the reason why you can't find this info), especially with a former unit of mine that does not discuss these sorts of things.  Others may feel comfortable answering with specific numbers, but I don't and quite frankly I'm not sure why you need to know.  However, I will speak in generalities.  Larger units are 403, 408, 427, and 430 Sqns.  Smaller, but not less important, are the Combat Support Sqns in Cold Lake, Bagotville, and Goose Bay and of course 400 and 438 Sqns.  Plus, there are some Griffons at other locations, but not in large numbers.

400 Sqn (Borden) is now an Air Maintenance Sqn for the Griffons and 438 Sqn (St. Hubert) is a Total Force unit.  Both have mixtures of Regular and Reserve force members.  So, to answer your somewhat confusing question, yes, there are Regular force members at both units and yes, they only operate Griffons at those units.  Also, some Reserve force mbrs are "full time", i.e. Class C.


----------



## Leeworthy

I agree with the above, providing numbers and locations for military operational aircraft borderlines on OPSEC issues, and you will be hard-pressed with someone providing you the numbers on a public forum, especially with all the going's on lately.


----------



## CBH99

I'm curious...

The initial purchase was for 100 airframes.  88 are still in service.

I understand we lost a few (curious as to how many?) due to accidents.   Where did the other airframes go?


----------



## Zoomie

Some airframes were transferred/sold to KFC/AW (Southport) and renamed the B-412CF


----------



## winnipegoo7

I'm not sure that these sites are up to date, but if you are bored and willing to compare the three sites and do the 'math' you can probably get a good estimate on numbers by squadron.

http://rwrwalker.ca/CH146_detailed_1.html
http://www.canadianwings.com/Aircraft/Database/listpage.php?page=921
http://www.helis.com/database/model/571/


----------



## Scoobs

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'm curious...
> 
> The initial purchase was for 100 airframes.  88 are still in service.
> 
> I understand we lost a few (curious as to how many?) due to accidents.   Where did the other airframes go?



One Griffon from Goose Bay crashed with the loss of two pilots and another crashed while taking off at a FOB in Afghanistan with the loss of the Flight Engineer, Door Gunner, and a British Officer.  RIP my friends.

Of course there have been some hard landings, but the helos were repaired.  As per the other posts, some were transferred/sold for next to nothing to a civilian entity for pilot training.  These were modified with glass cockpits and some other things and renamed the Bell 412CF.  They are no longer possessed by the military and thus I didn't include this location in my initial response. 

Edit: forgot about another one that crashed in Labrador (issue was whiteouts with inexperience using NVGs) and was totally lost.  No loss of life here, but some frostbite issues.  I think that I've covered all that were totally lost (x3).  Anyone with additional info/corrections, please let me know.


----------



## McG

What happened to the aircraft that killed the power to Yellowknife?  I have heard it was quite the mess after the fact.


----------



## Loachman

Repaired.


----------



## Strike

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that these sites are up to date, but if you are bored and willing to compare the three sites and do the 'math' you can probably get a good estimate on numbers by squadron.
> 
> http://rwrwalker.ca/CH146_detailed_1.html
> http://www.canadianwings.com/Aircraft/Database/listpage.php?page=921
> http://www.helis.com/database/model/571/



Keep in mind that the numbers of aircraft held by each squadron will also change on any given day depending on a multitude of factors - training needs, operational needs, maintenance, etc.


----------



## Good2Golf

Nomenclature for the Southport helos is CT-146 Outlaw.  Still based on the B412CF type certificate, as for the CH-146 Griffon, but with an upgraded Avionics Managent System (AMS) that more appropriately facilitates IFR training for rotary-wing students.

Scoops, did you ever see the video of 420 hitting the water a second te when the CHC S-61N dropped it from about 500' AGL...*ker-splash*

G2G


----------



## Scoobs

Yes, I remember now seeing that very grainy video.  I had forgotten about that.


----------



## Messerschmitt

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that these sites are up to date, but if you are bored and willing to compare the three sites and do the 'math' you can probably get a good estimate on numbers by squadron.
> 
> http://rwrwalker.ca/CH146_detailed_1.html
> http://www.canadianwings.com/Aircraft/Database/listpage.php?page=921
> http://www.helis.com/database/model/571/



Good database to build an idea. Some discrepancies. 

Apparently there is only 1 SAR Griffon in Trenton? Also a significant number in Borden and St. Hubert, considering their suppose to be reserve air units. Are the pilots also reserve or reg force?


----------



## Scoobs

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Good database to build an idea. Some discrepancies.
> 
> Apparently there is only 1 SAR Griffon in Trenton? Also a significant number in Borden and St. Hubert, considering their suppose to be reserve air units. Are the pilots also reserve or reg force?



I'm not sure of the exact number of Griffons in Trenton (I'll admit that I forgot about this location).

Again, why do you need to know the exact number?  OPSEC. OPSEC. OPSEC.  I remind all who post to this site that OPSEC is still your responsibility as a serving member even if you are posting under a nickname.  Period.  If you wish to discuss, PM me, I'll introduce myself, and we can discuss this in person.

Re-read the posts above.  Most of your questions are answered above.  Also, as per above, I did tell you that 400 Sqn is now an Air Maintenance Squadron.  It used to be called a "Total Force" unit, i.e. a combination of Regular and Reserve Force pers man it.  438 Sqn (St. Hubert) is still a Total Force unit, which once again answers your question about if the "pilots are reserve OR reg force".  TOTAL FORCE = combination of both.

Any more questions about numbers of aircraft at a unit on a public forum and I will ask the moderators to warn you.


----------



## Messerschmitt

Fair enough, thanks for the info. For now wanted to play the game of probabilities where I might get assigned after/if I get my wings. Obviously more units at a squadron means more chances of getting assigned at one.

Regarding Gagetown, where is the squadron operating and stationed? I could not see any heliport/airbase inside the base. Is it Fredricton Intl Airport?


----------



## Good2Golf

Really?


----------



## Scoobs

403 Sqn is physically located on CFB Gagetown.  If you are posted to a Tac Hel Sqn that flies Griffons, as a pilot you will spend time there as the Griffon type courses (for pilots and FEs) are conducted there.

Understood about the probabilities, but you could get the necessary info that you want from what has already been posted, i.e. the "larger units are ....".  Take a look above and you'll see that your odds increase with the larger units.  From my experience (two Tac Hel units), most junior pilots that are posted to Tac Hel get posted to one of 408, 427, or 430 Sqns.  Now throw in 450 Sqn that flies the Chinook and this only adds more probabilities. 403 Sqn typically takes more experienced pilots as they will be instructors.  However, you could still be posted to 438 Sqn or one of the other smaller units.

I'm sure the pilots on this site could give you better advice, but I think that you're over thinking this.  If you want Tac Hel and are offered Tac Hel, then you'll be posted to where you are needed.  At the end of the day, you'll come to learn that postings are first assigned based on "the needs of the service", not the needs of the member.


----------



## Scoobs

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Really?



Wow, that was cool.  I didn't know that that could be done.  Cool link.


----------



## Good2Golf

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Wow, that was cool.  I didn't know that that could be done.  Cool link.



What, search Google?  

I like to use this link when I hear people complain that they can't find information about X or Y....   :nod:


----------



## CBH99

Hey Scoobs,

Just curious.  You mentioned that junior pilots can be posted to 427 Sqn.  I always thought that 427 Sqn was the Special Operations Squadron, and supported CANSOF?

I'll admit it was just an assumption on my part, but I would have assumed that that level of flying would require a pretty substantial amount of skill/experience?


----------



## Good2Golf

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Fair enough, thanks for the info. For now wanted to play the game of probabilities where I might get assigned after/if I get my wings. *Obviously more units at a squadron means more chances of getting assigned at one.*



Not necessarily.  Not all units have the same pilot to aircraft ratio, so you shouldn't believe that your 'probability' of being posted to a particular unit is related to how many airframes may, or may not be at a given unit.

If you get to that point, you can request certain locations as a preference, but understand that the military will send you where it believes it needs you.  If that aligns with where you'd like to go, win-win.  If it's a single-win situation, odds are, it will be the military winning the first round.

:2c:


----------



## Messerschmitt

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Really?



Was curious for where they physically keep the helicopters, but thanks.

@Scoobs. For Tachel I was looking at Borden, St. Hubert, Edmonton and maybe Gagetown. Would like to avoid Pet and especially Valcartier. Hence why my (probably repeated) questions regarding Borden and St. Hubert. Trenton would've been the best of them all but I guess I'm not going to make any hopes for that.

And ofc, the needs of the military always come first. But I did heard they do try their best to accommodate your preferences if possible. I still have a lil bit more time to decide against rotary and go fixed and then location will be easy, very high chance to stay in Trenton (almost) forever. But I personally find it awful to only push 1 button for 90% of the trip vs the hands on of a helicopter. But you do end up seeing the world.


----------



## Scoobs

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Hey Scoobs,
> 
> Just curious.  You mentioned that junior pilots can be posted to 427 Sqn.  I always thought that 427 Sqn was the Special Operations Squadron, and supported CANSOF?
> 
> I'll admit it was just an assumption on my part, but I would have assumed that that level of flying would require a pretty substantial amount of skill/experience?



Yes, 427 Sqn does perform that role.  I was posted there prior to the complete changeover to their new role.  Yes, the level of flying there is very high. Beyond that, I will say that every unit needs a mix of both experienced and new "blood".  How 427 operates could have changed, but especially with this unit I don't feel comfortable going any further in a public forum.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Hey Scoobs,
> 
> Just curious.  You mentioned that junior pilots can be posted to 427 Sqn.  I always thought that 427 Sqn was the Special Operations Squadron, and supported CANSOF?
> 
> I'll admit it was just an assumption on my part, but I would have assumed that that level of flying would require a pretty substantial amount of skill/experience?



...as does teaching the next generation of pilots, etc... i.e. training units, etc...  Everyone wants to have experienced crew on squadron.  You also need a progression, so taking first-tour pilots to most units is not unreasonable.  In fact, about the only 1 Wing unit NOT likely to receive first-tour pilots is the 146 training squadron, not 427.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Scoobs

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Was curious for where they physically keep the helicopters, but thanks.
> 
> @Scoobs. For Tachel I was looking at Borden, St. Hubert, Edmonton and maybe Gagetown. Would like to avoid Pet and especially Valcartier. Hence why my (probably repeated) questions regarding Borden and St. Hubert. Trenton would've been the best of them all but I guess I'm not going to make any hopes for that.
> 
> And ofc, the needs of the military always come first. But I did heard they do try their best to accommodate your preferences if possible.



The post from Good2Golf right above yours answers this post the best.  I'll leave it to the operators now to give you advice on postings.


----------



## Loachman

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Tachel



Tac Hel.



			
				Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Borden



Extremely unlikely, given the Squadron's role. Flying is limited, none of it is tactical, and the only requirement is for Maintenance Test Pilots.



			
				Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Edmonton



Quite possible.



			
				Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Gagetown



Not very likely, if at all, for a first tour.



			
				Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Would like to avoid Pet and especially Valcartier.



Why?



			
				Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> I still have a lil bit more time to decide against rotary and go fixed and then location will be easy, very high chance to stay in Trenton (almost) forever.



Or get put on Auroras and end up in Greenwood or Comox.

Or Twin Otters in Yellowknife.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Was curious for where they physically keep the helicopters, but thanks.



https://skyvector.com/airport/CYCX/Gagetown-Heliport

It took me 17 seconds (and that included drinking an espresso) to find that.


----------



## dimsum

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> I still have a lil bit more time to decide against rotary and go fixed and then location will be easy, very high chance to stay in Trenton (almost) forever. But I personally find it awful to only push 1 button for 90% of the trip vs the hands on of a helicopter. But you do end up seeing the world.



Or maritime helicopters in Victoria/Halifax, and also see the world (albeit a lot of it while at sea).


----------



## Messerschmitt

Loachman said:
			
		

> Or Twin Otters in Yellowknife.



They represent less than 10% of the multi fleet. I gather chances are extremely low unless you ask for it.



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Or maritime helicopters in Victoria/Halifax, and also see the world (albeit a lot of it while at sea).



And living on a ship... for 6 months... although very tempting with the new cyclones.

In the end I keep trying to remind myself that location shouldn't matter as long as I end up flying. Unless of course you end up on an airframe that you can barely get a flight a week, like I heard is the case with the jets.
However I have not heard of any rotary/fixed wing airframe where they don't fly regularly yet.


----------



## Just_A_Guy

what does it do recently? what missions does it go in?


----------



## dapaterson

I understand they no longer recce the underside of the Confederation bridge...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

DND INFO Machine: CH-146 Griffon


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I understand they no longer recce the underside of the Confederation bridge...



No but they buzz us at Swan Lake....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I understand they no longer recce the underside of the Confederation bridge...



Too bad really.  The navigation span is absolutely high enough for this type of flying.   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Too bad really.  The navigation span is absolutely high enough for this type of flying.   ;D



Heck, you could even fit the SGOD underneath that thing? ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The navigation span is 60m or so...ya!  Doubt anyone would notice that itty bitty plane if it was tried... 8)


----------



## Ashkan08

Shouldn't we be looking to purchase a gunship like the Viper or Apache to escort the Griffons and Chinooks when they are on operations such as the ones in Mali?


----------



## YZT580

The Griffon is the escort.  And yes, it would be nice to have proper rotor wing attack aircraft.  Now just consider that phrase 'attack aircraft'.  Can you imagine our current government actually agreeing to purchase a machine that is exclusively designed for killing?  Not a chance.  Be happy they allow the Griffon.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Be happy they allow don't know we have helicopters like the Griffon.



 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Ashkan08

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The Griffon is the escort.  And yes, it would be nice to have proper rotor wing attack aircraft.  Now just consider that phrase 'attack aircraft'.  *Can you imagine our current government actually agreeing to purchase a machine that is exclusively designed for killing?*  Not a chance.  Be happy they allow the Griffon.


You have a point there.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The Griffon is the escort.  And yes, it would be nice to have proper rotor wing attack aircraft.  Now just consider that phrase 'attack aircraft'.  Can you imagine our current government actually agreeing to purchase a machine that is exclusively designed for killing?  Not a chance.  Be happy they allow the Griffon.



That's why instead of calling it an "attack helicopter" you call it an "armed reconnaissance helicopter"

Like the Tiger ARH:


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> That's why instead of calling it an "attack helicopter" you call it an "armed reconnaissance helicopter"
> 
> Like the Tiger ARH:



You mean the (paraphrased from folks familiar with that airframe) "useless piece of crap"?   :nod:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-chooses-to-repair-rather-than-replace-grounded-helicopters/news-story/3e34e5f7d0a641b78db0806d69c01319


----------



## Good2Golf

Yeah, they never really wanted the Tiger...specs adjusted to fit the machine, vice the Apaches they were aiming for.  That said, the French seem to operate the Tiger quite effectively.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Ashkan08

Dimsum said:
			
		

> You mean the (paraphrased from folks familiar with that airframe) "useless piece of crap"?   :nod:
> 
> https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-chooses-to-repair-rather-than-replace-grounded-helicopters/news-story/3e34e5f7d0a641b78db0806d69c01319



Although the Tiger isn't the best ( armed reconnaissance helicopter) helicopter available, it would still be adequate for the operations we are currently in. It has been tested in Mali by both Germany and France and seems to have been quite effective.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Do the Griffons in Mali have FN M3M GAU-21 .50 Cal machine guns in each door, or just in one with C-6 in other? Hope not dumb question, assume no M-134 Dillon miniguns:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mali-helicopters-un-mission-1.4627507






Photo from this official RCAF tweet, sure seems to highlight firepower:
https://twitter.com/RCAF_ARC/status/1023944178764529665

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

The load out can vary, but often when dissimilar weapons are used, the section aircraft will often mirror each other to ensure full azimuthal type coverage within the formation, ie. Lead GAU port, Dillon starboard, #2 Dillon port, GAU starboard.  If no Dillon, a C6 often complements the GAU.  Specific TTPs vary, and something not likely to be referred to in detail here. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Underway

If a replacement utility helicopter was purchased, what's a good type to replace it with? A direct replacement for the utility role vice some other role.


----------



## PuckChaser

Underway said:
			
		

> If a replacement utility helicopter was purchased, what's a good type to replace it with?  I'm looking at a direct replacement for the utility role.



Something that can carry an infantry section along with door guns? The Griffon seems to only be able to pick guns or troops, and at max weight its got awfully short legs, which is fine if we only plan on fighting an hour or so away from the airfield.


----------



## Ashkan08

Underway said:
			
		

> If a replacement utility helicopter was purchased, what's a good type to replace it with?  I'm looking at a direct replacement for the utility role.


The Sikorsky Black Hawk would be nice. Can almost hold double the weight the Griffon can.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even a USMC style "upgrade" would help.


----------



## Good2Golf

As a NATO/Like-minded-nation doctrinally compliant "UTTH", the UH-60, UH-1Y or H725.

That said, in the "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" department, the Griffon isn't necessarily a bad machine for the most part, and it was a huge improvement over the Twin Huey.  You'll have a very hard time finding anyone who flew both the CH-135 and the CH-146, say they take the 135...unless of course they were supporting a small-scale airshow at a reunion of Viet Nam vets at the time, and seeing a few hundred vets come up and hug the chopper with tears of appreciation in their eyes...year, maybe then, as an exception.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## OceanBonfire

> The Griffon Limited Life-Extension (GLLE) project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> January 26 2019 – Ottawa, Ontario – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> As outlined in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is making investments to re-capitalize and extend the life of equipment to ensure our women and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) have the equipment they need to fulfill the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) core missions.
> 
> In support of this, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Andy Fillmore, on behalf of Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan, announced today that Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited will be undertaking design work to extend the life of Canada’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters to at least 2031.
> 
> The first phase of this life extension is the definition phase, during which Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited – the original equipment manufacturer – will develop design changes to upgrade the helicopter’s avionics systems, engines, and cockpit displays, and integrate sensor systems.
> 
> This definition work, valued at up to $90 million (including taxes), will be performed under the existing support contract for the CH-146, which was awarded to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited in 2011. The overall scope of the Griffon Limited Life Extension project is estimated to be valued at approximately $800 million (taxes included).
> 
> The Griffon, Canada’s multi-purpose utility helicopter, is essential to CAF operations both at home and abroad. The helicopter fills a number of functions, including tactical troop transport, reconnaissance, escort and surveillance, casualty evacuation, disaster relief, special operations aviation support, and search and rescue.
> 
> Upgrading the CH-146 will ensure that it continues to make important contributions to the success of the full range of the CAF’s missions and operations.



https://www.facebook.com/NationalDefenceGC/posts/325599258065229

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/01/government-of-canada-invests-in-the-modernization-of-the-royal-canadian-air-forces-ch-146-griffon.html


----------



## YZT580

800 million dollars to upgrade 85 aircraft is absolutely insane. The newest airframe is 20 years old.   We could replace them with brand new Black Hawks for very little more or if you prefer, more airbuses and have a far superior aircraft that is good until at least 2040.


----------



## PuckChaser

Especially if they still cant make it be able to carry an infantry section of 8 with rucks when it's full of fuel...


