# Rumour regarding Medium Lift



## FSTO (12 Jul 2005)

Heard a rumour that since the Griffons seem to be incapable of handling the army requirements for medium lift in Afghanistan that the sea kings will be pressed into service in Afghanistan. Someone please tell me that this is wild conjecture and that there is no truth to it.

Thank-you


----------



## mcnutt_p (12 Jul 2005)

To the best of my knowledge Canada does not even have any aviation assest currently deployed in Afghanistan. Personally if the CF were to deploy helo's to Afghanistan, they would probably deploy the CH-146. Just imagine what would happen politically if a Sea King were to crash over there. 

If they have not destroyed or sold the CH-113's why not deploy them.  The USMC has had good success with the Sea Knights over there according to reports.


----------



## Slim (12 Jul 2005)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Heard a rumour that since the Griffons seem to be incapable of handling the army requirements for medium lift in Afghanistan that the sea kings will be pressed into service in Afghanistan. Someone please tell me that this is wild conjecture and that there is no truth to it.
> 
> Thank-you



No personal knowledge but highly unlikely as those things need so much support and can barely do the job they have now. Also there are not (to my knowledge) enough to go around as it is.

Slim


----------



## Inch (12 Jul 2005)

When a Sea King is at sea, the serviceability is great, there's 11 dedicated techs per aircraft and unless something major breaks (which can happen to any aircraft), you're flying your arse off.



			
				Slim said:
			
		

> Also there are not (to my knowledge) enough to go around as it is.



Slim, are you keeping tabs on the 12 Wing Flying Program? Knowing how army.ca has been used as a reference before, I'll keep the goings on to myself and those with access to the DWAN.

Oh and McNutt, the CH113s were about as serviceable as the Sea Kings, at least there's still qualified aircrew and techs for the Sea Kings.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Jul 2005)

I'll just throw this out there and then leave this topic to those who know:

The Brits (Royal Navy) have been using Sea Kings for transport in Bosnia for many years...  Of course, theirs are a tad newer than ours...

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2006.html


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I'll just throw this out there and then leave this topic to those who know:
> 
> The Brits (Royal Navy) have been using Sea Kings for transport in Bosnia for many years...   Of course, theirs are a tad newer than ours...
> 
> http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2006.html



The brit Sea King Mk4 is not an ASW version like our is.  Theirs is a troop transport.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Jul 2005)

Ahh yes, very true... They're Mk 4s...  I'll stop talking now... ;D


----------



## Sam69 (12 Jul 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The brit Sea King Mk4 is not an ASW version like our is.  Theirs is a troop transport.



True - but the Brits also recently took five surplus to need Mk6s (ASW) and converted them for troop transport to supplement the Junglies (Mk4). There is no good reason, in my mind, why we couldn't do the same with ours if an operational need were to be identified.

Sam


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Jul 2005)

Question from an Army guy, then:

Did our Sea Kings not provide over the beach support in Somalia?   I seem to vaguely remember pictures to that effect and remember (when I was in Halifax 1996/97) being asked to provide C-6s for door gun training...   If so, did we modify them?


----------



## Sam69 (12 Jul 2005)

The three Sea Kings that served in Somalia were lightly modified to optimize them for the logistics support role. The SONAR reeling machine was removed, an additional three troops seats were fitted (for a total of six), and a C-9 was mounted in the cargo door (which proved pretty much useless and was later replaced by the C-6). As well, two of the birds had FLIR installed for night recce.

As it was, the three SKs flew a variety of mission types in support of the CJTF but the most common was what would be termed (I believe) administrative logistic support. As the deployment stretched on, the ratio of recce missions increased as the amount of direct logistic support required from PRESERVER diminished and as the SK crews grew more proficient in the nighttime recce role. Several SKs were targeted by ground fire during operations over both Mogadishu and Kismayu but none were damaged.

PRESERVER and her three SKs left Somalia in Mar 03 after the 427 Sqn Twin Hueys became operational in Belet Huen and took over the mission to provide support to the Army ashore.

Sam


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jul 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> True - but the Brits also recently took five surplus to need Mk6s (ASW) and converted them for troop transport to supplement the Junglies (Mk4). There is no good reason, in my mind, why we couldn't do the same with ours if an operational need were to be identified.
> 
> Sam



True.  But why not get a purpose-built machine ? Or Should we recycle the CH-124 into the tac hel role after the new CH-148 reaches operational status ?