----------



## Ciskman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Especially if they still cant make it be able to carry an infantry section of 8 with rucks when it's full of fuel...



Or more than one critically ill patient in SAR.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

what is the engine upgrade?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> what is the engine upgrade?



From the above link; " Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited will be undertaking design work to extend the life of Canada’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters to at least 2031."

"The first phase of this life extension is the definition phase, during which Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited – the original equipment manufacturer – will develop design changes to upgrade the helicopter’s avionics systems, engines, and cockpit displays, and integrate sensor systems."

From the 10.01.2018 issue of the Canadian Defence Review:

"GRIFFON LIMITED LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT

The GLLE project will extend the life of the CH-146 Griffon beyond the current Estimated Life Expectancy so that the aircraft can continue to be operationally relevant and remain a vital contributor to the readiness of the Canadian Army and the Canadian Special Operations Force Command units well into the future.

The extension will bridge the gap until a replacement capability is acquired through the Tactical Reconnaissance Utility Helicopter project. GLLE aims to extend CH-146 operat­ing life to 2030+ through the replacement of obsolete avionics, instrumentation and displays with an integrated digital systems architecture. It may also include new digitally controlled engines as a package.

Flight simulators will also be modified to conform to the fleet. Finally, the project will ensure integrated logistic support, supply of initial spares and training. According to an April 2017 RCAF Director of Air Requirements (DAR) document, the preliminary estimate of the cost of GLLE ranges between $500 million to $1.5 billion."


Interesting, back in 2011, when the last contract for a CH-146 Griffon upgrade was awarded, the plan was to retire it in 2021.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

YZT580 said:
			
		

> 800 million dollars to upgrade 85 aircraft is absolutely insane. The newest airframe is 20 years old.   We could replace them with brand new Black Hawks for very little more or if you prefer, more airbuses and have a far superior aircraft that is good until at least 2040.



Still a baby!!   8)


----------



## Retired AF Guy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> 800 million dollars to upgrade 85 aircraft is absolutely insane. The newest airframe is 20 years old.   We could replace them with brand new Black Hawks for very little more or if you prefer, more airbuses and have a far superior aircraft that is good until at least 2040.



At $21.5(US) million ea., the Black Hawk is one of the most expensive helicopters out there. At that price the RCAF could afford about 32 helicopters, less than half what we have now.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> At that price the RCAF could afford about 32 helicopters, less than half what we have now.



But each with three times the capability of a Griffon ... so it's a wash?    8)


----------



## YZT580

last order I saw was for approx 100 aircraft for just over a billion.  That works out to about 10 million each so 85 would be 850,000 u.s. And you get twice the aircraft for the money


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But each with three times the capability of a Griffon ... so it's a wash?    8)



The old dilemma about capabilities versus cost .. and we all know how the Canadian government would decide.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> From the above link; " Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited will be undertaking design work to extend the life of Canada’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters to at least 2031."
> 
> "The first phase of this life extension is the definition phase, during which Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited – the original equipment manufacturer – will develop design changes to upgrade the helicopter’s avionics systems, engines, and cockpit displays, and integrate sensor systems."
> 
> From the 10.01.2018 issue of the Canadian Defence Review:
> 
> "GRIFFON LIMITED LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
> 
> The GLLE project will extend the life of the CH-146 Griffon beyond the current Estimated Life Expectancy so that the aircraft can continue to be operationally relevant and remain a vital contributor to the readiness of the Canadian Army and the Canadian Special Operations Force Command units well into the future.
> 
> The extension will bridge the gap until a replacement capability is acquired through the Tactical Reconnaissance Utility Helicopter project. GLLE aims to extend CH-146 operat­ing life to 2030+ through the replacement of obsolete avionics, instrumentation and displays with an integrated digital systems architecture. It may also include new digitally controlled engines as a package.
> 
> Flight simulators will also be modified to conform to the fleet. Finally, the project will ensure integrated logistic support, supply of initial spares and training. According to an April 2017 RCAF Director of Air Requirements (DAR) document, the preliminary estimate of the cost of GLLE ranges between $500 million to $1.5 billion."
> 
> 
> Interesting, back in 2011, when the last contract for a CH-146 Griffon upgrade was awarded, the plan was to retire it in 2021.



So no new engines?


----------



## kev994

I thought the transmission was the limiting factor? I don’t see anything about that.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> At $21.5(US) million ea., the Black Hawk is one of the most expensive helicopters out there. At that price the RCAF could afford about 32 helicopters, less than half what we have now.



I know it's a bigger air frame, and I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to aircraft, but I'm a big Super Puma fan...

$15.5m USD per unit (over 10 years ago) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_AS332_Super_Puma


----------



## Loch Sloy!

UH-1Y production for the USMC just finished... Might be a good time to get a deal on airframes that are everything the Griffon isn't! Buy about 20 Cobras while we're at it.


----------



## Journeyman

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> .. and we all know how the Canadian government would decide.


Best photo ops (bonus points if costumes could be worn), 'supportive' political riding, with no less than 25% of airframes identifying as female?    op:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Best photo ops (bonus points if costumes could be worn), 'supportive' political riding, with no less than 25% of airframes identifying as female?    op:



I think that is 100%. I have never heard of an aircraft referred to as anything other than the feminine gender.


----------



## Journeyman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have never heard of an aircraft referred to as anything other than the feminine gender.


Ah, clearly an example of male oppression, obliging aircraft to adhere to outdated misogynistic standards, denying them the right to self-identify as _any number_  of other genders!   Subjugator!! 

/sunny ways   


(OK, I'll stop wasting bandwidth here    )


----------



## daftandbarmy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah, clearly an example of male oppression, obliging aircraft to adhere to outdated misogynistic standards, denying them the right to self-identify as _any number_  of other genders!   Subjugator!!
> 
> /sunny ways
> 
> 
> (OK, I'll stop wasting bandwidth here    )



You forgot 'Cultural Appropriator'.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You forgot 'Cultural Appropriator'.  ;D




What would the aircrew qualification badge look like?


----------



## Drallib

"Midlife" Upgrade, it's going to begin in the next 2 years and all aircraft will be finished around 2027 or something? 800 Million to extend the life until 2031... I think they should have saved that 800 million to go towards our next utility helicopter, but let's be honest, the CH-146 Griffon will be in the RCAF until 2040. The replacement discussion hasn't even been mentioned, and when that does you can start the 15 year countdown.


----------



## Dale Denton

What is the difference between the new mid-life upgrade vs. a UH-1Y conversion? I wonder what the reasoning (beside cost) would've been to _not _go the way of the USMC. Could've thrown Bell's Mirabel plant more money.


----------



## Good2Golf

About 50% of what the UH-1Y upgrade was, give or take. Avionics and a mild tweak to the engines (FADEC and better thermodynamic efficiency of the hot-end).

The USMC essentially kept the UH-1N’s data plate then built a massively up-powered (T700s similar time Black Hawk and Apache...much greater power than the Griffon’s T400/PT6-3) driveline and avionics around that data plate.  The USMC also has the AH-1Z ‘Venom’ to share driveline upgrade costs with...not so in Canada.  It is (pretty much) safe to day that it would be a cold day in Hell before Treasury Board let DND do with the Griffon what the Marines did to their Hueys.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser

Didnt they let it happen when we upgraded the LAV3 to the LAV6? Or was that just the worst kept secret in NATO.


----------



## Good2Golf

PC, having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express ( ;D ) and having seen a LAV 6.0 up close, but not operating it, I can only ‘guesstimate’ the validity of your LAV 6 v 3 thought, and I’d say that it’s a pretty decent analogue to the UH-1N to UH-1Y ‘upgrade.’  I’m pretty sure there is limited physical commonality between the 3 and 6.  The 6 is just plain big(ger)!


----------



## suffolkowner

UH-1Y upgrade is probably unrealistic but the mid life upgrade should buy time for the maturation of the next generation of helicopters

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/fara-raider-x.html


----------



## daftandbarmy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What would the aircrew qualification badge look like?



How about this?

It should resonate nicely with the septuagenarian class that seems to be running most of the world these days


----------



## Drallib

Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken... but I thought the USMC decided to just buy brand new helicopters with the UH-1Y. Or did they upgrade some and buy some?

I work on the Griffon, and I never knew what people meant when they said, "We have a civilian helicopter painted green." Until we went on an exercise at USMC Air Station New River and I saw the UH-1Y up close... they have a military helicopter. Yet the Americans were still going bonkers over our Griffon  :rofl: They thought it was the coolest thing ever.

A few weeks ago, the 1 Wing Commander visited our unit and said that with this "upgrade" he would consider calling it the Griffon 2.0  ... we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Good2Golf

No, the UH-1Y was a “rebuild” program, not a replacement.  That said, the amount of old UH-1N retained in a UH-1Y airframe is minimal.  I heard a Bell employee once joke that only the data plate and the small cargo door (forward of the sliding door) was kept. 

Modern avionics and the power train tweak (FADEC “Dash-9” engines and MGB upgrade to the 1350 shp from the 1136 shp model, of those are still in play) would make the Griffon (2.0) a decent machine for what it is.  It won’t be a UH-60 class machine, like the UH-1Y now is (similar MAUW of 20-21k lbs, similar T700-based driveline), but it’s a decent machine and more capable than the original CH-135 Twin Huey (‘CUH-1N’).

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Most of the Beavers flying today are new planes built around old data plates.


----------



## cf100mk5

Have they ever put a Griffon on floats?


----------



## Good2Golf

No, Twin Hueys and Kiowas only.  No Boaty McBoat Griffs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

cf100mk5 said:
			
		

> Have they ever put a Griffon on floats?



 A great use for the old 'black betty' air mattresses


----------



## childs56

Colin P said:
			
		

> Most of the Beavers flying today are new planes built around old data plates.


I rebuilt a few of them. Awesome plane and fun to work on. Even more fun when the pilot and owner took possession of their new old plane.


----------



## Drallib

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No, Twin Hueys and Kiowas only.  No Boaty McBoat Griffs.



Challenge accepted! We got some pool noodles hanging around here somewhere...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Depends on what you consider *floats*?   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Drallib said:
			
		

> Challenge accepted! We got some pool noodles hanging around here somewhere...


Those would probably put it over max takeoff weight...


----------



## QiioetSpike2020

Has anyone ever proposed shrinking the domestic SAR role and using some of the CH-149s as utility/transports for Army operations? We could then dedicate our CH-146 Griffons to the escort/close support role and re-designate those squadrons as such. 

The Canadian Coast Guard has better equipped and more capable Bell 412s than the RCAF and could probably drop some scientific/research roles to make room for an increase in domestic SAR.


----------



## Good2Golf

No.  SAR is an International obligation, it isn’t appropriate for Canada to reduce its rotary-wing SAR capacity. 

Your logic seems to be that the Griffon isn’t as capable in what it’s doing now, so it’s needs augmentation on the battlefield, yet the CCG’s 412s (and evening smaller 429s, I assume) take over from the Cormorants.

This isn’t a valid plan.  Across the Tac Hel Sqns there are somewhere around 50+ Griffons dedicated to the utility / tactical transport role (which includes escort, ISR and close combat attack as was performed in Afghanistan and Iraq).

Are you familiar with the experiences of the RAF using the Merlin in Iraq and Afghanistan?


----------



## lenaitch

On the Great Lakes (international waters), it doesn't seem we are living up to our obligations.  Unless an incident is within about an hour of Trenton, if you need air assets, particularly rotary, the reality is that it is coming from the US.  We keep saying it's a partnership, but that's like saying we're co-hosting a party and I'll bring the napkins and you do everything else.

I sometimes get confused by some positions.  Unload responsibilities to the CG but make the CG more like or part of the CAF?

Last week, off Manitoulin Island, well inside Canadian waters:

https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/kayakers-rescued-off-the-shore-of-manitoulin


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Federal Government if it so chooses could create a new agency that could combine existing marine, air and land resources, similar to how it created Transport Canada in the early 60's. It could hive off the SAR Squadrons, both rotary and fixed wing, plus the RCC's from the military. Take in RCMSAR, the dedicated SAR stations from the CCG. Land based it might have to create a parallel to to the Ranger Patrols. There would be pluses and minus to doing this. Also the Feds could operate a fleet of water bombers that can be dispatched across the country, along with temporary employment program providing basic training for emergency and SAR response to major incidents. One big issue is that it would reduce "Defense spending", even if it does not create any new resources, that may not look good to our allies, even if all we are doing is reducing "non-pointy stick bits". They might get away with it, if it is a "Special Operating Agency" under the purview and budget authority of the MND, in which case any additional funds and resources get tagged towards the 2% GDP.


----------



## lenaitch

Just an outsider looking in, and from a perspective of Ontario.  Federal SAR responsibilities are for water and air incidents.  Even at that, I believe the federal responsibility for water incidents is primarily coastal and international waters, which includes the Great Lakes, not for inland lakes.  Land-based and inland water searches are the mandate of the province; in Ontario that falls to either the OPP or police service of jurisdiction.  The JRCC will respond to requests for provincial assistance.  Most often the police are assisted by Natural Resources personnel and/or civilian volunteer SAR organizations and sometimes local fire services.  Any of the community-based volunteer SAR organizations that I have been involved with are dedicated and decently equipped, and are supported by donations and grant funding.  One problem is, when involving volunteer organizations such a SAR and fire, if a search becomes protracted, many are at the mercy of their employers.  I have never been involved, or heard of federal personnel utilized in ground searches.  Ranger units did not exist in remote northern Ontario FN communities when I was up there and perhaps they have an involvement now.

If the mandate of dual-roled (transport and rescue) squadrons was split, I'm not convinced the two halves would equal the whole without additional assets.

I'm not convinced of the benefit of federal involvement in a water bomber fleet.  Maintenance of natural resources is a provincial responsibility, and they have fairly effective mutual aid agreements for both assets and personnel.  I'm not sure what the feds would bring to the table.  I don't recall seeing dedicated water bombers (i.e. CL-2/415s) used in searches although imagine it could happen.

It is true that the federal government could do things it so chooses (either within the Constitution or with provincial agreement).  If they wanted to do something that would further distance the military from the average Canadian and remove the meager funding and support that the voters allow the government to currently get away with, this might be one.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I agree with you a fair bit, but having been there during the CCG from TC to DFO, to being a SOA under DFO and met people who were transferred from RCAF to CCG lock, stock and barrel, it has been done before and will be done again. Even my own group went from PW>TC/CCG>DFO/CCG>DFO Habitat Branch (for 11 days)>TC/Marine>TC/Programs.

Have also been there when CCG tried to shut down both Sea Island Hovercraft base and Kits SAR base because "CCG is not responsible for inland SAR or a crash just off the airport". CCG has a big ship bias, however it's just as likely that eventually all Navaids work will be contracted out, as could icebreaking for the most part.


----------



## QiioetSpike2020

If the Canadian Coast Guard Bell 412EPs were equipped with a SAR hoist, would they not be a superior SAR platform than the CH-146 Griffons?


----------



## QiioetSpike2020

I was able to check out a CCG Bell 412EP in near-North Ontario this summer and I noticed the instrumentation, the weather radar and many other things that were very different than how I remember the CH-146 cockpit looking. 

If the CCG models had a SAR hoist, would they be the superior bird for SAR?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Than the Griffon?

Bell 412EP
Shaft HP 1,800 to 1,875
Max T/O Weight: 11900 Lb
Operating Weight: 7872 Lb
Fuel Capacity: 331 gal Lb
Payload Useful: 5100 Lb
Payload W/Full Fuel: 1814 Lb
Max Payload: 4028 Lb
Max Range: 357 nm
Service Ceiling: 20000 ft
Rate of Climb: 1780 fpm
Climb Rate One Engine Inop: 400 fpm
Max Speed: 126 kts
Normal Cruise: 122 kts
Economy Cruise: 126 kts

Griffon
Shaft HP 1,250 shp
Maximum speed: 139 kn (160 mph, 257 km/h)
Cruise speed: 118 kn (136 mph, 219 km/h)
Range: 354 nmi (407 mi, 656 km)

The Bell 412EP has roughly 600-700 more shaft horsepower, although the ranges look similar on paper, my guess is it can go father and faster than the average Griffon. More SHP normally makes flying easier and gives the pilot more options. The Bell 412EP is new and the Griffon is 25 years old, so the avionics, reliability, crew comfort will all be better. So I would feel comfortable in guessing that yes it would likley be a better platform for hoisting from. The only CCG to be fitted with a hoist that I am aware of was the Sikorsky based out of Seal Cove, Prince Rupert. She was involved in a number of notable rescues, although that was a very secondary role.


----------



## MilEME09

http://natoassociation.ca/canadian-attack-helicopters-a-much-needed-capability/

Related due to the note that the senate defense report has noted the Griffon is insufficient to provide escort.


----------



## PuckChaser

It's insufficient for a lot of things we ask it to do, but some pretty skilled pilots make it happen. 

If we ever bought attack helos my VOT would be filled the next day. Likely I'm staying a Signaller until I retire...


----------



## Good2Golf

Canada will get SSNs before it ever gets AHs.  I’m willing to bet that, Senate Committee Report notwithstanding, we don’t get 24 AHs, we don’t get 21 more Chinooks and the Griffon replacement program is not at all accelerated. In Afghanistan, the Griffons, properly employed, both as Chinook escorts and as close combat attack (CCA) assets, were a decent capability.  The Brits pulled their Lynx helicopters (Guinness Book record holder for fastest production helicopter) out of AFG in the summer because it didn’t have enough power, amongst other things, to keep up with the Chinooks.  Loaded out, Apaches were actually slower than the Griffon, and were used more for picket duties and CAS to conventional forces, than for escorting other helicopters like the Chinook.

For the time being, money is better spent in the Griffon to upgrade its avionics, transmission and engines and add a fourth axis to the auto-pilot.  There rest of it really isn’t broken for the doctrinal and practical tasks it’s tasked to accomplish. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser

G2G, is all that stuff on tap for Griffon LE project? Having a beer with a Griffon Tech a while ago, he remarked they were working on Bell 412 V1/2 avionics when Bell has moved onto V5 and beyond...


----------



## dapaterson

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/ch-146-griffon.html

The Griffon Limited Life Extension (GLLE) project will extend the life of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters to at least 2031. To do so, we will:

replace a number of the aircraft’s avionics systems, including communications radios and cryptographic equipment, cockpit voice and flight recorders, navigation systems, automatic flight control systems, and control display units,
upgrade the cockpit displays,
upgrade engines, and
integrate sensor systems.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

How to "upgrade" a 1990's helicopter, remove data plates, attach to assembly of new bits in the shape of a helicopter, sell old bits as "parts".


----------



## dapaterson

Did you also work on the LAV 6.0 upgrade?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems India found a way to create a "Light attack Helicopter" 20mm and AT missiles. Based off of a German design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Dhruv


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> G2G, is all that stuff on tap for Griffon LE project? Having a beer with a Griffon Tech a while ago, he remarked they were working on Bell 412 V1/2 avionics when Bell has moved onto V5 and beyond...



PC, yes, the Griffon had a basic integrated avionics system including autopilot and flight director, but hybridized with standard mechanical instrument panel that essentially looked like the Twin Huey’s. Not sure the specific design of the configuration the Dapaterson noted with GLLE project details, but would most likely be more of a fully-integrated EFIS/‘glass cockpit’, with just a few mechanical standby instruments (similar to the Chinook).



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Seems India found a way to create a "Light attack Helicopter" 20mm and AT missiles. Based off of a German design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Dhruv



ColinP, the Dhruv is essentially a license-built (then) MBB BK-117, which initially started design as the same aircraft considered for the CFLH (Cdn Forces Light Helicopter) a late-80s/Early-90s project to replace the CH-136 Kiowa. Doctrinally, the Dhruv is an ‘armed helicopter’, not an attack helicopter.  It took
Over a decade to develop. It has minimal armour and self-protection capability.  It’s hybrid armed utility role is unlike a dedicated AH such as Apache, Cobra, Tigre, Mangusta, Rooivalk, Hind, Hokum, Havok, etc.  As well, you have to wonder about an aircraft when the Ecuadorians cancel an order for them because it is....’accident-prone’.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Drallib

Judging by past aircraft, the Griffon will be in service until 2045.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/ch-146-griffon.html
> 
> The Griffon Limited Life Extension (GLLE) project will extend the life of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters to at least 2031. To do so, we will:
> 
> replace a number of the aircraft’s avionics systems, including communications radios and cryptographic equipment, cockpit voice and flight recorders, navigation systems, automatic flight control systems, and control display units,
> upgrade the cockpit displays,
> upgrade engines, and
> integrate sensor systems.



Hopefully an upgraded engine would provide greater power and lift to allow more versatility for the airframe. I know they tested rocket pods on the Griffon but among other issues it proved to heavy. Allowing something like rockets on a Griffon would give it more support potential.


----------



## dapaterson

I suspect the engines are being upgraded to the current in-service model (to reduce NRE costs); I don't think the old ones are still in production.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Hopefully an upgraded engine would provide greater power and lift to allow more versatility for the airframe. I know they tested rocket pods on the Griffon but among other issues it proved to heavy. Allowing something like rockets on a Griffon would give it more support potential.



Yeah, let's get that airframe up to the standards of 1966 technology or so  

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


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ColinP, the Dhruv is essentially a license-built (then) MBB BK-117, which initially started design as the same aircraft considered for the CFLH (Cdn Forces Light Helicopter) a late-80s/Early-90s project to replace the CH-136 Kiowa. Doctrinally, the Dhruv is an ‘armed helicopter’, not an attack helicopter.  It took
> Over a decade to develop. It has minimal armour and self-protection capability.  It’s hybrid armed utility role is unlike a dedicated AH such as Apache, Cobra, Tigre, Mangusta, Rooivalk, Hind, Hokum, Havok, etc.  As well, you have to wonder about an aircraft when the Ecuadorians cancel an order for them because it is....’accident-prone’.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Didn't want that particular helicopter, but it shows what can be done and likely more useful in the support and escort role than a couple of door guns. Canada won't buy a Attack Helicopter, but we might be able to sneak in a "Multi-role helicopter" perhaps based on the Canadian made Bell 429. I was thinking with the trend towards .338 machine guns, they may do very well in the helicopter role allowing more ammunition with similar terminal effects of .50cal.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Didn't want that particular helicopter, but it shows what can be done and likely more useful in the support and escort role than a couple of door guns. Canada won't buy a Attack Helicopter, but we might be able to sneak in a "Multi-role helicopter" perhaps based on the Canadian made Bell 429. I was thinking with the trend towards .338 machine guns, they may do very well in the helicopter role allowing more ammunition with similar terminal effects of .50cal.



Fixed-forward weapons require multiple low-angle staring runs to project sufficient throw-weight.  The time between runs lets the bad guys regroup and reposition to increase their defensibility.  .338 is a good sniping round, but close air support / close combat attack is all about throw-weight.  100 x 7.62 per second is pretty convincing to the bad guys to at least keep their heads down for an extended period. Add 20 x .50/sec and they’re paying attention.  CH-146 CCA in AFG was pretty darned effective, especially when you orbit above The baddies like a mini-AC-130 gun-ship and can put down continuous fire...actually much more effective going through tin roofs of grape huts than LAVs pounding away with 20mm trying to break through 2-3’ of sun-cooked mud walls. 

The 429?  It has half the payload of the Griffon and by the time you load it up, it will have lost any speed advantage over the Griffon. It’s time in target for weapons/ammo load out would be less than the Griffon.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Fixed-forward weapons require multiple low-angle staring runs to project sufficient throw-weight.



Thanks for this sentence. My personal goal is to use it in at least two meetings this week


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Thanks for this sentence. My personal goal is to use it in at least two meetings this week



Apparently iOS thinks ‘strafing’ is too offensive..LOL


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Fixed-forward weapons require multiple low-angle staring runs to project sufficient throw-weight.  The time between runs lets the bad guys regroup and reposition to increase their defensibility.  .338 is a good sniping round, but close air support / close combat attack is all about throw-weight.  100 x 7.62 per second is pretty convincing to the bad guys to at least keep their heads down for an extended period. Add 20 x .50/sec and they’re paying attention.  CH-146 CCA in AFG was pretty darned effective, especially when you orbit above The baddies like a mini-AC-130 gun-ship and can put down continuous fire...actually much more effective going through tin roofs of grape huts than LAVs pounding away with 20mm trying to break through 2-3’ of sun-cooked mud walls.



Newer ammo types for the .338 have made the ballistics and stopping power very close to the. 50 but with a significant savings on weight. It is fairly revolutionary all things considered.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/.amp/military-tech/socom-sig-suaer-mg-338-machine-gun


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Fixed-forward weapons require multiple low-angle staring runs to project sufficient throw-weight.



My wife has repeatedly counselled me about my low angle staring runs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My wife has repeatedly counselled me about my low angle staring runs.



How did it go when you deployed the 'I'm married, not dead' defensive measures?


----------



## dapaterson

The phrase "the night is young, that's still an option" may or may not have been uttered.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The phrase "the night is young, that's still an option" may or may not have been uttered.



Your clearly braver than I am......


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Your clearly braver than I am......



Same.  I wouldn’t risk a siege against a sustained long-term staring run from Higher.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Same.  I wouldn’t risk a siege against a sustained long-term staring run from Higher.



Best to break contact, launch chocolate counter measures and attempt diplomacy at a later time.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Fixed-forward weapons require multiple low-angle staring runs to project sufficient throw-weight.  The time between runs lets the bad guys regroup and reposition to increase their defensibility.  .338 is a good sniping round, but close air support / close combat attack is all about throw-weight.  100 x 7.62 per second is pretty convincing to the bad guys to at least keep their heads down for an extended period. Add 20 x .50/sec and they’re paying attention.  CH-146 CCA in AFG was pretty darned effective, especially when you orbit above The baddies like a mini-AC-130 gun-ship and can put down continuous fire...actually much more effective going through tin roofs of grape huts than LAVs pounding away with 20mm trying to break through 2-3’ of sun-cooked mud walls.
> 
> The 429?  It has half the payload of the Griffon and by the time you load it up, it will have lost any speed advantage over the Griffon. It’s time in target for weapons/ammo load out would be less than the Griffon.



Funny it took us until the 2000s to figure this out when the French, Brits, Portuguese, South Africans and Americans all figured this out in the 1950s and 1960s.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Funny it took us until the 2000s to figure this out when the French, Brits, Portuguese, South Africans and Americans all figured this out in the 1950s and 1960s.



Well, to be fair, they were all engaged in heavy combat in various parts of the world so the necessity likely drove the invention....


----------



## Dale Denton

Didn't want to make another Attack Helicopter thread. Up to 35 AH-1Zs from USMC may be available. Would be a game-changer to actually add a capability and possibly have them maintained in Mirabel.

Marines Reportedly 'Decommissioning' AH-1Zs As They Shutter Helicopter Operations In Hawaii​https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-they-shutter-helicopter-operations-in-hawaii



> The Marines say ending helicopter operations in Hawaii will help make the service more flexible in the Pacific, especially in any conflict with China. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Kaneohe Bay is slated to see the departure of 35 helicopters, in total, by the end of the 2022 Fiscal Year, as a result of the inactivation of Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367 (HMLA-367) and Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 463 (HMH-463), Marine Captain Colin Kennard, a spokesperson for III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF), told the _Honolulu Star-Advertiser_ newspaper. HMLA-367 and HMH-463 are both presently assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 24 (MAG-24), part of the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. MAG-24 also has two squadrons flying MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotors, as well as one operating RQ-21 Blackjack drones. ​


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Morale in the USMC must be at an all time high.....not! "Yes we want you to take on Chinese forces with no armour and no attack helicopters"


----------



## CBH99

How does getting rid of helicopters increase their flexibility, in any sense?


----------



## armrdsoul77

Webinar presentation of CH-146 Limited life extension program from Vertical Flight Society.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Why are we rebuilding 30 year old helicopters when we have the capacity in Canada to build new replacements for them?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Why are we rebuilding 30 year old helicopters when we have the capacity in Canada to build new replacements for them?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Why are we rebuilding 30 year old helicopters when we have the capacity in Canada to build new replacements for them?


Probably something to do with stuffing pork in barrels..


----------



## dapaterson

Or not enough money to replace in the numbers we need now, so instead spend 65 percent or so to upgrade.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sigh at the rate we are going the Iranians will have a younger fleet than us.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Or not enough money to replace in the numbers we need now, so instead spend 65 percent or so to upgrade.


Lack of will...


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin Parkinson said:


> Why are we rebuilding 30 year old helicopters when we have the capacity in Canada to build new replacements for them?


Are we not doing the same thing with the Twin Otters except that theyre a little older


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> Why are we rebuilding 30 year old helicopters when we have the capacity in Canada to build new replacements for them?


Build new helicopters…

generating employment for workers throughout Ontario and Quebec (with various suppliers throughout the country, I’m sure)…

that could be built with the improvements that have long been identified…

that results in a younger fleet, with higher performance, and good for recruiting and PR?  (much needed right now)

…

Because that would make sense.  That’s why.  (And as much as I genuinely hate to say it, I’m probably right.)


(If we drop the woke hippy crap, we could probably sell off a decent chunk of the current fleet & offset the cost of the new fleet.  These aren’t terribly expensive machines.)


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> Build new helicopters…
> 
> generating employment for workers throughout Ontario and Quebec (with various suppliers throughout the country, I’m sure)…
> 
> that could be built with the improvements that have long been identified…
> 
> that results in a younger fleet, with higher performance, and good for recruiting and PR?  (much needed right now)
> 
> …
> 
> Because that would make sense.  That’s why.  (And as much as I genuinely hate to say it, I’m probably right.)
> 
> 
> (If we drop the woke hippy crap, we could probably sell off a decent chunk of the current fleet & offset the cost of the new fleet.  These aren’t terribly expensive machines.)


New program isn't authorized yet - so you get life extension programs.
   A Civilian 412 isn't expensive (relatively) - but when you add .mil stuff on them, the price tends to jump.  

You can't just sell the Griffons as you need to strip all the ITAR stuff out of them first.

I am absolutely not a fan of the Griffon, I thought it was a terrible buy when the preferred option was the vastly superior UH-60.
   But the poorly thought out (for the CAF) pork barrel politics won.

IF the RCAF is tracking FVL - then the Life Extension makes sense - but seeing as the CAF doesn't have a seat on FVL - I just cry.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Build new helicopters…
> 
> generating employment for workers throughout Ontario and Quebec (with various suppliers throughout the country, I’m sure)…
> 
> that could be built with the improvements that have long been identified…
> 
> that results in a younger fleet, with higher performance, and good for recruiting and PR?  (much needed right now)
> 
> …
> 
> Because that would make sense.  That’s why.  (And as much as I genuinely hate to say it, I’m probably right.)
> 
> 
> (If we drop the woke hippy crap, we could probably sell off a decent chunk of the current fleet & offset the cost of the new fleet.  These aren’t terribly expensive machines.)


Bell will charge more than the original purchase of all 100 helicopters, and they don’t have to actually manufacture any new aircraft. In business that’s called “significantly increased margin…”. Company executives (and shareholders) like that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> New program isn't authorized yet - so you get life extension programs.
> A Civilian 412 isn't expensive (relatively) - but when you add .mil stuff on them, the price tends to jump.
> 
> You can't just sell the Griffons as you need to strip all the ITAR stuff out of them first.
> 
> I am absolutely not a fan of the Griffon, I thought it was a terrible buy when the preferred option was the vastly superior UH-60.
> But the poorly thought out (for the CAF) pork barrel politics won.
> 
> IF the RCAF is tracking FVL - then the Life Extension makes sense - but seeing as the CAF doesn't have a seat on FVL - I just cry.


Take the name plate off the current machine and attach it to a new airframe, voila "Rebuilt"


----------



## Dale Denton

Kings of half-***ed 'solutions'. I'm trying to watch.... did anyone here watch the whole thing? Any good parts?

How else would you keep this company happy in Mirabel? 

We're too cheap to rebuild them into Venoms, too cheap for new ones. We won't even replace the 3 we've lost (as per vid), let alone build more of this aging platform.

Kevins right, FVL is nice but is anyone important watching it? This project is supposed to extend them all the way to 2035, so we won't be starting a new project until 2030 at the earliest, then hopefully have them delivered (as per our history) in the early 2040s. Does the FVL program timeline work into this?


----------



## CBH99

True the CAF doesn’t have a seat at FVL - but does anybody other than the US Army currently have a seat?

I’m sure the other American services will jump on quickly once production starts and machines are flying.  But do any other countries have a seat at that table yet?  


The timeline with FVL may actually work out extremely well, now that I think about it.  

FVL will eventually replace _A LOT_ of helicopters… by the time the CAF places an order, hopefully the program is far enough along that the inevitable issues will be worked out.  


Keeping Bell happy is a good idea, as they could close that factory and have certain airframes manufactured in factories in the US.  So upgrade programs, life extension programs, maybe even a <gasp> continual buy program in place would all be nice.  (As discussed elsewhere.)

JT keeping his mouth shut would also help.  A lot.  

Not every hippy with an opinion needs to get airtime… that annoying ‘hiccup’ may have not only cost Bell an order for 15 birds, but opportunities for future orders/service contracts/upgrades, etc also.


----------



## Dana381

Get the rebuild out of the way now so Bell can use the facility to build subassemblies for the V-280 (if they win the contract, which I think they will). The U.S. V-280's will have to be assembled in the U.S. but for the size of orders they are likely to get from FVL they will need the all space they can get for manufacturing subassemblies. If Bell times it right when the Griffon life extension work is winding down the V-280 work will be gearing up. When we need to start replacing the Griffon we can ask very nicely for a few frames here and there out of the production line.

Even if Bell doesn't win FVL they will try to sell the V-280 globally. Hopefully we will take some. The Defiant will be a non starter here as Boeing and Sikorsky are bad words on parliament hill right now. No politician will want to be associated with either for a long while. Boeing was clearly sent that message this week with the F-18 being disqualified from the fighter buy.


----------



## CBH99

The US has _I think_ learned from the F-35 that putting all of their eggs in one basket, and one product, isn’t the wisest of ideas.  

While the 280 may win the US Army contract, the USAF, USN, and USMC may order the alternative or a mix of the two.  I don’t think DoD will want to be beholden to _one_ defense giant again, especially for something as critical as rotary wing assets. 


So even if Bell doesn’t win the upcoming contract, I doubt that means they are out of FVL altogether.  


0.02


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> The US has _I think_ learned from the F-35 that putting all of their eggs in one basket, and one product, isn’t the wisest of ideas.




_Looks up F-4 Phantom_


----------



## Good2Golf

Not sure I’d call the F-35 an “all the USAF eggs in one basket” situation.  One could look at it for what it was intended originally…a stealthier, more integrated F-16 replacement for widespread Allied use.  Unless I’m mistaken, it’s actually doing that.  USAF still has F-22 and NGAD and B-21 and RQ-180 and ‘other stuff’ that represent far more than just a stand alone F-35 capability.


----------



## Kirkhill

Dana381 said:


> Get the rebuild out of the way now so Bell can use the facility to build subassemblies for the V-280 (if they win the contract, which I think they will). The U.S. V-280's will have to be assembled in the U.S. but for the size of orders they are likely to get from FVL they will need the all space they can get for manufacturing subassemblies. If Bell times it right when the Griffon life extension work is winding down the V-280 work will be gearing up. When we need to start replacing the Griffon we can ask very nicely for a few frames here and there out of the production line.
> 
> Even if Bell doesn't win FVL they will try to sell the V-280 globally. Hopefully we will take some. The Defiant will be a non starter here as Boeing and Sikorsky are bad words on parliament hill right now. No politician will want to be associated with either for a long while. Boeing was clearly sent that message this week with the F-18 being disqualified from the fighter buy.



Is everybody absolutely sure that a 3900 km range, 560 km/h vehicle is going to be necessary to replace every Griffon / Twin Otter puddle jumper in the fleet?  Or is it more of a strategic/operational asset than a tactical one?  Myself I see roles for the Valors.  But I also see continuing roles for Griffons and such like. 

How would the Valors have contributed to the response to the BC Floods?  What could they do that the Griffons couldn't?  What could the Griffons do that the Valor couldn't?  And keeping in mind that, apparently, BC had enough civil resources on hand that they seemed to require neither.

My sense is that Griffons would be a useful addition to the support available to the Canadian Rangers in Northern Communities, together with Bandvagons and Jetboats.


----------



## Dale Denton

The future of Bell in Canada depends on whether it can develop a new utility helicopter that could fill the market gap. How many countries like us have old utility rotary wing aircraft that need replacing but FVL options are too new/expensive. Can Bell design a military helicopter? Sub in some existing hardware from Canada (L3, the usual suspects).

Not many contenders in that market, we could sell something...


----------



## CBH99

LoboCanada said:


> The future of Bell in Canada depends on whether it can develop a new utility helicopter that could fill the market gap. How many countries like us have old utility rotary wing aircraft that need replacing but FVL options are too new/expensive. Can Bell design a military helicopter? Sub in some existing hardware from Canada (L3, the usual suspects).
> 
> Not many contenders in that market, we could sell something...


I hope someone in Bell thinks as strategically as you do.  

Plenty of countries that need to replace their current rotary wing assets, but are unable to pursue FVL due to finances or skill sets among crews.  It’s a niche that, if a company focused on filling, could do quite well for themselves.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LoboCanada said:


> The future of Bell in Canada depends on whether it can develop a new utility helicopter that could fill the market gap. How many countries like us have old utility rotary wing aircraft that need replacing but FVL options are too new/expensive. Can Bell design a military helicopter? Sub in some existing hardware from Canada (L3, the usual suspects).
> 
> Not many contenders in that market, we could sell something...


The helicopters Bell produces are quite compatible with the fiscal, technical and training restraints of many nations. The biggest hurdle for Bell is getting approval for international military sales.


----------



## calculus

Colin Parkinson said:


> The helicopters Bell produces are quite compatible with the fiscal, technical and training restraints of many nations. The biggest hurdle for Bell is getting approval for international military sales.


Need to avoid situations like this: Philippines to cancel $233 million helicopter deal with Canada


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> The helicopters Bell produces are quite compatible with the fiscal, technical and training restraints of many nations. The biggest hurdle for Bell is getting approval for international military sales.