----------



## mcnutt_p (12 Jul 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> The three Sea Kings that served in Somalia were lightly modified to optimize them for the logistics support role. *The SONAR reeling machine was removed, an additional three troops seats were fitted (for a total of six), and a C-9 was mounted in the cargo door (which proved pretty much useless and was later replaced by the C-6)*. As well, two of the birds had FLIR installed for night recce.
> 
> Sam



If Canada were to send helo's to Afghanistan, the chopper they should send should be the CH-146.

If the goverment decides to send any CH-146 would they need any modificatons other then the C6 mounted to them?


----------



## Sam69 (12 Jul 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> True.  But why not get a purpose-built machine ? Or Should we recycle the CH-124 into the tac hel role after the new CH-148 reaches operational status ?



Good questions. I have no specific answers.

The TALC project will procure a medium-heavy lift helicopter as announced in the DPS. That is pretty much a given (barring a change of gov't and a new policy statement). I suppose the question is: what do you do in the interim?

Sam


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Jul 2005)

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> If Canada were to send helo's to Afghanistan, the chopper they should send should be the CH-146.
> 
> If the goverment decides to send any CH-146 would they need any modificatons other then the C6 mounted to them?



Why do you say this?  AFAIK (based on experience with 427 Sqn in Bosnia), a Griffon isn't much use in a troop-carrying role with door guns and the armour kit, especially in the heat and altitude of Kandahar...

Sam, thanks for the info...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## mcnutt_p (12 Jul 2005)

What is the number of troops the Griffon can carry with the add on armour and the door guns? Is it more the the Sea King?

The reason I said use the Griffons is because of what I have read about the with SFOR and KFOR.


----------



## Slim (13 Jul 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> Slim, are you keeping tabs on the 12 Wing Flying Program? Knowing how army.ca has been used as a reference before, I'll keep the goings on to myself and those with access to the DWAN.



No...Just talking out of my lane. I'll stop now.

Good info on this thread guys. 

Lets remember OPSEC though.

Cheers

Slim
)Moving back to the slow lane now ;D )


----------



## Inch (13 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> No...Just talking out of my lane. I'll stop now.
> 
> Good info on this thread guys.
> 
> ...



Ha! I didn't mean it that way, I was just marvelling at how close to the mark you were with your availability comment. It's almost as if you were watching the 12 Wing Flying Program and saw me get cancelled for my check ride for the 3rd time.



			
				mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> What is the number of troops the Griffon can carry with the add on armour and the door guns? Is it more the the Sea King?
> 
> The reason I said use the Griffons is because of what I have read about the with SFOR and KFOR.



The Sea King has a max Take off weight of 20,500 lbs, the Griffon is under 12,000 lbs. If you were to strip out the Sonar reeling machine or just take one of the CH124Bs that already have the sonar reeling machine removed, plus remove a few other things that aren't needed for overland operations you could get the empty weight down to around 14,500 lbs or less, add in 3 crew members, a C6, and a self defense suite and you're looking at around 15,300ish lbs for an operating weight. If you were to only take 3000lbs of fuel (the Griffon carries max 2200lbs I believe) that would leave you with 2200lbs of payload, or about 8 crunchies weighing in at 275 lbs each. Take only 2000 lbs of fuel and you could get a whole section with all their kit in the aircraft providing enough seats were installed or it could sling 3200 lbs of cargo. The Griffon cannot do this, I know it. I don't have the exact numbers, any Griffon drivers care to comment?

Now, I don't have my check list on me right now, but the air density will play a factor in this too, but IMO, the Sea King will still be able to lift more men and equipment than a Griffon in similar atmospheric conditions.


----------



## childs56 (13 Jul 2005)

Ahh the Sea King. Great helo. I would figure they will send them in to get rid of mission essiental equipment and also replace some components that may be prone to failure. Big plans i guess for the boys deployed in the Sea King world. I mean give up your comfy ship for a tent or a trailer. Oh well ehh no life like it. Actually if they do send Sea Kings that is where i would want to go. A great Helo with much more ability then we use them for. Some one is thinking and trying to use our resources to its fullest. Good on them.  Cheers


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

Waaay out of my lane now, but if memory serves, Griffons - with armour and door guns - were lifting (on average) 4 pax in Bosnia.  That's with all their fighting order, weapons, etc...  Lots of lifts to get even a platoon moved.