And the federal government not screwing things up…

Philippines cancels 412 helicopter deal on order of President  


> In a bizarre turn of events, the Philippines has cancelled a contract for 16 Bell Helicopter 412EPIs for its air force just days after revealing the deal at the Singapore air show.
> 
> The cancellation was ordered by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte after the Canadian government – which had backed the deal for the Montreal-built aircraft – ordered a review into the acquisition.
> 
> Ottawa was concerned that Manila's air force planned to use the medium-twins for offensive operations, rather than utility transport missions, according to the government-run Philippine News Agency.
> 
> A letter officially cancelling the order was issued on 13 February; Bell unveiled the deal – actually signed in December 2017 – on 6 February.


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> Get the rebuild out of the way now so Bell can use the facility to build subassemblies for the V-280 (if they win the contract, which I think they will). The U.S. V-280's will have to be assembled in the U.S. but for the size of orders they are likely to get from FVL they will need the all space they can get for manufacturing subassemblies. If Bell times it right when the Griffon life extension work is winding down the V-280 work will be gearing up. When we need to start replacing the Griffon we can ask very nicely for a few frames here and there out of the production line.
> 
> Even if Bell doesn't win FVL they will try to sell the V-280 globally. Hopefully we will take some. The Defiant will be a non starter here as Boeing and Sikorsky are bad words on parliament hill right now. No politician will want to be associated with either for a long while. Boeing was clearly sent that message this week with the F-18 being disqualified from the fighter buy.


If Bell doesn't win or get a split award of 280, it's toast.
   The UK, AUS and anyone else watching FVL are going to want the winner - and for those with histories with Sikorsky in the 60, they will want to likely retain the link.

 280 sales are going to be limited anyway due to what is in the airframe - it isn't a commercial bird - it is a purpose dedicated craft for the US Army - 5I's are going to be able to buy - after that the rest of NATO - but outside of that nope.




LoboCanada said:


> The future of Bell in Canada depends on whether it can develop a new utility helicopter that could fill the market gap. How many countries like us have old utility rotary wing aircraft that need replacing but FVL options are too new/expensive. Can Bell design a military helicopter? Sub in some existing hardware from Canada (L3, the usual suspects).
> 
> Not many contenders in that market, we could sell something...


A lot of FMA/FMS of older UH-60's will cascade once FVL hits - so trying to sell a new bird to others not planning on FVL will be a rough go - as you can't compete with free FMA birds, or super cheap FMS sales of retired airframes.

Neither Bell nor Sikorsky is going to lose any sleep about 85-100 airframe to Canada.

  Bell in Mirable isn't going to get authorized by the parent to try to do anything on the R&D front for a new bird -- that is strictly a Civilian Line - the parents build .MIL birds down here.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> If Bell doesn't win or get a split award of 280, it's toast.
> The UK, AUS and anyone else watching FVL are going to want the winner - and for those with histories with Sikorsky in the 60, they will want to likely retain the link.
> 
> 280 sales are going to be limited anyway due to what is in the airframe - it isn't a commercial bird - it is a purpose dedicated craft for the US Army - 5I's are going to be able to buy - after that the rest of NATO - but outside of that nope.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of FMA/FMS of older UH-60's will cascade once FVL hits - so trying to sell a new bird to others not planning on FVL will be a rough go - as you can't compete with free FMA birds, or super cheap FMS sales of retired airframes.
> 
> Neither Bell nor Sikorsky is going to lose any sleep about 85-100 airframe to Canada.
> 
> Bell in Mirable isn't going to get authorized by the parent to try to do anything on the R&D front for a new bird -- that is strictly a Civilian Line - the parents build .MIL birds down here.



However I could see a split buy in Canada - A MilCOTS Bell and an FVL winner.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> However I could see a split buy in Canada - A MilCOTS Bell and an FVL winner.


I really dislike the terms MILCOTS - I think it is disingenuous.
  The truck was a flop - and the best example of a MICOTS Helo is the Griffon/412 which if you compare side by side to the RCAF then preferred pick of the UH-60 shows what a giant turd the Griffon really is.
   I view the fact that the RCAF is employing the Griffon as more a testimonial for the TacHel crews than anything towards the airframe.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I really dislike the terms MILCOTS - I think it is disingenuous.
> The truck was a flop - and the best example of a MICOTS Helo is the Griffon/412 which if you compare side by side to the RCAF then preferred pick of the UH-60 shows what a giant turd the Griffon really is.
> I view the fact that the RCAF is employing the Griffon as more a testimonial for the TacHel crews than anything towards the airframe.



Kevin, even the Pentagon can't afford to by all the High Tech Wiz Kid stuff that comes out of the Defence Bureaucracy.  Meanwhile the people the Pentagon are losing to are exploiting the stuff they can buy in the local markets at 10 cents on the dollar.  They buy stuff that is good enuff and can do things that the  Presidential Arsenal of LockMart, Boeing, GD et al, is only slowly turning on to.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> I view the fact that the RCAF is employing the Griffon [insert airframe here] as more a testimonial for the TacHel [insert fleet] crews than anything towards the airframe.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Kevin, even the Pentagon can't afford to by all the High Tech Wiz Kid stuff that comes out of the Defence Bureaucracy.  Meanwhile the people the Pentagon are losing to are exploiting the stuff they can buy in the local markets at 10 cents on the dollar.  They buy stuff that is good enuff and can do things that the  Presidential Arsenal of LockMart, Boeing, GD et al, is only slowly turning on to.


It's not about everyone needing the best or the ability to afford the best.
  Variants exist for a reason - not everyone needs a MH-60G and the additional $ that carries.
 But if you are looking at 85 to even 150 having a split fleet makes zero sense - as it isn't even enough to fill the needs of the RCAF if you bought 150 280's or Defiants.

If the CF had gotten 100 UH-60's instead of being boned Politically into the Griffon, it would be in a way different situation than now.

 But they got screwed - the 412 airframe isn't designed for ground fire - and neither will any other COTS Helo.
   Putting a COTS Helo into a war zone even one that have been "militarized" by adding VAS and Defensive systems is criminal.

The CF isn't going to get enough airframes to make a "domestic use only" model and a Warfighting one.
   Plus a split fleet will require more training, more simulators, more spare parts.
 Best to buy 1 frame for that role - and different variants depending on the needs.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I think the purchase cost for 100 units was 1 Billion dollars, ( could be wrong I could not find an actual price so going from memory here) 
85 units still in serve. Some have crashed, some were sold off to a flight training school.  

January 2011, a $640-million repair and overhaul contract went to BHTC of Mirabel, Quebec. Officially known as the CH-146 Optimized Weapon System Support (OWSS) contract, it combined three previous contracts for Bell to provide engineering support, repair and overhaul, and supply support. The 10-year contract was intended to keep the helicopters flying through to potential retirement in 2021 and possibly push that out to 2025

Some 16 months after the Bell award, L-3 WESCAM of Burlington, Ontario, secured a 3-year contract for up to $10 million, with two optional 1-year extensions, for routine maintenance, repair and overhaul of the fleet’s electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR) imaging sensors which enable the Griffon to operate as an escort or support Army operations day or night surveillance, a key factor during Operation Athena in Afghanistan.

At a cost of $500 million to $1.5 billion,  DND is planning that the _Griffon Limited Life Extension In-Service Support _(GLLE), will, among other things “replace obsolete cockpit instrumentation and radios with components that are supportable to 2030 and possibly beyond.” The final delivery, according to the _2015 Defence Acquisition Guide_, is expected to be 2024 (three years after obsolescence and facing ever-increasing operations and maintenance costs due to the age of the platform).

On the other hand, the _Tactical Reconnaissance Utility Helicopter _(TRUH) program, which is intended to replace the aging Griffons with more capacity and capabilities, at a cost of more than $1.5 billion, has the Definition Approval date set for 2021, and  specifies the first delivery in 2026.

How much money is going to be spent before these helicopters are life cycled out and still flying like the SeaKings before they are finally replaced? 

I like the made in Canada ticket being punched but we could save a pile of cash by getting a helicopter thru one of many NATO countries purchase plans, and just tacking on a few birds on to one of their orders. Common parts, common training and most of have more upgrade military spec air frame. Not upgrade to military spec frame.  But what do I know I only dreamed of flying till proven to be colour blind ( CV3)


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Bell in Mirable isn't going to get authorized by the parent to try to do anything on the R&D front for a new bird -- that is strictly a Civilian Line - the parents build .MIL birds down here.


Which is precisely why the Griffon was a militarized B412; so it could be built in Mirabel.  A CUH-1Y would most definitely have been a Fort Worth build.


----------



## Good2Golf

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I think the purchase cost for 100 units was 1 Billion dollars, ( could be wrong I could not find an actual price so going from memory here)
> 85 units still in serve. Some have crashed, some were sold off to a flight training school.
> 
> January 2011, a $640-million repair and overhaul contract went to BHTC of Mirabel, Quebec. Officially known as the CH-146 Optimized Weapon System Support (OWSS) contract, it combined three previous contracts for Bell to provide engineering support, repair and overhaul, and supply support. The 10-year contract was intended to keep the helicopters flying through to potential retirement in 2021 and possibly push that out to 2025
> 
> Some 16 months after the Bell award, L-3 WESCAM of Burlington, Ontario, secured a 3-year contract for up to $10 million, with two optional 1-year extensions, for routine maintenance, repair and overhaul of the fleet’s electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR) imaging sensors which enable the Griffon to operate as an escort or support Army operations day or night surveillance, a key factor during Operation Athena in Afghanistan.
> 
> At a cost of $500 million to $1.5 billion,  DND is planning that the _Griffon Limited Life Extension In-Service Support _(GLLE), will, among other things “replace obsolete cockpit instrumentation and radios with components that are supportable to 2030 and possibly beyond.” The final delivery, according to the _2015 Defence Acquisition Guide_, is expected to be 2024 (three years after obsolescence and facing ever-increasing operations and maintenance costs due to the age of the platform).
> 
> On the other hand, the _Tactical Reconnaissance Utility Helicopter _(TRUH) program, which is intended to replace the aging Griffons with more capacity and capabilities, at a cost of more than $1.5 billion, has the Definition Approval date set for 2021, and  specifies the first delivery in 2026.
> 
> How much money is going to be spent before these helicopters are life cycled out and still flying like the SeaKings before they are finally replaced?
> 
> I like the made in Canada ticket being punched but we could save a pile of cash by getting a helicopter thru one of many NATO countries purchase plans, and just tacking on a few birds on to one of their orders. Common parts, common training and most of have more upgrade military spec air frame. Not upgrade to military spec frame.  But what do I know I only dreamed of flying till proven to be colour blind ( CV3)


Defence Capability Blueprint (DCB) is the current capability framework.  The DAG ceased effectively in 2018 at the latest.  GLLE in the DCB shows a delivery start in 22/23 and final delivery in 27/28.

Mindful that that DCB page was last updated Jan 2020 (ie. Pre-COVID), I suspect there will likely be a 1-2 year slide in both those timings. 

G2G


----------



## KevinB

Project by Defence Capability Investment Area - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

Defence Capability Investment Areas (DCIAs) are smaller constituent components of DCAs. For example, avionics are a DCIA of the Air DCAs. Projects often include several DCIAs




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca
				




Three Rotary wing items
Griffon Life Support 
Griffon Limited Life Extension - Defence Capabilities Blueprint

Cyclone Debacle for Maritime Helo 





						CH-148 Cyclone procurement project - Canada.ca
					

The Government of Canada is purchasing 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters. They conduct anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, search and rescue, and utility missions.




					www.canada.ca
				




Comorant Mid Life Upgrade 





						CH-149 Cormorant Mid-Life Upgrade - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

CH-149 Cormorant Mid-Life Upgrade - Defence Capabilities Blueprint




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca
				




Not exactly an inspiring look to the Future of Rotary Wing in Canada...


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Which is precisely why the Griffon was a militarized B412; so it could be built in Mirabel.  A CUH-1Y would most definitely have been a Fort Worth build.


Which shows how serious the Cdn Gov is about Defence -- it would be easy for the Cdn Gov to say if we are getting Yankees - they will get built in Mirable - and I am pretty sure Bell would have gone and done the Paperwork to get it done - tech transfer to Canada is pretty simple these days if the parent wants - as the parent would still control any export.

I think a lot of the viewers don't understand the relationships between US (or other Foreign) Parents and the siblings in other nations (in this case Canada) - DoD here controls the export of some defense related tech - and they not DoS are the sign off on release for these items.
   Anything built with US tech that is considered ITAR requires a US release - and the sibling can't just go market their stuff freely.
Also because it is build in Canada - it also requires the Cdn Gov to sign off - and as you can see from the Philippine deal, that doesn't always happen...


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Which shows how serious the Cdn Gov is about Defence -- it would be easy for the Cdn Gov to say if we are getting Yankees - they will get built in Mirable - and I am pretty sure Bell would have gone and done the Paperwork to get it done - tech transfer to Canada is pretty simple these days if the parent wants - as the parent would still control any export.
> 
> I think a lot of the viewers don't understand the relationships between US (or other Foreign) Parents and the siblings in other nations (in this case Canada) - DoD here controls the export of some defense related tech - and they not DoS are the sign off on release for these items.
> Anything built with US tech that is considered ITAR requires a US release - and the sibling can't just go market their stuff freely.
> Also because it is build in Canada - it also requires the Cdn Gov to sign off - and as you can see from the Philippine deal, that doesn't always happen...



And yet the Australians not only have access to nuclear submarine technology but also their own production facility for guided missiles









						Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan
					

Australia will move to produce its own guided missiles under a $1 billion plan to establish a new weapons facility with a global arms manufacturer.




					www.abc.net.au
				






> Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan​Posted Tue 30 Mar 2021 at 4:28pmTuesday 30 Mar 2021 at 4:28pm, updated Tue 30 Mar 2021 at 8:48pm
> 
> Australia will move to produce its own guided missiles under a $1 billion plan to establish a new weapons facility with a global arms manufacturer.
> 
> Key points:​
> No location has been chosen yet for the new facility
> Scott Morrison says it will help make Australia more self-reliant in its defence capability
> It is part of the government's $270 billion spend on defence projects over the next 10 years
> 
> Prime Minister Scott Morrison will unveil the plan later today but is warning the "changing global environment" highlights the need to create the sovereign capability.
> 
> “As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, having the ability for self-reliance, be it vaccine development or the defence of Australia, is vital to meeting our own requirements in a changing global environment," he said.
> 
> "It’s an imperative we now proceed with the creation of a sovereign guided weapons capability as a priority."
> The Department of Defence will choose a "strategic industry partner" which will be contracted to operate the manufacturing facility.
> 
> Potential partners include Raytheon Australia, Lockheed Martin Australia, Konsberg and BAE Systems Australia.
> 
> No location has been identified yet for the facility.
> 
> Defence recently announced it was partnering with the United States to develop and test an air-launched hypersonic cruise missile that can exceed the speed of sound by up to eight times.



We could also point to the Boeing Australia association on the Loyal Wingman project.

I don't doubt that these things can be done.  

I do doubt that Canada is going to get an invite any time soon.  And regardless of political considerations I still think that there is a case to be made for extending the A fleet / B fleet / Commercial  distinctions to the air environment just as it is on land and sea.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> And yet the Australians not only have access to nuclear submarine technology but also their own production facility for guided missiles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan
> 
> 
> Australia will move to produce its own guided missiles under a $1 billion plan to establish a new weapons facility with a global arms manufacturer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abc.net.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could also point to the Boeing Australia association on the Loyal Wingman project.
> 
> I don't doubt that these things can be done.
> 
> I do doubt that Canada is going to get an invite any time soon.


Agreed right now due to your PM and his odd ties to certain things, Canada isn't totally in the circle of trust for some things.



Kirkhill said:


> And regardless of political considerations I still think that there is a case to be made for extending the A fleet / B fleet / Commercial  distinctions to the air environment just as it is on land and sea.


If the RCAF has a robust fleet of rotary wing assets, I wouldn't argue with you.
  But it doesn't, Canada needs x3 the number of Hooks, and probably x5 the number of Griffons to actually do things in the air.
 You generally try not to use a lot of Hooks at once for Airmobile ops - as while fast they are big, and carry a lot of folks that when they go down - it is a big hit.

Realistically the 412/Griffon can carry 6 GIB's combat loaded - 4 if combat loaded in the Arctic.
   A Griffon Squadron can then move a Platoon at best in one lift.
  Amassing all the Griffons the RCAF has wouldn't even move a BN in one lift.

Then as the RCAF doesn't have AH's - some of the Griffons are rerolled as Escort - so the CAF is very light when it comes to Rotary Wing Assets.

IF the RCAF had 280's - they can each carry a section - and they have Crew Chief/Door Gunners 
   All of a sudden that Squadron can almost move a full company in one lift.

If you had 10-12 Squadrons of those -- then you could think about a Civ platform for other things -- but right now, the cupboard is too thin to have a non deployable bird in the roost.


----------



## KevinB

I absolutely think there is a use for Domestic Civ Pattern Bird - but given the current fleet size, I would opt for deployable assets over non.

I also think part of the Griffon cost issue is due to the size of the fleet and I assume the general nature of the CAF to want all things equal - many upgrades done to the Griffons really where not needed for all the fleet.

The L3-Wescam ball being a good example - sure it is an absolutely fantastic capability - down here that is reserved for JSOC assets - and not even all of those have them.   Probably could have gone to just the SAR birds, the Escort Squadron and the CANSOF ones - as not everyone really needed it.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Agreed right now due to your PM and his odd ties to certain things, Canada isn't totally in the circle of trust for some things.
> 
> 
> If the RCAF has a robust fleet of rotary wing assets, I wouldn't argue with you.
> But it doesn't, Canada needs x3 the number of Hooks, and probably x5 the number of Griffons to actually do things in the air.
> You generally try not to use a lot of Hooks at once for Airmobile ops - as while fast they are big, and carry a lot of folks that when they go down - it is a big hit.
> 
> Realistically the 412/Griffon can carry 6 GIB's combat loaded - 4 if combat loaded in the Arctic.
> A Griffon Squadron can then move a Platoon at best in one lift.
> Amassing all the Griffons the RCAF has wouldn't even move a BN in one lift.
> 
> Then as the RCAF doesn't have AH's - some of the Griffons are rerolled as Escort - so the CAF is very light when it comes to Rotary Wing Assets.
> 
> IF the RCAF had 280's - they can each carry a section - and they have Crew Chief/Door Gunners
> All of a sudden that Squadron can almost move a full company in one lift.
> 
> If you had 10-12 Squadrons of those -- then you could think about a Civ platform for other things -- but right now, the cupboard is too thin to have a non deployable bird in the roost.



Kevin I agree with you on the numbers.  I agree that more helicopters are called for.  Especially in the north.  On the other hand, given the number still in service, despite seeing foreign employment in various environments, after 26 years of use, I still think that the Griffon had/has a lot going for it. I believe that there have only been two accidental losses and no losses to enemy fire.  In 26 years of use.

Also, although the CAF only flies 85 out of the 100 Griffons originally purchased I have always had the impression that the reduction from 100 to 85 was concurrent with the CAF buying 15 Chinooks.  But perhaps my understanding is faulty.

Either way, the Griffon has served well, and safely for over a quarter of a century.


----------



## KevinB

Honestly I suspect you are right on the numbers rational - @Good2Golf or one of our other rotary guys could confirm but I think 100 was the # set by the RCAF as to what they where willing to accept for Helicopters for the Army (okay not all of the Griffons are CA tasked - but the UH role is predominately for the Army).

 The CAF has significantly  limited deployment of the CH-146 for very valid reasons - there was an internal argument about the Afghan deployment - and one lost in Afghan in which a UH-60 would have been fine.   I am unaware of an RCAF Griffon taking ground fire -- I know that a Troop of folks needed the Aussie SOAS to come and extract them as the Griffons where not allowed due to the situation (getting shot at).


I've also seen more than one 4XX squadron scrub missions due to the weather exceeding the load lift for the platform, and others where three guys and a toboggan where the max load - which meant a slew of chalks, and a few where it was easier just to toss troops into a HLVW and wave bye to the Griffons.


I will agree the Griffon has served - the issue I have is I truly believe the Blackhawk would have served much better - and been of incalculable more worth.  That is why I judge the Griffon so harshly - not because of what it is, but because of what it isn't.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Agreed right now due to your PM and his odd ties to certain things, Canada isn't totally in the circle of trust for some things.


I would add that Australia's location is a big factor, probably larger than its (or our) govt.


----------



## Good2Golf

@KevinB, definitely no doubt that a -60 would have made for a solid, relatively unrestricted UTTH, per the original, pre-Marcel Masse 1992 plan.

@Kirkhill, the 100 to 85 Ch-146 fleet downsize definitely pre-dated the 15 CH-147Fs.  It was primarily borne of O&M and ISS limitations and the coincidental popularity of ASD in the mid-90s that led to the CFTS contracting of Phases 1 (Slingsby/Groeb) and  3 (CH-139 Jet Ranger and CT-146 Outlaw bailed to KF Aerospace) to Canadian aerospace industry.

Bang for the buck, if I were King for a day, I would consider a trade off of some aspirations for some other things.   I’d trade some fighters for hunting down 2-3 more C-17s, roll CMLU money into capital acquisition top-up of the Ch-147F fleet with another 15 aircraft, get the heck on with RPAS, perhaps a dual-fleet capability set of MALE (Class 3) and TUAV (Class 2 - possibly rotary like Fire Scout) and do a truly limited Griffon ‘sunset’ upgrade to keep just enough to overlay with a sunrise of FVL aircraft, and ensure that the Tac Hel Griffon line squadrons were sized up to 24-30 ac each.  It would likely be able to be done cost-neutral to the current plan, but people would be the challenge…I’d have to think harder about how to work that trade space.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> @KevinB, definitely no doubt that a -60 would have made for a solid, relatively unrestricted UTTH, per the original, pre-Marcel Masse 1992 plan.
> 
> @Kirkhill, the 100 to 85 Ch-146 fleet downsize definitely pre-dated the 15 CH-147Fs.  It was primarily borne of O&M and ISS limitations and the coincidental popularity of ASD in the mid-90s that led to the CFTS contracting of Phases 1 (Slingsby/Groeb) and  3 (CH-139 Jet Ranger and CT-146 Outlaw bailed to KF Aerospace) to Canadian aerospace industry.
> 
> Bang for the buck, if I were King for a day, I would consider a trade off of some aspirations for some other things.   I’d trade some fighters for hunting down 2-3 more C-17s, roll CMLU money into capital acquisition top-up of the Ch-147F fleet with another 15 aircraft, get the heck on with RPAS, perhaps a dual-fleet capability set of MALE (Class 3) and TUAV (Class 2 - possibly rotary like Fire Scout) and do a truly limited Griffon ‘sunset’ upgrade to keep just enough to overlay with a sunrise of FVL aircraft, and ensure that the Tac Hel Griffon line squadrons were sized up to 24-30 ac each.  It would likely be able to be done cost-neutral to the current plan, but people would be the challenge…I’d have to think harder about how to work that trade space.



Thanks for the correction G2G.  

If I were King for a day I would swap some of those LAV/ACSV/TAPV dollars for more helicopters - even if they were only 412s and 407s.


----------



## Dale Denton

Lots of concurrent conversations in the Future Helicopters thread, can we combine the threads?


----------



## Good2Golf

LoboCanada said:


> Lots of concurrent conversations in the Future Helicopters thread, can we combine the threads?


Not speaking as a mod,  while there is a bit of wavering overlap at times, I was thinking Griffon is more of a ‘fix today’s problem’ vs the future (be it FVL or NGRC or other new ‘needle-moving’ capabilities. 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Thanks for the correction G2G.
> 
> If I were King for a day I would swap some of those LAV/ACSV/TAPV dollars for more helicopters - even if they were only 412s and 407s.


I would get more hooks before either - mainly as I don't want need Griffons (I'd take new Y's though) and am dead-set against the 407 as the RCAF already divested that capability with the Kiowa - and I don't think the CAF has enough Pilots at this point to justify another orphan fleet.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I would get more hooks before either - mainly as I don't want need Griffons (I'd take new Y's though) and am dead-set against the 407 as the RCAF already divested that capability with the Kiowa - and I don't think the CAF has enough Pilots at this point to justify another orphan fleet.



But, as somebody pointed out, you can pack a bunch of little helicopters into a big plane and move them over long distances at a high rate of knots.



Looks as if you could get at least 6 OH-58 / CH-136 /  Kiowa / Jet Rangers / ARH-70 into a C17.  Each with 14 APKWS (2x 70mm).

Something's better than nothing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we could get Belarus to build us 80 Mi-17's, to replace the Griffons. That would substantial increase our lift capability and have a machine where we can get parts from multiple suppliers. Hell have them assembled in Canada for the Canadian job bit...


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> Well we could get Belarus to build us 80 Mi-17's, to replace the Griffons. That would substantial increase our lift capability and have a machine where we can get parts from multiple suppliers. Hell have them assembled in Canada for the Canadian job bit...


Belarus isn't anyone you want to do business with.  They are Putin's little puppet - and a pariah in the West.
   The Hip  isn't exactly a real step up from the Griffon either.
 Sure its bigger and can carry more IF it gets off the ground and stays airborne 
None of the suppliers you would trust - and the safety record of them isn't exactly stellar -

- I flew in a few in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a Warsaw Pact type bird would never be my recommendation.
  They are great for low vis work when you want a deniable bird - but safety and availability rates aren't what any NATO member would want from a UH.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The kamovs are quite well liked out here on the West Coast for heli-logging. Under Canadian care and control, I think you find safety records and availability will do fine. that's if we buy enough spare parts, because Canada certainly can't brag about availability rates of it's airframes, thanks to part and maintainer shortages.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> The kamovs are quite well liked out here on the West Coast for heli-logging. Under Canadian care and control, I think you find safety records and availability will do fine. that's if we buy enough spare parts, because Canada certainly can't brag about availability rates of it's airframes, thanks to part and maintainer shortages.



No, Colin.  Just, No.  Stop.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> The kamovs are quite well liked out here on the West Coast for heli-logging. Under Canadian care and control, I think you find safety records and availability will do fine. that's if we buy enough spare parts, because Canada certainly can't brag about availability rates of it's airframes, thanks to part and maintainer shortages.


K-Maxes or -32?


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


>



It's a real beast. Watched those move alot of logs really fast a couple of times.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kamovs and Kamans are cools choppers with a high payload to basic weight ratio.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Kamovs and Kamans are cools choppers with a high payload to basic weight ratio.



The Russkie Sea King: 


The helicopter was developed for ferrying and anti-submarine warfare. Design work began in 1969 and the first prototype flew in 1973. It was intended to replace the decade-old Kamov Ka-25, and is similar in appearance to its predecessor due to the requirements of fitting in the same hangar space. Like other Kamov military helicopters it has coaxial rotors, removing the need for a tail rotor. Ka-32 variants, e.g. the Klimov-powered Ka-32A11BC, have been certified for commercial operations throughout the world, notably in Canada and Europe.









						Kamov Ka-27 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin Parkinson said:


> Well we could get Belarus to build us 80 Mi-17's, to replace the Griffons. That would substantial increase our lift capability and have a machine where we can get parts from multiple suppliers. Hell have them assembled in Canada for the Canadian job bit...


Going 'full CASR'.


----------



## GK .Dundas

LoboCanada said:


> Going 'full CASR'.


Never go full CASR....


----------



## GK .Dundas

Kirkhill said:


> But, as somebody pointed out, you can pack a bunch of little helicopters into a big plane and move them over long distances at a high rate of knots.
> 
> View attachment 67402
> 
> Looks as if you could get at least 6 OH-58 / CH-136 /  Kiowa / Jet Rangers / ARH-70 into a C17.  Each with 14 APKWS (2x 70mm).
> 
> Something's better than nothing.


I wonder how many AH 6 I's you could get on a CC 177 ....Never mind.
If you're going to the effort to bring some hurt down on some people. Why not go for the gold standard in light weight attack/scout helicopters.


----------



## Sf2

KevinB said:


> Belarus isn't anyone you want to do business with.  They are Putin's little puppet - and a pariah in the West.
> The Hip  isn't exactly a real step up from the Griffon either.
> Sure its bigger and can carry more IF it gets off the ground and stays airborne
> None of the suppliers you would trust - and the safety record of them isn't exactly stellar -
> 
> - I flew in a few in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a Warsaw Pact type bird would never be my recommendation.
> They are great for low vis work when you want a deniable bird - but safety and availability rates aren't what any NATO member would want from a UH.


We had no issues with fielding Mi17s in Afghanistan under "Canadian control".


----------



## suffolkowner

Whats left of CASR









						Canadian American Strategic Review – DefenceMuse
					

Posts about Canadian American Strategic Review written by Steve Daly, CD




					defencemuse.wordpress.com
				




The Mil-17 in Canadian use









						RCAF Doesn't Like To Admit it flew Russian Mil-17-V5s
					

Canadian Armed Forces Dispatch is your one stop source for all news regarding the Canadian Armed Forces.




					cafdispatch.blogspot.com


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:


> I wonder how many AH 6 I's you could get on a CC 177 ....Never mind.
> If you're going to the effort to bring some hurt down on some people. Why not go for the gold standard in light weight attack/scout helicopters.



Perhaps because "Boeing"?  Not "Bell"?

Boeing doesn't seem to be having much success with Canadian contracts these days.

On the other hand Optionally Manned AH-6s seem to be a thing.   How about Northrop Grumman's Bell 407 MQ-8C Firescout in optionally manned configuration?









						Boeing AH-6 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Northrop Grumman MQ-8C Fire Scout - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Kirkhill

Question:  If a helicopter can drive itself does a helicopter need a pilot or can a passenger act as vehicle commander?


----------



## KevinB

Sf2 said:


> We had no issues with fielding Mi17s in Afghanistan under "Canadian control".


Would you rather have Hooks or Hips?

Can you fly a Hip for a while - sure - but long run its going to cause you a slew more issues than a western bird - and parts etc aren't generally the same quality.

 I don't think anyone used the Hip (outside of SOF for low vis) out of desire - the fact was that the CF doesn't have enough Rotary Wing assets to do everything that is needed at time.


----------



## Sf2

Um....yes?


----------



## Good2Golf

Sf2, I think KevinB’s point was more about potential green-fleet use, vice the well-controlled use by a black fleet.  Unless I misread his intent.


----------



## KevinB

Sf2 said:


> Um....yes?





Good2Golf said:


> Sf2, I think KevinB’s point was more about potential green-fleet use, vice the well-controlled use by a black fleet.  Unless I misread his intent.



Yup, SOF will always have requirements for some items that aren't necessarily the best option outside that niche.
   I was trying to be somewhat vague in the other posts about those roles.


----------



## Drallib

The Bell Helicopter FSR’s at my Squadron had this coaster and asked us if we could make a decal from it. Looks pretty cool. Thought I’d share.


----------



## Sf2

Australia ditches MRH-90 in favor of U.S.-built Black Hawks
					

Australia will ditch its European-built MRH-90 Taipan helicopters in favor of U.S.-built Black Hawks.




					verticalmag.com
				




One can dream.


----------



## KevinB

Sf2 said:


> Australia ditches MRH-90 in favor of U.S.-built Black Hawks
> 
> 
> Australia will ditch its European-built MRH-90 Taipan helicopters in favor of U.S.-built Black Hawks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> verticalmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can dream.


One would wonder why the Aussies dumped them so late game, and opted for the 60 now - rather than suffering for a year or two and waiting for FVL to find winner - and then either getting cut rate hawks - or the more capable FVL winner.

As much as I like the Hawk - I wouldn't be cheering for Canada to dump the Griffon at this junction to buy 60's.
  Better to see what comes out of the Bell/Sik FVL submissions IMHO

30, 20, even 10 years ago yeah it made sense to get 60's - now not so much.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yup.  60s made sense right up until 29 April 1992 when Mulroney/Masse set the Griffon effort in motion.

Best now to see what FVL or NATO NGRC come up with.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> One would wonder why the Aussies dumped them so late game, and opted for the 60 now - rather than suffering for a year or two and waiting for FVL to find winner - and then either getting cut rate hawks - or the more capable FVL winner.


Back to what they know?

The ARA and RAN flew them prior to the MRH-90s, and still do now.  The Army flies S-70 Black Hawks while the RAN flies SH-60R Seahawks.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> Back to what they know?
> 
> The ARA and RAN flew them prior to the MRH-90s, and still do now.  The Army flies S-70 Black Hawks while the RAN flies SH-60R Seahawks.


That makes it even more odd -- I know the Aussie SOAR ran 60's - but never interacted with their regular army - so I didn't know the history.
   One really wonders why one would dump the Hawk for the 90 in the first place.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> That makes it even more odd -- I know the Aussie SOAR ran 60's - but never interacted with their regular army - so I didn't know the history.
> One really wonders why one would dump the Hawk for the 90 in the first place.


From what I've read, the overarching idea was to replace them all with a common platform between the Army and Navy.  

Guess how well that turned out.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> From what I've read, the overarching idea was to replace them all with a common platform between the Army and Navy.
> 
> Guess how well that turned out.


About as well as the Griffon 

The S-70A is just the Export version of the 60, I'm surprised the Aussies didn't get the full US version - considering the S-70B was the export SeaHawk variant, and it looks like the Aussies had the actual Seahawks.  
   The mind boggling crap of export markets sigh.


----------



## h3tacco

KevinB said:


> About as well as the Griffon
> 
> The S-70A is just the Export version of the 60, I'm surprised the Aussies didn't get the full US version - considering the S-70B was the export SeaHawk variant, and it looks like the Aussies had the actual Seahawks.
> The mind boggling crap of export markets sigh.



Slight correction S-70 is the Sikorsky model number. This is internal to the company and all their products have some S- designation. H-60 (ie UH-60, MH-60, HH-60 etc) is the US DoD Designation. Sometimes foreign operators use the S- model number sometimes the US DoD model. Another couple examples the Sikorsky Sea King is S-61 is the US DoD H-3; the Sikorsky S-80 is the US DoD H-53E etc..

A US Army UH-60A/L/M etc is referred to internally at Sikorsky as a S-70 variant.


----------



## KevinB

h3tacco said:


> Slight correction S-70 is the Sikorsky model number. This is internal to the company and all their products have some S- designation. H-60 (ie UH-60, MH-60, HH-60 etc) is the US DoD Designation. Sometimes foreign operators use the S- model number sometimes the US DoD model. Another couple examples the Sikorsky Sea King is S-61 is the US DoD H-3; the Sikorsky S-80 is the US DoD H-53E etc..
> 
> A US Army UH-60A/L/M etc is referred to internally at Sikorsky as a S-70 variant.


Agreed 
I just found it odd that the Aussies referred to the Army Hawks as S-70A and their Navy Hawks as SH-60 SeaHawks - which led me to believe that they had been acquired differently.
   The main difference being that "Commercial Export" versions can't have some integrated aspects (direct on bird weapon power etc.)


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506715301261582337


----------



## daftandbarmy

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506715301261582337



How cold is it sitting in the door gunner position in a Griffon in March?


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> How cold is it sitting in the door gunner position in a Griffon in March?


The better question is if it's better or worse than being in the field in March


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:


> How cold is it sitting in the door gunner position in a Griffon in March?


Depending on how many of the three integral layers of fire-retardant goretex flying clothing the DG is wearing, I'd go with "quite bearable."  Notice that the air force allows people to wear gloves with all sorts of different headgear...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Depending on how many of the three integral layers of fire-retardant goretex flying clothing the DG is wearing, I'd go with "quite bearable."  Notice that the air force allows people to wear gloves with all sorts of different headgear...



You fool!  Look what you've done now


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> How cold is it sitting in the door gunner position in a Griffon in March?


As others have already said: it depends.

I have hung out in the backdoor of a helicopter for large portions of my career. Wearing the winter flying pants and jacket (even the green legacy stuff), it was tolerable. The weak point for me was hands because preferred to wear standard flying gloves for dexterity.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> As others have already said: it depends.
> 
> I have hung out in the backdoor of a helicopter for large portions of my career. Wearing the winter flying pants and jacket (even the legacy stuff), it was green tolerable. The weak point for me was hands because preferred to wear standard flying gloves for dexterity.



I thought that is why God invented idiot strings?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> I thought that is why God invented idiot strings?
> 
> 
> View attachment 69674


I still have a set of those on issue, but I really need to return a bunch of stuff…


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> I thought that is why God invented idiot strings?


I'd rather not have gloves/mitts on strings flying around near rotor wash, but that's just me.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> I'd rather not have gloves/mitts on strings flying around near rotor wash, but that's just me.


Meh!  There is that!


----------



## The Bread Guy

In the midst of all the other announcing going on lately, this from the info-machine yesterday ...


> ... the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, on behalf of the Honourable Minister Filomena Tassi, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, announced the Government of Canada has awarded a contract worth nearly $800 million to Bell Textron Canada Limited (BTCL) of Mirabel, Quebec, to extend the life of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters until at least the mid-2030s.  As the original manufacturer of the CH-146 Griffon helicopters, BTCL owns the intellectual property rights for the aircraft and is therefore the only company certified to assess and define necessary design changes and associated repairs to the aircraft.  Under the contract, the company will perform modifications on the first 9 helicopters, and will then manage a competitive process to sub-contract suppliers to install modifications on the remaining 76 helicopters ... The first upgraded helicopter is expected to be delivered in 2024 and the remaining will be upgraded by 2028 ...


----------



## OldSolduer

The Bread Guy said:


> In the midst of all the other announcing going on lately, this from the info-machine yesterday ...


The pandering to the spoilt child continues.


----------



## FSTO

The Bread Guy said:


> extend the life of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters until at least the mid-2030s


At least mid 2030’s means 2045.


----------



## dapaterson

OldSolduer said:


> The pandering to the spoilt child continues.


As the IP holder, no real other options to do the lifecycle extension.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> As the IP holder, no real other options to do the lifecycle extension.


Beat me to it.

@OldSolduer - since we're not replacing the Griffon (yet) and we "own" it since we modified it, we're kind of stuck as to who can do any further mods/life extensions.