----------



## Slim (13 Jul 2005)

> Ha! I didn't mean it that way, I was just marvelling at how close to the mark you were with your availability comment. It's almost as if you were watching the 12 Wing Flying Program and saw me get cancelled for my check ride for the 3rd time.



I have a cousin who is a Griffon driver in Edmonton right now...he and I chat now and then and he has given me some of the numbers and what not...Also the navy guys talk occasionally about how they don't always have a helo to go with a deployed ship.

Just adding up the numbers.

Cheers 

Slim


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Waaay out of my lane now, but if memory serves, Griffons - with armour and door guns - were lifting (on average) 4 pax in Bosnia.   That's with all their fighting order, weapons, etc...   Lots of lifts to get even a platoon moved.



TR, I'll join you out here . Given your statement and the air density in Afghanistan, especially around Kabul and the other mountain areas, I'd say they'd be hard pressed to even get airborne, even with four guys. Just a guess on my part. Maybe some of the rotorheads can clear it up for us.


----------



## mcnutt_p (13 Jul 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> TR, I'll join you out here ._ Given your statement and the air density in Afghanistan, especially around Kabul and the other mountain areas, I'd say they'd be hard pressed to even get airborne, even with four guys._



I remember seeing on the History Channel that the Russians were operating Hinds around Kabul during their war there. They were operating these Hinds fully loaded and with an infantry section. Doesn't the Hind weight more than the Griffon?

McNutt


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jul 2005)

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> I remember seeing on the History Channel that the Russians were operating Hinds around Kabul during their war there. They were operating these Hinds fully loaded and with an infantry section. Doesn't the Hind weight more than the Griffon?
> 
> McNutt



And how much power do the Mi-24's engines provide compared to the CH-146 ?   Have you considered power-to-weight ratios in making your statement ?   Do you know anything about flying ?

EDIT:

Just because you are going to ask

Bell 412 ( aka CH-146)  max T/O weight 11 600 lbs, 1800 shp P&W turbo twin pac

Mi-24 Hind "A" ( from jane's) max T/O weoght 24 251 lbs, two 2225 shp TV3-117 turboshafts


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> I remember seeing on the History Channel that the Russians were operating Hinds around Kabul during their war there. They were operating these Hinds fully loaded and with an infantry section. Doesn't the Hind weight more than the Griffon?
> 
> McNutt



I've made many flights around Kabul/Bagram in Blackhawks, both Turkish and American...no comparison capability-wise with a Griffon as aesop081 points out.  Both the Blackhawk and the Hind are much more _powerful_ aircraft.


----------



## mcnutt_p (13 Jul 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Do you know anything about flying ?



Know I do not know anything about flying except are passing over a wing creates lift.

McNutt


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jul 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> And how much power do the Mi-24's engines provide compared to the CH-146 ?   Have you considered power-to-weight ratios in making your statement ?   Do you know anything about flying ?



Where is the air intake located on the Mi-24? IIRC, the exhaust air signature was the Mi-24's downfall in A'Stan?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jul 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Where is the air intake located on the Mi-24? IIRC, the exhaust air signature was the Mi-24's downfall in A'Stan?



 the air intake for the engines on all Mi-24 models are located above and behind the cockpit.  The engine exausts are locate about at the middle of the main fuselage at the top


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

Hey, us Army guys still need sorting out!  ;D

We're after an educated estimate of a Griffon's troop carrying ability in Kandahar, bearing in mind that we're already looking at daytime highs of around 45 degrees (C) and altitudes of 1500+ metres (more on operations)...  Given the theatre, the aircraft would mount armour and door guns...


----------



## Sf2 (14 Jul 2005)

I'll chime in here as the Griffon SME.  It all depends on how far you have to go, where, and how hot it is.

Here in Canada, we can take 12 troops for a short distance if we wanted to.   Standard fuel of 2 1/2 hrs.....8 guys with kit.  In the mountains at 44 celcius, probably not too many guys, 4-6 maybe, with less fuel, 1 hour worth at the most.