It'd be the same with the Cyclone or Aurora.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> Beat me to it.
> 
> @OldSolduer - since we're not replacing the Griffon (yet) and we "own" it since we modified it, we're kind of stuck as to who can do any further mods/life extensions.
> 
> It'd be the same with the Cyclone or Aurora.


Most Militaries require TDP transfer after X years of ownership, 5 is currently the baseline for most US systems, but not for “significant” items. 
   Admittedly who else would care to work on an obsolete platform?


----------



## GK .Dundas

FSTO said:


> At least mid 2030’s means 2045.


With a conditional extension to 2050 *

* Conditional on whether or not they start falling out of the sky....on a slow news day and Parliament is in session.


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> Beat me to it.
> 
> @OldSolduer - since we're not replacing the Griffon (yet) and we "own" it since we modified it, we're kind of stuck as to who can do any further mods/life extensions.
> 
> It'd be the same with the Cyclone or Aurora.


Tell me we shot ourselves in the foot….


----------



## Spencer100

OldSolduer said:


> Tell me we shot ourselves in the foot….


Its all about keeping that plant in Quebec open.  There is really no other reason.  Everything else is secondary....like way down the list secondary.


----------



## YZT580

Spencer100 said:


> Its all about keeping that plant in Quebec open.  There is really no other reason.  Everything else is secondary....like way down the list secondary.


Is Canada their only customer and the Griffon their only product?  Surely there must be other airframes on the assembly line


----------



## Good2Golf

No, they make components for 407s, 412s, 429s 505s and 525s in Mirabel for commercial and government/military customers, they assemble all 505s in Mirabel, and they final assemble 407s, 412s and 429s in Mirabel for all Canadian commercial and government operators.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The Bread Guy said:


> In the midst of all the other announcing going on lately, this from the info-machine yesterday ...


According to Wikipedia it costs almost approximately $7.6 million CAD (6 million USD) for the UH-60L Blackhawk. 800 million CAD which would have gotten Canada about 105 Blackhawks. In other words for the same price to upgrade the fleet, we could have replaced the whole fleet with newer, more capable helicopters!


----------



## GR66

Retired AF Guy said:


> According to Wikipedia it costs almost approximately $7.6 million CAD (6 million USD) for the UH-60L Blackhawk. 800 million CAD which would have gotten Canada about 105 Blackhawks. In other words for the same price to upgrade the fleet, we could have replaced the whole fleet with newer, more capable helicopters!


"Sticker" price and and actual procurement price are never the same.  There are always related costs beyond the actual physical item as well.  Not saying that new Blackhawks might not have been an option...or even a better option, just that someone with a lot more info than a Wikipedia unit price would have to figure out what the actual cost difference would be.


----------



## OldSolduer

GR66 said:


> "Sticker" price and and actual procurement price are never the same.  There are always related costs beyond the actual physical item as well.  Not saying that new Blackhawks might not have been an option...or even a better option, just that someone with a lot more info than a Wikipedia unit price would have to figure out what the actual cost difference would be.


HARRRUMMPPHHH But its not.....Canadian


----------



## Good2Golf

Honestly, I’d rather Coast a few
Years with an upgrade then move straight to this bad boy!!!


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Honestly, I’d rather Coast a few
> Years with an upgrade then move straight to this bad boy!!!
> 
> View attachment 71126


OK I am not current on AFV and AC recognition......


----------



## Good2Golf

US Army’s Future Vertical Lift candidate, the Boeing-Sikorsky _*Defiant X*_.

Like a scaled up Black Hawk on steroids with an awesome counter-rotating blender.


----------



## CBH99

GR66 said:


> "Sticker" price and and actual procurement price are never the same.  There are always related costs beyond the actual physical item as well.  Not saying that new Blackhawks might not have been an option...or even a better option, just that someone with a lot more info than a Wikipedia unit price would have to figure out what the actual cost difference would be.


Absolutely true.  The devil is always in those pesky little details that the general public doesn’t think about.

Buuutttttt…RetiredAF isn’t wrong, either 😉


----------



## YZT580

Good2Golf said:


> No, they make components for 407s, 412s, 429s 505s and 525s in Mirabel for commercial and government/military customers, they assemble all 505s in Mirabel, and they final assemble 407s, 412s and 429s in Mirabel for all Canadian commercial and government operators.


so they don't need the Griffon to sustain the factory.


----------



## Spencer100

YZT580 said:


> so they don't need the Griffon to sustain the factory.


Not in of its self.  But it is 100 percent part of the calculus. Here Bell have a no bid upgrade contract. This should help maintain the team.  This is why Tranport Canada got the machines they did a few years ago.  

Also on government side their ability to even think about running competition to replace the helicopters is zero.  So an upgrade of a Canadian made machine is a no brainer.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> US Army’s Future Vertical Lift candidate, the Boeing-Sikorsky _*Defiant X*_.


Cough I think you meant LocMart 








						Future Vertical Lift: Revolutionizing Army Aviation
					

Our X2 Technology™ family of integrated weapon systems are the only aircraft flying today toward a cohesive Future Vertical Lift (FVL) ecosystem.




					www.lockheedmartin.com
				






Good2Golf said:


> Like a scaled up Black Hawk on steroids with an awesome counter-rotating blender.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Cough I think you meant LocMart


Pshawww.....branding.  Funny that while the F-35 program was having some real cost issues, it was Sikorsky paving the way for the future in rotary-wing capability....now it's back to Lockheed.  All good, amigo!


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Pshawww.....branding.  Funny that while the F-35 program was having some real cost issues, it was Sikorsky paving the way for the future in rotary-wing capability....now it's back to Lockheed.  All good, amigo!


My wife works for Rotary Missions Systems remember -- I can't get away from LocMart branding...


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> My wife works for Rotary Missions Systems remember -- I can't get away from LocMart branding...


When its more than half the food on the table, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They lost a bunch of Blackhawks when they first came out, there was a need for modifications as I recall. So it would be good to let the US run the new type for 5 years or so before jumping onboard. Likely such a procurement would also mean sub component contracts for Bell and other companies.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> They lost a bunch of Blackhawks when they first came out, there was a need for modifications as I recall. So it would be good to let the US run the new type for 5 years or so before jumping onboard. Likely such a procurement would also mean sub component contracts for Bell and other companies.


Bell is the opposition on FVL.  
  Their Tilt Rotor V280 is the other entrant to the competition for the UH-60 replacement. 

There is nothing for Bell if LocMart wins.


----------



## GK .Dundas

When the first test flight with a full troop load occurred. It went down at night into a forest in Kentucky.
They went out expecting multiple fatalities and serious injuries. They were amazed to find aside from a few aches and pains everybody was just fine . 
For that reason alone we should have bought it opposed to the Griffin .


----------



## YZT580

GK .Dundas said:


> When the first test flight with a full troop load occurred. It went down at night into a forest in Kentucky.
> They went out expecting multiple fatalities and serious injuries. They were amazed to find aside from a few aches and pains everybody was just fine .
> For that reason alone we should have bought it opposed to the Griffin .


I don't understand your logic.  Wouldn't it be better to go out on your first flight test with a full troop load at night and NOT go down into a forest in Kentucky?  Just askin?🤔


----------



## GK .Dundas

If it had been a Huey or a derivative , they would have been pulling body bags and stretchers out of that Kentucky forest.
Given my druthers I would much rather not crash at all. However  the Blackhawk strikes me as a better proposition.


----------



## Spencer100

KevinB said:


> Bell is the opposition on FVL.
> Their Tilt Rotor V280 is the other entrant to the competition for the UH-60 replacement.
> 
> There is nothing for Bell if LocMart wins.


Most likely the loser gets the FARA. 

The Bell 360 Invictus






						Bell 360 Invictus - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Sikorsky Raider X






						Sikorsky Raider X - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




I can't see one company getting both programs.  It's not good for the industry base.  As the loser would over the long time would be leaving the business.


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Most likely the loser gets the FARA.
> 
> The Bell 360 Invictus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bell 360 Invictus - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sikorsky Raider X
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sikorsky Raider X - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see one company getting both programs.  It's not good for the industry base.  As the loser would over the long time would be leaving the business.


Unlikely, the platforms share a lot of common parts, the goal has been to get both from one source - unless there is a significant difference on capabilities/price.  

The USMC Bell Viper and Venom show how cost effective a common core system can be.


----------



## Spencer100

KevinB said:


> Unlikely, the platforms share a lot of common parts, the goal has been to get both from one source - unless there is a significant difference on capabilities/price.
> 
> The USMC Bell Viper and Venom show how cost effective a common core system can be.


Yes in the case of the Lockmart offering.  The Bell 360 Invictus has not much in common with the Valor.  Bell took the strategy of going less new tech and more costing for their offering.  Basing alot on the 505.  

Just my thoughts Bell wants the V280 to win more than the FARA.  But they have to put in for both.  I think the US would mistaken giving all to one.  As that will take the loser over the long run almost out of business.  The industrial concerns here outweigh the strategy of platform synergies.


----------



## KevinB

Bell has the V-22 JV with Boeing. 
  Bell isn’t a player in the US Army since the retirement of the Kiowa Warrior. 
 While Boeing and Sikorsky (now part of LoMart) own the Army vertical lift.  And B&S are Team Defiant.


----------



## Spencer100

Boeing with Chinook, Apache, and part of V-22
Bell Venoms and Viper plus legacy Hueys
Sikorsky with King Stallion, Blackhawks, Seahawks, S92 Marine 1
Airbus will the Lakota and coast guard helps.
MD little birds

But the winners of the FVL will be really setting the table for the next 50 years.  If one company will both the rest will have almost nothing.  The Chinook is winding down (they just today won 60 Germany so some life) Bell has V-22 and Other Marine legacy but not too much life left there.   Sikorsky has the largest order book.  From an industry point I would go Bell for FLRAA and Sikorsky for FARA.  That leaves two players.  Plus Boeing in the wings.  

I just read a piece that DND regrets the consolidation of primes



			https://www.realcleardefense.com/2022/02/16/dod_defense_contractor_consolidation_a_threat_to_national_security_816954.html
		


So I think industrial strategy will take a part.


----------



## calculus

According to this article (see last para), the CF is already considering replacements (next Tactical Aviation Capability Set (nTACS) project), "in part drawing on lessons from the U.S. Army’s Future Vertical Lift program and NATO’s Next-Generation Rotorcraft Capabilities project"









						Bell Textron Canada to upgrade Canada’s CH-146 helicopters
					

The Canadian government has awarded Bell Textron Canada a contract worth approximately C$800 million to extend the life of the Royal Canadian Air Force CH-146 Griffon helicopter.




					verticalmag.com
				




So, the winner of the FVL program _could _eventually serve for Canada as well.


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Boeing with Chinook, Apache, and part of V-22
> Bell Venoms and Viper plus legacy Hueys
> Sikorsky with King Stallion, Blackhawks, Seahawks, S92 Marine 1
> Airbus will the Lakota and coast guard helps.
> MD little birds
> 
> But the winners of the FVL will be really setting the table for the next 50 years.  If one company will both the rest will have almost nothing.  The Chinook is winding down (they just today won 60 Germany so some life) Bell has V-22 and Other Marine legacy but not too much life left there.   Sikorsky has the largest order book.  From an industry point I would go Bell for FLRAA and Sikorsky for FARA.  That leaves two players.  Plus Boeing in the wings.
> 
> I just read a piece that DND regrets the consolidation of primes
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.realcleardefense.com/2022/02/16/dod_defense_contractor_consolidation_a_threat_to_national_security_816954.html
> 
> 
> 
> So I think industrial strategy will take a part.


DoD not DND, but I think that due to the Blackhawk, there is about a zero percent chance that Bell will win FLRAA, and the Army will go with what it knows in the LocMart offering. 
   Past performance is a major thing, and Bell’s with the Army is rather lacking.  Sure they have USMC PP, but the Army is often skeptical of other service work.   


That said, I actually like the 280 better in theory.   I’m just not sure if Bell can deliver the wants for it, and it takes up a large amount of space.   SOCOM wants/needs a folding wing version for transport/storage - something the Defiant X can do significantly easier with just folding rotor blades. 

I still think Canada should just toss the Griffon to the curb and get Blackhawks as an interim solution.


----------



## kev994

KevinB said:


> I still think Canada should just toss the Griffon to the curb and get Blackhawks as an interim solution.


The money is already spent so that’s not going to happen.


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> The money is already spent so that’s not going to happen.


…either that or transferred as yet more contingency to get the 148 fleet all to V2.0


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:


> …either that or transferred as yet more contingency to get the 148 fleet all to V2.0


Hey I would do the team Canada.  Pay Bell Canada to militarize and navalize the 525. Tell them to build in Canada.  Buy in 4 batches.  First the green ones, then the yellow ones, then the grey ones. Then even the red ones for TC.  As the different timelines  converge.  Then most difficult system wise would replace the Cyclones in 15 years or so. There about 125 to 150 machines over a long time line.  But built in Canada.  And would maybe get export orders. 

The one thing people forget the made in Canada solution gets a built in political power base.  Example is GDLS Canada...."LAV upgrade" did they even keep the number plate? Or was that upgraded too?  Or Irving's with the shipbuilding contract 6 for the navy ok we will add 2 for CG just cause.  

Or even the reverse I was told Bombardier was told by the government not to play in the military platform or weapon business too much or even at all.  So not having a military side of the business helped kill them. And I say hurt the CAF too.  Imagine if Bombardier built more mil side Canada could still have a OEM prime airframer.  The CS as a MPA etc. Bombardier still in the missile business....would be nice right now for a Canadian company to still own the manufacturer of starstruck and NLAW.


----------



## Good2Golf

In a purely Canadian-with-no-external-influence/care, that might be an understandable COA.  That said, it’s just jobs in Canada, not any net income/profit.  Bell Mirabel = TEXTRON


----------



## KevinB

GDLS etc 
  There are very few Canadian companies left - just National parts of (mostly US based) International Conglomerates.


----------



## Spencer100

KevinB said:


> GDLS etc
> There are very few Canadian companies left - just National parts of (mostly US based) International Conglomerates.


There never were many.  GDLS was GM Defence.  DeHaviland was British etc.  Bombardier was Quebec....ur Canadian.  We as Canadians do a poor job with global companies.  We are not big vision people.  Most large Canadian companies are in most ways government regulated or controlled. Banks, Telcos, Utilities etc.  The best Canadian companies get bought out or are crushed.  The miners, the oil companies. Encana, Alcan,


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> There never were many.  GDLS was GM Defence.  DeHaviland was British etc.  Bombardier was Quebec....ur Canadian.  We as Canadians do a poor job with global companies.  We are not big vision people.  Most large Canadian companies are in most ways government regulated or controlled. Banks, Telcos, Utilities etc.  The best Canadian companies get bought out or are crushed.  The miners, the oil companies. Encana, Alcan,


Or Crown Corps get destroyed or privatized... - Dominion Arsenal, etc.

 I would have thought Canada would have gone all in with the US Army on FVL - getting a seat and regional/national inclusion.
One could have parlayed that into a good guy price on Blackhawks to make the Griffon to away to CCG, TC and/or the RCMP.

Myopic is what I'd use for a word for most of Canadian Defence


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> There never were many.  GDLS was GM Defence.  DeHaviland was British etc.  Bombardier was Quebec....ur Canadian.  We as Canadians do a poor job with global companies.  We are not big vision people.  Most large Canadian companies are in most ways government regulated or controlled. Banks, Telcos, Utilities etc.  The best Canadian companies get bought out or are crushed.  The miners, the oil companies. Encana, Alcan,


CAE remains one of the resilient standouts, 3/4s of a century after retired RCAF aviator Kenneth Patrick founded the company in Saint-Laurent, Qc.  It employs 10,000+ worldwide, half of those in Canada, has several subsidiaries in other countries but remains HQ’d in Canada/Montréal/Saint-Laurent.


----------



## Spencer100

KevinB said:


> Or Crown Corps get destroyed or privatized... - Dominion Arsenal, etc.
> 
> I would have thought Canada would have gone all in with the US Army on FVL - getting a seat and regional/national inclusion.
> One could have parlayed that into a good guy price on Blackhawks to make the Griffon to away to CCG, TC and/or the RCMP.
> 
> Myopic is what I'd use for a word for most of Canadian Defence


The problem with that is Pols got burned by that last time.  Chretien signed on to the F35 after the flyoff. (or even before) Then Harper just doubles down on it seeing it as the correct solution.  Then politics.  Trudeau wastes billions and years to go back to the beginning.  So it is then seen in Ottawa, better to have a "competitive bid" process.  So signing on to the winner of the FVL as a partner is a no go.  (I know your bias, I would be too but do not underestimate the importance of that Bell plant)    So in the Ottawa mind the best deal here is an upgrade to Griffon. No hard and dirty bidding no surprises.  We have no good track record of bidding lately. And the outcome of Bell getting the contract and no surprises.  Win Win Win!  And the government can point and say look green helicopters. Jobs in Quebec! I my mind 99% of Ottawa says good job.  Next.


----------



## KevinB

Oh yes with the fraudulent scam on the award of the Griffon in the first place (Conservatives for the Loss on that one)...


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> GDLS etc
> There are very few Canadian companies left - just National parts of (mostly US based) International Conglomerates.



It would almost seem like the U.S. DOD planned it that way to ensure U.S. stays on top of defense technology.


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> It would almost seem like the U.S. DOD planned it that way to ensure U.S. stays on top of defense technology.


Well we don’t randomly cancel contracts and leave companies in a pickle as often…


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> Well we don’t randomly cancel contracts and leave companies in a pickle as often…



What, DND looks after their contractors, look how rich Irving is getting off of them


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> The problem with that is Pols got burned by that last time.  Chretien signed on to the F35 after the flyoff. (or even before) Then Harper just doubles down on it seeing it as the correct solution.  Then politics.  Trudeau wastes billions and years to go back to the beginning.  So it is then seen in Ottawa, better to have a "competitive bid" process.  So signing on to the winner of the FVL as a partner is a no go.  (I know your bias, I would be too but do not underestimate the importance of that Bell plant)    So in the Ottawa mind the best deal here is an upgrade to Griffon. No hard and dirty bidding no surprises.  We have no good track record of bidding lately. And the outcome of Bell getting the contract and no surprises.  Win Win Win!  And the government can point and say look green helicopters. Jobs in Quebec! I my mind 99% of Ottawa says good job.  Next.


@Spencer100, I don’t disagree with your calculus, all other things being equal, BEFORE Uncle Sam privately read Canada the “stop being a non-contributing, un-secure leech” riot act, from which ensued the F-35 announcement, lethal weapon support for UKR, NORAD renewal announcement (which had a significant amount of the next generation of Rompin’ Ronnie Reagan’s SDI/Star Wars/BMD/CMD in it, both continental and nautical(to be)-based, and a slew of other things I’m sure, that haven’t made it to the public yet.  

On topic, yeah, Horizon 1 support for on-the-surface Cdn (subsidiary of US giant) industry (Bell).

#defenseandsecuritybreadcrumbs 

I’d wager that in the future, Canada also ‘decides’ to onboard with FVL and P-8.  If FVL goes V-280 Valor for FLRAA, there would most certainly be some ITBs involving Mirabeland likely several sub-contractors in Canada.


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> Or Crown Corps get destroyed or privatized... - Dominion Arsenal, etc.
> 
> I would have thought Canada would have gone all in with the US Army on FVL - getting a seat and regional/national inclusion.
> One could have parlayed that into a good guy price on Blackhawks to make the Griffon to away to CCG, TC and/or the RCMP.
> 
> Myopic is what I'd use for a word for most of Canadian Defence


Absolutely.

I had hoped after Afghanistan, our leadership would have now been bred from the younger generation that had deployed there.  

More practicality, and common sense in the immediate small picture & the bigger picture.

(Continental Defence, common vehicles & airframes to maximize, be more forward thinking, plug basic gaps, etc)

Myopic is actually a great word for us as a country these days.  Shooting for mediocrity.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Truth!


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> I’d wager that in the future, Canada also ‘decides’ to onboard with FVL and P-8.  If FVL goes V-280 Valor for FLRAA, there would most certainly be some ITBs involving Mirabeland likely several sub-contractors in Canada.


Get out of my brain.  I was thinking FVL should be similar to the F-35 where we can join the project.  The timelines line up roughly with the end of life of the Griffon. 

Not a huge Valor fan. I'm team Defiant all the way (with no other real reason than they look cooler).


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> Get out of my brain.  I was thinking FVL should be similar to the F-35 where we can join the project.  The timelines line up roughly with the end of life of the Griffon.
> 
> Not a huge Valor fan. I'm team Defiant all the way (with no other real reason than they look cooler).


Look cooler? No way! Pfft...Those big beautiful tilling prop rotors are cool!


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Get out of my brain.  I was thinking FVL should be similar to the F-35 where we can join the project.  The timelines line up roughly with the end of life of the Griffon.
> 
> Not a huge Valor fan. I'm team Defiant all the way (with no other real reason than they look cooler).



I always thought the Defiant looked kind of out of balance myself


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> I always thought the Defiant looked kind of out of balance myself
> 
> View attachment 71283



I know a guy whose Dad was a tail gunner in a BP Defiant during the Battle for France. He got over a dozen kills, I believe.

Apparently the Germans thought they were a Hurricane, until it was too late. 

Once the Luftwaffe figured it out, they got slaughtered though.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Not a huge Valor fan. I'm team Defiant all the way (with no other real reason than they look cooler).


Me too.  I’d take 30 less kts and have the tighter footprint with the co-ax rotor system.


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:


> Me too.  I’d take 30 less kts and have the tighter footprint with the co-ax rotor system.


Hey I thought we are talking cooler factor.  Which toy are the kids going to buy, the double blade one or the cool looking tilling props and wings?  You and your it need to work in combat stuff.  Its is the licensing deals that matter


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Me too.  I’d take 30 less kts and have the tighter footprint with the co-ax rotor system.


Ok good, my thoughts were the same regarding the footprint but not being a helo guy. Those big wings out on the sides from the Bell offering just seemed like they would be more of a liability for the army.   One of the design goals of the Defiant team was that the helicopter could fit into the same footprint as the Blackhawk and perform all the exact same missions because of that.

What are your thoughts on the FARA program?  Raider seems better as it would match the speed of whatever was chosen for FLRAA and thus could escort if necessary.  Not sure the Invictus would be able to do that.


----------



## Good2Golf

Actually FARA is one where I wouldn’t have an issue with the Bell Invictus; any escort functionality should have a bit of speed overmatch anyway.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Actually FARA is one where I wouldn’t have an issue with the Bell Invictus; any escort functionality should have a bit of speed overmatch anyway.


Oh you say that like the Apaches needing to leave 30-45min early to escort the Hooks was a bad thing 🤣


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Oh you say that like the Apaches needing to leave 30-45min early to escort the Hooks was a bad thing 🤣


Apache pilots may have crapped on the ‘Hawk drivers, but they didn’t dare shit on the Hookers, as they were just a ‘clean and jerk’ (pulling in Thrust lever) away from leaving the Apaches behind in their own dust… 😆


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Actually FARA is one where I wouldn’t have an issue with the Bell Invictus; any escort functionality should have a bit of speed overmatch anyway.


By that you mean the escorts should be a bit faster than the Chinooks? Remember crayons are my favorite IMP


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Actually FARA is one where I wouldn’t have an issue with the Bell Invictus; any escort functionality should have a bit of speed overmatch anyway.


I thought the Invictus was slower than the FLRAA offerings.  Seems like a bit of research over lunch hour is required to refresh my facts and figures.


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> By that you mean the escorts should be a bit faster than the Chinooks? Remember crayons are my favorite IMP


OS, in places where an assault package is inserting and there has either been limited time to prep the route, or there may still be a number of threat unknowns, the escort should theoretically be able to stretch out forward of the main body the screen.  That speed overmatch hasn’t ever happened to my knowledge where a Chinook was the main lift platform.  Even the normally fast Lynx helicopter (world speed record holder for conventional helicopters) couldn’t go as fast as the Chinook in the hot thin air of Afghanistan.  Unless the Hook is sling a few large pallets of red crayons (yumm!) it’s still the fastest kid on the block. 



Underway said:


> I thought the Invictus was slower than the FLRAA offerings.  Seems like a bit of research over lunch hour is required to refresh my facts and figures.


No, Underway, you’re right.  It’s how the Army worked out the requirements.  I don’t personally know why FARA is actually spec’d to go slower…or perhaps, in context, ‘not as fast’ as FLRAA, but it won’t be doing any escorting.  It will be propositioning into picketing zones, wherever need be, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  Personally I’d want scout/recce to be ahead of the assault package anyway.


----------



## Underway

I'm assuming the FLRAA will have a "self escort" capability if that means anything.  Door gunners or somesuch.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> I'm assuming the FLRAA will have a "self escort" capability if that means anything.  Door gunners or somesuch.


Self Escort isn’t viable. 
  The problem becomes that 2 birds become involved in a gunfight suppressing enemy positions - and have GIB’s, that then aren’t getting to the mission site at the proper time.
*ask me how I know 

Plus any damaged birds that go down then pull more troops off mission. 
 ** again been there, got the T shirt

Given the size of FLRAA (it’s actually a larger cabin than a Hawk)  setting them up as gunship escort birds is a massive waste of space.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Are chinook gunships no longer a thing? Too big a target for escort?


----------



## KevinB

armrdsoul77 said:


> Are chinook gunships no longer a thing? Too big a target for escort?
> 
> View attachment 71292


Todays take on that would have 100 or so Hellfire and a bunch of 7.62 and .50 Miniguns


----------



## armrdsoul77

Would this fit in a chinook?


----------



## Good2Golf

armrdsoul77 said:


> Would this fit in a chinook?
> View attachment 71296


Less recoil to sling a gyro-stabilized M777! 

Take that, Mr. C-130 and your puny 105mm cannon.
😆


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Less recoil to sling a gyro-stabilized M777!
> 
> Take that, Mr. C-130 and your puny 105mm cannon.
> 😆


Gun Crew would need to be gyro stabilized too:,


----------



## Good2Golf

The #1 maybe, but 2 & 3 will have to be winched up and down to load the next rounds.


----------



## dimsum

armrdsoul77 said:


> Are chinook gunships no longer a thing? Too big a target for escort?
> 
> View attachment 71292


From the US Army Aviation museum site, it didn't look like they had the most glorious of careers...


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> From the US Army Aviation museum site, it didn't look like they had the most glorious of careers...


Keep in mind the Hook had a lot of earlier teething issues.  A girl I went to elementary school with, father died as PIC of a Hook in 1970. 
 Several issues with oil filters, hydraulics etc caused multiple crashes.


----------



## Spencer100

FYI









						Bell awarded contract to modernise RCAF Griffon fleet
					

Bell Textron Canada was awarded an $637 million contact to modernise the Royal Canadian Air Force's fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon utility helicopters.




					www.flightglobal.com


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> The #1 maybe, but 2 & 3 will have to be winched up and down to load the next rounds.
> 
> View attachment 71297


I am quite sure that there are some kids that will welcome, and perform well that task.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Keep in mind the Hook had a lot of earlier teething issues.  A girl I went to elementary school with, father died as PIC of a Hook in 1970.
> Several issues with oil filters, hydraulics etc caused multiple crashes.


Canada lost its first Chinook and all five crew members aboard in October 1974 on its delivery flight from Boeing’s plant in Ridley Park, PA to CFB Uplands.  The combining transmission main bevel gear shattered and the synchronization shaft between the front and rear rotors disconnected causing a ‘de-phasing’ of the rotors, leading to in-flight breakup of the aircraft.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Canada lost its first Chinook and all five crew members aboard in October 1974 on its delivery flight from Boeing’s plant in Ridley Park, PA to CFB Uplands.  The combining transmission main bevel gear shattered and the synchronization shaft between the front and rear rotors disconnected causing a ‘de-phasing’ of the rotors, leading to in-flight breakup of the aircraft.


My error on the date, as it was Captain Robert Lovett who was Sara's dad that passed in that crash.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> My error on the date, as it was Captain Robert Lovett who was Sara's dad that passed in that crash.


Ack, wasn’t sure.  Yeah, I once spoke to a CF Flight Safety Investigator who had heard the ATC tapes.  Not good.  But the positive from the crash was a redesigned combining transmission that would maintain the integrity of the synchronization shaft even if the main bevel gear failed.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Looks mean though


----------



## OceanBonfire

Tested against 5G frequencies interference:


----------



## MilEME09

Would appear the request for information is out for the griffon replacement. All options on the table including a mixed manned/unmanned fleet









						RCAF to look at 'revolutionary' vertical lift options to replace CH-146 Griffon - Skies Mag
					

As the RCAF launches into a project for its next tactical aviation platforms, it is closely following what allies are doing.




					skiesmag.com


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> Would appear the request for information is out for the griffon replacement. All options on the table including a mixed manned/unmanned fleet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RCAF to look at 'revolutionary' vertical lift options to replace CH-146 Griffon - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> As the RCAF launches into a project for its next tactical aviation platforms, it is closely following what allies are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com



Like this?









						Black Hawk helicopter flies autonomous "rescue" mission without crew
					

The line between crewed and uncrewed aircraft has blurred even more after a Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopter carried out a demonstration cargo mission as well as a medical "emergency rescue" entirely on its own without anyone aboard or human guidance.




					newatlas.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Would appear the request for information is out for the griffon replacement. All options on the table including a mixed manned/unmanned fleet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RCAF to look at 'revolutionary' vertical lift options to replace CH-146 Griffon - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> As the RCAF launches into a project for its next tactical aviation platforms, it is closely following what allies are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com



I hear that Australia is getting rid of some helicopters. 

Maybe we could save some money if we bought their used fleet of Taipans so we don't, you know, look too 'American'? 










						Australia dumps troubled European-designed Taipan helicopters for US Black Hawks and Seahawks
					

The Army will follow the Navy's decision to replace its locally produced Airbus MRH-90s with off-the-shelf Sikorsky-manufactured helicopters, in a move expected to cost billions of dollars.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:


> I hear that Australia is getting rid of some helicopters.
> 
> Maybe we could save some money if we bought their used fleet of Taipans so we don't, you know, look too 'American'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia dumps troubled European-designed Taipan helicopters for US Black Hawks and Seahawks
> 
> 
> The Army will follow the Navy's decision to replace its locally produced Airbus MRH-90s with off-the-shelf Sikorsky-manufactured helicopters, in a move expected to cost billions of dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abc.net.au


----------



## Spencer100

daftandbarmy said:


> I hear that Australia is getting rid of some helicopters.
> 
> Maybe we could save some money if we bought their used fleet of Taipans so we don't, you know, look too 'American'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia dumps troubled European-designed Taipan helicopters for US Black Hawks and Seahawks
> 
> 
> The Army will follow the Navy's decision to replace its locally produced Airbus MRH-90s with off-the-shelf Sikorsky-manufactured helicopters, in a move expected to cost billions of dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abc.net.au


Perfect throw in the C130J they are binning too.  And tigers too!  They look too mean so those won't work.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> Perfect throw in the C130J they are binning too.  And tigers too!  They look too mean so those won't work.


No, those don't work because they were lemons.  They never reached FOC.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> Perfect throw in the C130J they are binning too.  And tigers too!  They look too mean so those won't work.


Want to take a guess what international aerospace conglomerate influenced the Australian government to get a directed contract award to provide in-service support for the RAAF’s Lockheed C-130Js?

Hint: NOT Lockheed.

Hint #2: Same maker as the MRH-90 Taipan and Tigre AH.

Yup…..


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> No, those don't work because they were lemons.  They never reached FOC.


Yeap, also the Europeans couldn't supply spare parts etc in a timely manner. The logistics chain was a mess, so now they are going with apache's. Now if only we listened ti the senate defense committee and did the same.


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> No, those don't work because they were lemons.  They never reached FOC.


So what you’re really saying is they have low hours??  🤨


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> I hear that Australia is getting rid of some helicopters.
> 
> Maybe we could save some money if we bought their used fleet of Taipans so we don't, you know, look too 'American'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia dumps troubled European-designed Taipan helicopters for US Black Hawks and Seahawks
> 
> 
> The Army will follow the Navy's decision to replace its locally produced Airbus MRH-90s with off-the-shelf Sikorsky-manufactured helicopters, in a move expected to cost billions of dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abc.net.au


Why spend money on hardly used airframes (even if they don’t spend much time in the air) when we could probably convince the Americans to just give us 85 of the Black Hawks they retire for free?

<mumble mumble mumble> “something about NORAD?” <mumble mumble mumble>


----------



## Maxman1

MilEME09 said:


> Would appear the request for information is out for the griffon replacement. All options on the table including a mixed manned/unmanned fleet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RCAF to look at 'revolutionary' vertical lift options to replace CH-146 Griffon - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> As the RCAF launches into a project for its next tactical aviation platforms, it is closely following what allies are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com



How about:
Bell UH-1Y Venom - Wikipedia


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I was reading my tea leaves this morning and asked my empty cup, what kind of helicopter will the Canadian Government force the Canadian Armed Forces to buy? 
It came up with a stripped down Bell 525 because it is partly made in the Montreal area. The tea leaves told me there was no need to look beyond that model because of the made in Quebec sticker that would be placed on it.  

I have no doubts in my mind the replacement will come out of the Montreal area.  This is the latest bird on their site.  
Just my thoughts


----------



## kev994

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I was reading my tea leaves this morning and asked my empty cup, what kind of helicopter will the Canadian Government force the Canadian Armed Forces to buy?
> It came up with a stripped down Bell 525 because it is partly made in the Montreal area. The tea leaves told me there was no need to look beyond that model because of the made in Quebec sticker that would be placed on it.
> 
> I have no doubts in my mind the replacement will come out of the Montreal area.  This is the latest bird on their site.
> Just my thoughts


“It’s at least as good as what you have now” “open and fair process” “IRB”


----------



## CBH99

kev994 said:


> “It’s at least as good as what you have now” “open and fair process” “IRB”


On paper it can carry around 3x as many troops as the Griffon can, AND it's made in Quebec?

Tell your tea cup to come up with a different future for us, pretty please?  (Since its magic, I'm assuming it can also do this?)


----------



## armrdsoul77

FormerHorseGuard said:


> came up with a stripped down Bell 525 because it is partly made in the Montreal area.


Is there a direct successor to the 412? The UH-X?
I think the public will be in sticker shock when the F35 bills start to come in and will be very supportive of a conventional utility helicopter.


----------



## Good2Golf

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I was reading my tea leaves this morning and asked my empty cup, what kind of helicopter will the Canadian Government force the Canadian Armed Forces to buy?
> It came up with a stripped down Bell 525 because it is partly made in the Montreal area. The tea leaves told me there was no need to look beyond that model because of the made in Quebec sticker that would be placed on it.
> 
> I have no doubts in my mind the replacement will come out of the Montreal area.  This is the latest bird on their site.
> Just my thoughts


If it was up to Canada, possibly/likely.  That was then…

Canada has proven to other Western nations that it cannot be trusted to act responsibly or contribute its share, rather it had made an art of riding on others’ coattails.

‘Canada’ will most likely get whatever the US Army’s FVL program gets…just like it’s getting F-35s, and will soon get P-8s, etc.  see the developing pattern?


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> If it was up to Canada, possibly/likely.  That was then…
> 
> Canada has proven to other Western nations that it cannot be trusted to act responsibly or contribute its share, rather it had made an art of riding on others’ coattails.
> 
> ‘Canada’ will most likely get whatever the US Army’s FVL program gets…just like it’s getting F-35s, and will soon get P-8s, etc.  see the developing pattern?


I hope you are right but I fear the talk of us being read the riot act is just that talk. How long since we said we are looking at increasing spending and nothing has been done? Where is the F35 contract? Where is the MRTT contract? P8 should be another slam dunk


----------



## MTShaw

Spencer100 said:


> Perfect throw in the C130J they are binning too.  And tigers too!  They look too mean so those won't work.


What is wrong with the C130J?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MTShaw said:


> What is wrong with the C130J?


Theirs have some structural issues as I recall, very early version.


----------



## kev994

MTShaw said:


> What is wrong with the C130J?


They didn’t buy the high speed ramp so they’re the only c130js that have a limit of 150 knots with the ramp open. They were one of the first foreign customers so they’re aged. The Brit’s at least put new centre engine boxes in their planes that they’re getting rid of.


----------



## suffolkowner

kev994 said:


> They didn’t buy the high speed ramp so they’re the only c130js that have a limit of 150 knots with the ramp open. They were one of the first foreign customers so they’re aged. The Brit’s at least put new centre engine boxes in their planes that they’re getting rid of.


so theyre good to replace the CC-295?


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

Saw the post about getting AH64 helicopters 

Bases with big enough ranges would be an issue for training 

Cold Lake or ?  

Thinking Petawawa is too small


----------



## Spencer100

suffolkowner said:


> so theyre good to replace the CC-295?


I was joking.


----------



## suffolkowner

Spencer100 said:


> I was joking.


I think we are all joking about the situation not specifically the CH-146 but the usual take too long to make the wrong decision that we have to all things National Defence related


----------



## dimsum

suffolkowner said:


> I hope you are right but I fear the talk of us being read the riot act is just that talk. How long since we said we are looking at increasing spending and nothing has been done? Where is the F35 contract? Where is the MRTT contract? P8 should be another slam dunk


The MRTT is still going.  They announced a while back that the A330 was the only contender.


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> The MRTT is still going.  They announced a while back that the A330 was the only contender.


Didn’t the RCAF discreetly manage to get its fingers on 2 soon to be retired A330’s with the intent to convert them to refuellers, aka the MRTT?

Or something to that affect?

I remember reading somewhere credible (non-Canadian source) that we put a deposit, or some kind of ‘something’ for 2 MRTT aircraft, to be acquired & converted at a future date.  (Probably to avoid a standard competition?)


But now that I think about it, maybe you are right.  Maybe it just announced that the A330 was the only option we were considering, and 2 of those aircraft would be refuellers?  (But if buying MRTT, I’d think they’d all be refuellers?)

My wires are all mixed up, but I think MRTT is a sole source contract when the time comes.  