Door guns don't add much weight, but the armour does, especially the floor panels for the aft cabin.  Another issue isn't just power, its tail rotor effectiveness/authority.  Even the blackhawks and jolly greens are having problems over there, running out of left pedal (tail rotor auth to the non flyers).  That's why the chinooks are being used so extensively over there.

Griffon max gross is 11,900.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jul 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> Griffon max gross is 11,900.



Yeah...i figured that the publication i was using was a little off.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (14 Jul 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> I'll chime in here as the Griffon SME.   It all depends on how far you have to go, where, and how hot it is.
> 
> Here in Canada, we can take 12 troops for a short distance if we wanted to.     Standard fuel of 2 1/2 hrs.....8 guys with kit.   In the mountains at 44 celcius, probably not too many guys, 4-6 maybe, with less fuel, 1 hour worth at the most.



Sounds like I wasn't far off...  Throw in support weapons, ammo, rations (if reqr), water, etc. and I don't think we'll be conducting many air assaults from Griffons in Kandahar.  Explains a few things, including the reasoning behind this "rumour" about Sea Kings.

Having said this, Griffons as a liaison or observation platform would obviously be very valuable.

Thanks for the info...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## JackD (18 Jul 2005)

Hello! Not being a helicopter pilot or such - nor even a current member of the armed forces but having flown in the Iroquois, Kiowa and the Chinook and later the Hughes product ( as a geologist), I still have an interest in the beasts - and indeed the Canadian Armed Forces. I was reading the Flight International website today and they made mention of Chinook D's being transferred to Indonesia. If that can be done so rapidly, why can't the Canadian government work so fast and sign up for this program - a simple transfer. I note also that the first of Australia's "tiger" armed scout helicopters was delivered - how long was that program from start to finish - 5 years? It seems the problem is the Ottawa mentality - and by that I don't just mean the Liberal government, but the bureaucratic mind-set. So what would you better informed members of this web-community suggest for medium lift, light and for scout duties - and in what numbers?

http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/07/19/Navigation/197/200350/Heavylift+mission+surge+may+lead+to+Chinook+growth+and.html

http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/07/19/Navigation/197/200348/First+local+Tiger+roars+into+Australian+Army+service.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Jul 2005)

Just a thought, but would it not make sense to hand over the Griffons en masse to domestic security agencies as part of the justification to obtain proper medium lift helicopter?

Specifically, give a majority to whatever agency is doing border patrol/surveillance these days, and the remainder to local first responder units to be used for Emergency Response as part of a larger initiative to improve our Homeland Security readiness?

Additional thought:  Have one (or two) on standby in each of the major cities with 10 pre-filled buckets of anti-radiation treatment (similar to a firefighting bucket) to be distributed over any urban area where a radiological has been detonated.  It would seem extremely prudent in that after-the-fact, if unprepared you'd be screwed whilst having this capability might in fact deter Al-Qaeda/Al-Qaeda affiliates from attempting such an attack here....



Matthew.   ???


----------



## KevinB (18 Jul 2005)

IIRC the guestimate by a 408 jockey was 500lbs of useful cargo in a Grif in Afghan - with doorguns and armour at that Alt.

 So two troops with some kit.

Or One troop with his full kit.  I think it has a ZERO CSAR capacity in that role.


I made a joke about 408 doing Combat resupply in K'har in another thread -- the Loadie tosses you a 10rd stripper clip and says more on the next lift...

Better off sponging -60 rides from the yanks...


----------



## Slim (18 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> IIRC the guestimate by a 408 jockey was 500lbs of useful cargo in a Grif in Afghan - with doorguns and armour at that Alt.
> 
> Better off sponging -60 rides from the yanks...



Is there any reason (other than political of course) why we can't pick up some UH-60's ourselves? Pardon me if its already been explained elsewhere.

Slim


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Is there any reason (other than political of course) why we can't pick up some UH-60's ourselves? Pardon me if its already been explained elsewhere.
> 
> Slim



Ask yourself where the Blackhawks are manufactured ( or aren't) and it'll come to you  ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Jul 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Ask yourself where the Blackhawks are manufactured ( or aren't) and it'll come to you   ;D



Quebec?  What do I win?