(F**k.  You’re welcome folks.  Thanks for reading my post about nothing!)


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:


> Didn’t the RCAF discreetly manage to get its fingers on 2 soon to be retired A330’s with the intent to convert them to refuellers, aka the MRTT?
> 
> Or something to that affect?
> 
> I remember reading somewhere credible (non-Canadian source) that we put a deposit, or some kind of ‘something’ for 2 MRTT aircraft, to be acquired & converted at a future date.  (Probably to avoid a standard competition?)
> 
> 
> But now that I think about it, maybe you are right.  Maybe it just announced that the A330 was the only option we were considering, and 2 of those aircraft would be refuellers?  (But if buying MRTT, I’d think they’d all be refuellers?)
> 
> My wires are all mixed up, but I think MRTT is a sole source contract when the time comes.
> 
> 
> (F**k.  You’re welcome folks.  Thanks for reading my post about nothing!)











						Canada moves forward with acquisition of first 2 Airbus A330-200s for RCAF future tanker - Skies Mag
					

In a surprise move on July 14, Canada announced that it has finalized a contract to acquire the first two aircraft for the RCAF that will provide a strategic transport and air-to-air refuelling capability, replacing the CC-150 Polaris.




					skiesmag.com
				




i think youre right

"The first two aircraft are expected to arrive in Canada in the winter of 2023; while they are currently configured for long-haul commercial use, the DND said they may be placed into early service in passenger/cargo roles as they await their modification to military specifications."


----------



## Dana381

Im afraid that whatever wins the open competition for the Griffon replacement won't matter much. Just before the contract award is announced Bell will ask for a meeting and cry that the plant will have to close if they don't win. Then whatever concoction they come up with will be the next CAF helo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dana381 said:


> Im afraid that whatever wins the open competition for the Griffon replacement won't matter much. Just before the contract award is announced Bell will ask for a meeting and cry that the plant will have to close if they don't win. Then whatever concoction they come up with will be the next CAF helo.


They can toss a bone for a bunch of grey helicopters run with TC crews leased out to DND to operate off of the AOP's in the Arctic.


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> I hope you are right but I fear the talk of us being read the riot act is just that talk. How long since we said we are looking at increasing spending and nothing has been done? Where is the F35 contract? Where is the MRTT contract? P8 should be another slam dunk



Not unjustified skepticism, SO.  I suppose we’ll see. 



Dana381 said:


> Im afraid that whatever wins the open competition for the Griffon replacement won't matter much. Just before the contract award is announced Bell will ask for a meeting and cry that the plant will have to close if they don't win. Then whatever concoction they come up with will be the next CAF helo.


If the Bell V280 Valor wins FVL-FLRAA, Mirabel will no doubt be set up to do some final assembly and contribute to the V280 global supply chain.


----------



## CBH99

suffolkowner said:


> Canada moves forward with acquisition of first 2 Airbus A330-200s for RCAF future tanker - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> In a surprise move on July 14, Canada announced that it has finalized a contract to acquire the first two aircraft for the RCAF that will provide a strategic transport and air-to-air refuelling capability, replacing the CC-150 Polaris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think youre right
> 
> "The first two aircraft are expected to arrive in Canada in the winter of 2023; while they are currently configured for long-haul commercial use, the DND said they may be placed into early service in passenger/cargo roles as they await their modification to military specifications."


And we’re replacing 5 planes with 6, so that’s a nice surprise.  

(We originally intended to have 5 Polaris operating, but 1 of them has become the designated jet for the PM.  So I’m guessing we are acquiring 6 aircraft because one of them will become the new Canada One, and we’ll be back to operating 5 of them.)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:


> And we’re replacing 5 planes with 6, so that’s a nice surprise.
> 
> (We originally intended to have 5 Polaris operating, but 1 of them has become the designated jet for the PM.  So I’m guessing we are acquiring 6 aircraft because one of them will become the new Canada One, and we’ll be back to operating 5 of them.)


That is not really how it works.

I have routinely seen “01” do regular troop lift. It is not reserved for PM/GG use.


----------



## Maxman1

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Saw the post about getting AH64 helicopters



Even better would be to replace the Griffon with UH-1Ys and buy AH-1Z Vipers, which share 84% of components.

Besides, the Apache is made by Boeing, who made Trudeau a sad panda over the CS100.


----------



## CBH99

Maxman1 said:


> Even better would be to replace the Griffon with UH-1Ys and buy AH-1Z Vipers, which share 84% of components.
> 
> Besides, the Apache is made by Boeing, who made Trudeau a sad panda over the CS100.


Good call.  Share 84% of their components & both made by Bell.  

In another reality, the GoC saw those 2 great products made by a company with a manufacturing plant in Quebec & asked themselves…

“Wait, can we get ourselves some proper military aircraft AND spend the money in that riding!?  There’s an opportunity there…”




SeaKingTacco said:


> That is not really how it works.
> 
> I have routinely seen “01” do regular troop lift. It is not reserved for PM/GG use.


I knew 01 was to be used for troop lift when the PM/GG didn’t require it.  

I was under the impression that between maintenance, PM/GG usage, it’s hours spent outside of its VIP role were limited.  My mistake.  


If all 6 are delivered & end up in service, that would be a decent step up as far as strategic airlift goes


----------



## Good2Golf

Maxman1 said:


> Even better would be to replace the Griffon with UH-1Ys and buy AH-1Z Vipers, which share 84% of components.



Both yesterday’s aircraft.   The Griffon will be around for long enough that any Huey-based platform will be woefully out of date.



Maxman1 said:


> Besides, the Apache is made by Boeing, who made Trudeau a sad panda over the CS100.


 
As I said elsewhere, Boeing was a catalyst. Bombardier was looking to offload the C-Series to avoid any money-losing entanglement with its high-profit biz jet business.


----------



## KevinB

Mirabel is a commercial plant.  Bell hasn’t and won’t move Viper or Venom production there.   Also as @Good2Golf pointed out their day is fading, adopting them as a Griffon replacement isn’t really moving forward, it’s more treading water as technologies have advanced.   

Looking at anything but a true Military helicopter is a fools errand, and that is really the option of the Bell V-280 Valor or the LocMart Defiant.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> Looking at anything but a true Military helicopter is a fools errand, and that is really the option of the Bell V-280 Valor or the LocMart Defiant.



But do we have anything that can shift armoured vehicles around in a hurry, like the Russkies did to blunt the Ukrainian breakthrough?


Russia sends reinforcements to Kharkiv as Ukrainians advance​Poddubny reported that Russian military headquarters were using Mi-26 helicopters to reinforce units in Kharkiv with both men and armored vehicles, redeploying reserve troops to both Kupiansk and Izium.









						Russia sends reinforcements to Kharkiv as Ukrainians advance - Egypt Independent
					

Russia is reinforcing embattled military units in Kharkiv as it scrambles to counter a Ukrainian advance that has taken Kyiv’s troops to the edge of two key cities in the region. Ukrainian forces have arrived on the western outskirts of Kupiansk and have also struck south towards Izium after...




					egyptindependent.com


----------



## Spencer100

CBH99 said:


> Didn’t the RCAF discreetly manage to get its fingers on 2 soon to be retired A330’s with the intent to convert them to refuellers, aka the MRTT?
> 
> Or something to that affect?
> 
> I remember reading somewhere credible (non-Canadian source) that we put a deposit, or some kind of ‘something’ for 2 MRTT aircraft, to be acquired & converted at a future date.  (Probably to avoid a standard competition?)
> 
> 
> But now that I think about it, maybe you are right.  Maybe it just announced that the A330 was the only option we were considering, and 2 of those aircraft would be refuellers?  (But if buying MRTT, I’d think they’d all be refuellers?)
> 
> My wires are all mixed up, but I think MRTT is a sole source contract when the time comes.
> 
> 
> (F**k.  You’re welcome folks.  Thanks for reading my post about nothing!)


MRTT contract hides the VVIP transport.  that is the real reason done so fast and bought the used ones.  MRTT conversion to be done much later.


----------



## CBH99

Spencer100 said:


> MRTT contract hides the VVIP transport.  that is the real reason done so fast and bought the used ones.  MRTT conversion to be done much later.


That makes sense.  Other than the article posted, I don’t think I heard a single word about this from any media outlets at all.


----------



## Spencer100

CBH99 said:


> That makes sense.  Other than the article posted, I don’t think I heard a single word about this from any media outlets at all.


Other than the UORs the Harper government did for Afghanistan, the only purchases of equipment for the RCAF (CAF) that have moved fast are the Challenger, Global purchases and now the A330......because of the VVIP.


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> But do we have anything that can shift armoured vehicles around in a hurry, like the Russkies did to blunt the Ukrainian breakthrough?
> 
> 
> Russia sends reinforcements to Kharkiv as Ukrainians advance​Poddubny reported that Russian military headquarters were using Mi-26 helicopters to reinforce units in Kharkiv with both men and armored vehicles, redeploying reserve troops to both Kupiansk and Izium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia sends reinforcements to Kharkiv as Ukrainians advance - Egypt Independent
> 
> 
> Russia is reinforcing embattled military units in Kharkiv as it scrambles to counter a Ukrainian advance that has taken Kyiv’s troops to the edge of two key cities in the region. Ukrainian forces have arrived on the western outskirts of Kupiansk and have also struck south towards Izium after...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> egyptindependent.com


None of the LAV6.0 systems are compatible with an airlift like that.  Even the CH-53K ‘King Stallion’ cannot lift a LAV6.0, but a USMC LAV-25 yes…

@Good2Golf can deal with this far better than I, but Canada has no heavy lift helicopters.  The Hook is (was?) still considered a Medium Lift even though the G Block II can carry ~22,000 lbs (still 6k under the King).  

Furthermore Canada has no real Medium equipment, the LAV6.0 is way beyond what most would consider a Medium weight APC/IFV.  

Considering what Canada has for vertical lift, moving a Light Battalion would be a stretch at this point without stealing Hooks from CANSOF.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> None of the LAV6.0 systems are compatible with an airlift like that.  Even the CH-53K ‘King Stallion’ cannot lift a LAV6.0, but a USMC LAV-25 yes…
> 
> @Good2Golf can deal with this far better than I, but Canada has no heavy lift helicopters.  The Hook is (was?) still considered a Medium Lift even though the G Block II can carry ~22,000 lbs (still 6k under the King).
> 
> Furthermore Canada has no real Medium equipment, the LAV6.0 is way beyond what most would consider a Medium weight APC/IFV.
> 
> Considering what Canada has for vertical lift, moving a Light Battalion would be a stretch at this point without stealing Hooks from CANSOF.



Just need a few of these bad boys...

... they're fun to jump out of too. Just don't get near the downwash


----------



## Kat Stevens

daftandbarmy said:


> Just need a few of these bad boys...
> 
> ... they're fun to jump out of too. Just don't get near the downwash
> 
> View attachment 75181


No thanks, it looks like a flying hybrid Slap Chop and VegeMatic


----------



## Dana381

Spencer100 said:


> MRTT contract hides the VVIP transport.  that is the real reason done so fast and bought the used ones.  MRTT conversion to be done much later.



I seem to remember the liberals loosing their shit when Harper spent money to paint the VVIP plane.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> None of the LAV6.0 systems are compatible with an airlift like that.  Even the CH-53K ‘King Stallion’ cannot lift a LAV6.0, but a USMC LAV-25 yes…
> 
> @Good2Golf can deal with this far better than I, but Canada has no heavy lift helicopters.  The Hook is (was?) still considered a Medium Lift even though the G Block II can carry ~22,000 lbs (still 6k under the King).



Interestingly @KevinB, the current NATO ATP-49 no longer makes a differentiation between medium and heavy like it did in the past.  Even the term MTH isn’t used a lot.  The funny bit is that in civy world, a Bell Huey (212, 412, etc) is a ‘medium’ category helicopter.



KevinB said:


> Considering what Canada has for vertical lift, moving a Light Battalion would be a stretch at this point without stealing Hooks from CANSOF.



I see what you did there.  MR’s PR as Comd CANSOFCOM supported by Lisa Laflamme was pretty subtle (and effective, clearly) 😆 





daftandbarmy said:


> Just need a few of these bad boys...
> 
> ... they're fun to jump out of too. Just don't get near the downwash
> 
> View attachment 75181


Still less payload than a Chinook…and waaaaay slower… 😉


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> Just need a few of these bad boys...
> 
> ... they're fun to jump out of too. Just don't get near the downwash
> 
> View attachment 75181


Are you taking about the Sheridan or the Sky Crane


----------



## armrdsoul77

Dana381 said:


> I seem to remember the liberals loosing their shit when Harper spent money to paint the VVIP plane


In Conservative Party of Canada colours.


----------



## Kirkhill

armrdsoul77 said:


> In Conservative Party of Canada colours.




I thought they were RCAF colours - like the Roundel.


----------



## Dana381

armrdsoul77 said:


> In Conservative Party of Canada colours.





Kirkhill said:


> View attachment 75205
> 
> I thought they were RCAF colours - like the Roundel.



I did too, if they had painted it just red and white than you could say they used liberal party colors.

Ocean blue is quite fitting for a country that has the longest coastline in the world. Besides it looks sharp in my opinion.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Kirkhill said:


> I thought they were RCAF colours - like the Roundel.


Oh so it is. 

I guess what I saw was this


----------



## dimsum

Dana381 said:


> Ocean blue is quite fitting for a country that has the longest coastline in the world. Besides it looks sharp in my opinion.


Also very soothing 😆

But in our latitudes, I think “North Atlantic/Pacific/Arctic Gray” is more appropriate.


----------



## kev994

Kirkhill said:


> View attachment 75205
> 
> I thought they were RCAF colours - like the Roundel.


That’s what the government at the time declared. The new paint scheme also had to be “cost neutral” until it wasn’t.


----------



## Dana381

dimsum said:


> Also very soothing 😆
> 
> But in our latitudes, I think “North Atlantic/Pacific/Arctic Gray” is more appropriate.


That's why the Grey belly on 003


----------



## Kirkhill

Brits bumping up the size of their Chinook fleet



> *Some (new money) has already been allocated to the improvement programme for the RAF Chinook helicopter fleet*, a move likely to save the taxpayer millions of pounds.
> The* £1.4 billion order*, announced in May 2021, for the *H-47 Extended Range-variant of Chinoo**k* had been expected to be delayed after the MoD said it needed to “reconsider the expenditure profile of this project”.
> Extending delivery of the first of *14 aircraft* by three years to 2030 was expected to cost £300 million, money that will not now be lost as the programme is brought back to its original time scale.
> *The new helicopters will take the number of Chinooks in RAF service up to 60.*











						Army could rush in new rockets as Ukraine war exposes Britain's 'out of date' artillery
					

Ben Wallace says years of campaigning in Iraq and Afghanistan has left the traditional war fighting role of the army 'neglected'




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




These will operate alongside the 25 "Commando" versions of the Merlin.

The RAF also plans to operate 22 A-400s and 8 C-17s for tactical airlift.  The Hercs are to be taken out of service this year if the RAF can keep the A-400s flying.  There is apparently a shortage of propellers.



> Several A400Ms are on the ground at RAF Brize Norton without propellers due to shortages. Others are undergoing a retrofit process. The level of availability changes on a daily and weekly basis.








						UK Royal Air Force Extends C-130J Life | Aviation Week Network
					

The UK Royal Air Force has extended the life of its Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules airlifters for another three months as it attempts to overcome shortfalls in availability of its Airbus A400M fleet.




					aviationweek.com


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> There is apparently a shortage of propellers.


I wonder if the C-130J fleet has a shortage of propellers


----------



## Good2Golf

Block 6.0, 7.1 or 8.1 propellers?


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Brits bumping up the size of their Chinook fleet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army could rush in new rockets as Ukraine war exposes Britain's 'out of date' artillery
> 
> 
> Ben Wallace says years of campaigning in Iraq and Afghanistan has left the traditional war fighting role of the army 'neglected'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These will operate alongside the 25 "Commando" versions of the Merlin.
> 
> The RAF also plans to operate 22 A-400s and 8 C-17s for tactical airlift.  The Hercs are to be taken out of service this year if the RAF can keep the A-400s flying.  There is apparently a shortage of propellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK Royal Air Force Extends C-130J Life | Aviation Week Network
> 
> 
> The UK Royal Air Force has extended the life of its Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules airlifters for another three months as it attempts to overcome shortfalls in availability of its Airbus A400M fleet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aviationweek.com


There was an article yesterday about the UK MoD downsizing the A400 fleet due to excessive cost overruns. 

Not sure the number 22 holds at this point.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> There was an article yesterday about the UK MoD downsizing the A400 fleet due to excessive cost overruns.
> 
> Not sure the number 22 holds at this point.



Some rumours of extending the Herc fleet as well?


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Block 6.0, 7.1 or 8.1 propellers?



Was there some discussion early on about the wash from the early models being so ugly you couldn't jump from them?


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Was there some discussion early on about the wash from the early models being so ugly you couldn't jump from them?


It wasn’t the propellers, but the ramp configuration as I understand it.  My semi-j/k back to Dimsum related to the variety of 130J variants out there and how supportable (or not) they may be.


----------



## Kirkhill

No, I was thinking about a half remembered article from years back about early A400s.

Course my memory plays tricks these days.


----------



## KevinB

Not the original article I read - but 






						UK scraps additional A400M buy as ‘unaffordable'
					

The United Kingdom has scrapped plans to acquire additional Airbus A400M Atlas airlifters, saying it is no longer affordable.



					www.janes.com


----------



## Skysix

Maxman1 said:


> Even better would be to replace the Griffon with UH-1Ys and buy AH-1Z Vipers, which share 84% of components.


And it would remain in kreeping with buying American products made in Canada, contribute NORAD and NATO interoperability (USMC), require far less maintainer and pilot re training, and keep their (currently still operating) production lines open etc etc.

So obviously, it will never happen. It just makes too much sense.


----------



## KevinB

Skysix said:


> And it would remain in kreeping with buying American products made in Canada, contribute NORAD and NATO interoperability (USMC), require far less maintainer and pilot re training, and keep their (currently still operating) production lines open etc etc.
> 
> So obviously, it will never happen. It just makes too much sense.


@Kirkhill put this article elsewhere 





						Army Vertical Lift Key to Indo-Pacific Strategy
					

Army Vertical Lift Key to Indo-Pacific Strategy




					www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
				




But it does show why the Viper and Venom aren’t what one should be aspiring towards.


----------



## Good2Golf

Skysix said:


> And it would remain in kreeping with buying American products made in Canada, contribute NORAD and NATO interoperability (USMC), require far less maintainer and pilot re training, and keep their (currently still operating) production lines open etc etc.
> 
> So obviously, it will never happen. It just makes too much sense.


I’m sure that year 70-100 of the venerable Huey basic helicopter design with new *gadgets bolted to it would be fine…


----------



## Skysix

Kat Stevens said:


> No thanks, it looks like a flying hybrid Slap Chop and VegeMatic


Better than 2 palm trees  gangbanging a dumpster.


----------



## Good2Golf

Skysix said:


> Better than 2 palm trees  gangbanging a dumpster.


Haven’t heard that one in a while. 😆


----------