Matthew.   ;D


----------



## Slim (18 Jul 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Ask yourself where the Blackhawks are manufactured ( or aren't) and it'll come to you   ;D



(thinks hard...lots of smoke)...Hmmm...Its just not coming to me at all. ???... ;D

You would think that in this time of need they coujld just put the foolishness on the shelf and rent or buy some off the shelf stuff with a good availability of parts...Is that the only reason?

Anyone else?


----------



## Sf2 (18 Jul 2005)

ChinookD is too old.....G model is where its at.

It would be silly to give away all the Griffons in favor of the med/heavy lift chopper.  The Griffon is very good at domestic ops, as well as overseas logistical/C&L type stuff - low noise signature (for a helicopter), fits into smaller confined areas, relatively cheap to operate and fly.

The Griffon should definately be kept to compliment the upcoming helo project.....


----------



## Sam69 (18 Jul 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> The Griffon should definately be kept to compliment the upcoming helo project.....



"Wow, that's one hell of a project charter you have there. Have you lost weight? You are one good looking project!!"


 >
Sorry... couldn't hold it in!

Sam


----------



## KevinB (19 Jul 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> "Wow, that's one hell of a project charter you have there. Have you lost weight? You are one good looking project!!"
> 
> 
> >
> ...



 ;D  ;D  ;D


----------



## Allen (19 Jul 2005)

Back to the topic about the "rumour" regarding the Sea Kings....this may be a possibility, according to the article below:

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=342719a6-2e8b-4690-8b5e-8b9548d3850d


----------



## Slim (19 Jul 2005)

Lets wait and see if General Hillier has anything to say about it?

Using the Seathings over there would be a nightmare for anyone accociated with the whole project. I hope someone sees sence and goes looking for the right kind of chopper before this nonesence actually takes on any kind of a life of its own!

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jul 2005)

Well, if there is a plan to send the machines over there, the techs will do whatever it takes to make it happen, as will the crews and ground pers. They always do.

I guess the CF has to use the assets they have to the best of their ability. LOL- Is there an air drop torpedo in inventory that can take out a bunker?? 

Best of luck to those who might have to go.


----------



## Sam69 (20 Jul 2005)

To my mind, concepts like the one discussed here go to the very heart of what true transformation is all about. Transformation is, at its very heart, all about changing the way we see the world, its challenges, and our way of approaching those problems. Taking existing equipment, people, and doctrine and changing the way we employ them by changing the way we think about their capabilities is a very powerful transformative approach. 

Fundamentally, we need to reconsider how we are using our people and equipment to ensure that we are using them to the greatest advantage of the people of Canada. In this specific case it raises the questions about whether it is more important to maintain a capability to maybe someday hunt submarines or contribute to the very real tasks and responsibilities associated with nation building in Afghanistan. The question then becomes: what is the impact to the relevance to the Sea King community of not transforming to be useful to the current challenges and missions?

As well, when considering an issue like employing the Sea King in a non-traditional role, our analysis cannot simply consider the platform under discussion. Wemust also consider the risks to the mission and the personnel in the PRT of NOT having the capability within the force structure. How great is the risk to soldiers who must spend more time moving by vehicle because air transport is not available? How great is the risk to a patrol when they don't have the support of a QRF because it can't get to them in time? What happens to a casualty's chances of survival when an air CASEVAC is not available and the time required to get them to a medical facility goes up exponentially?

Lastly, I will say that I believe in the men and women who fly and maintain the Sea King helicopter fleet. If such a mission were proposed to them, I have no doubt that they would execute it with professionalism and vigour. The Sea King is a robust "pick-up" truck flown and maintained by some of the best professionals in the world. I will value their counsel over that of Senator Forrestall.

Sam


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jul 2005)

FULLY SUPPORT what Sam has said!  SK folks have done wonders with their lot in life.  I would be glad honoured to assist such a capability as part of any Tac Avn contribution (HQ/Comd/MTH TTPs, old t-shirts, etc...) to assist my MH brethren if they we sent to support the guys and gals in the PRT. 

...hmmmm...I have to wonder; however, if the gov't is really looking to make this particular option work, or is this one of the opening moves in a long chess game? ???

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081 (20 Jul 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> or is this one of the opening moves in a long chess game? ???
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



Don't be surprised if you see the MH and MP sqn designators dissapear over the next few years.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jul 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Don't be surprised if you see the MH and MP sqn designators dissapear over the next few years.



Actually, aesop, I was thinking more along the lines of what to folks higher up the food chain want to see in theatre...is it any MTH cap ASAP (for which the SK most definitely qualifies) or is it actually something else and there's a little bit of...how shall we say/comment ça veut dire...."trial balloonage"?  ???

Keep a xlose eye on the "Letters to Editor" of the major papers and see where the Dept. goes from there..... [sinister mystery music in background]

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081 (20 Jul 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Actually, aesop, I was thinking more along the lines of what to folks higher up the food chain want to see in theatre...is it any MTH cap ASAP (for which the SK most definitely qualifies) or is it actually something else and there's a little bit of...how shall we say/comment ça veut dire...."trial balloonage"?   ???
> 
> Keep a xlose eye on the "Letters to Editor" of the major papers and see where the Dept. goes from there..... [sinister mystery music in background]
> 
> ...



Gotcha......I was making my comment as the words " overland ops" is now part of the aurora vocabulary


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Jul 2005)

Is it just me, or is anyone else annoyed that Senator Forrestal saw fit to comment on what is a purely military _operational_ decision (to deploy or not to deploy the SK), even before that decision was made?

I have a towering rant in mind, but will check fire...!


----------



## ch124xx (20 Jul 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> The three Sea Kings that served in Somalia were lightly modified to optimize them for the logistics support role. The SONAR reeling machine was removed, an additional three troops seats were fitted (for a total of six), and a C-9 was mounted in the cargo door (which proved pretty much useless and was later replaced by the C-6). As well, two of the birds had FLIR installed for night recce.
> 
> As it was, the three SKs flew a variety of mission types in support of the CJTF but the most common was what would be termed (I believe) administrative logistic support. As the deployment stretched on, the ratio of recce missions increased as the amount of direct logistic support required from PRESERVER diminished and as the SK crews grew more proficient in the nighttime recce role. Several SKs were targeted by ground fire during operations over both Mogadishu and Kismayu but none were damaged.
> 
> ...



Sam I am Sam I am ... you seem very knowledgeable about helos in cam ... were you in Somalia by chance ..

X


----------



## ch124xx (20 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or is anyone else annoyed that Senator Forrestal saw fit to comment on what is a purely military _operational_ decision (to deploy or not to deploy the SK), even before that decision was made?
> 
> I have a towering rant in mind, but will check fire...!



My vote is on Sam69 sending an e-mail to Senator Forrestal pointing out his comments are "absurd" and that his comments also then suggest that the Brits are "absurd" for using the Mk4's in a wide variety of operational theatres for the last 20 years or so ...

X


----------



## Sam69 (21 Jul 2005)

ch124xx said:
			
		

> Sam I am Sam I am ... you seem very knowledgeable about helos in cam ... were you in Somalia by chance ..
> X



You show me yours and I'll show you mine!!  ;D

Sam


----------



## jmacleod (23 Jul 2005)

Medium lift helicopter aircraft could be leased from Canadian operators like Canadian Helicopter
Corporation (CHC) of NF and BC (plus worldwide) and or Kelowna Flightcraft, BC, plus (probably)
Skylink, Toronto. The all white Russian helicopters flying for the UN in Bosnia, for instance were
leased from CHC UK. Craig Dobbin's CHC is the largest operator of rotary wing commercial aircraft
in the world - bought some UT Sikorsky S-92's last year. But the CF "Sea King" is just not up to
Afghanistan, despite the great quality of the aircraft, and the CF maintenance which has kept in
going. Most of the RN "Sea Kings" are much newer that the CF 1963 models, because Westlands
Yeoville UK kept the aircraft in production (OEM's) for many years, right up to the late 'seventies
as I recall. The defining fact in all these posts however remains; the CF are underequipped because
of political decisions, and an apathetic public. MacLeod


----------



## Slim (25 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Medium lift helicopter aircraft could be leased from Canadian operators like Canadian Helicopter
> Corporation (CHC) of NF and BC (plus worldwide) and or Kelowna Flightcraft, BC, plus (probably)
> Skylink, Toronto.



For the most part civilian pilots tend to get upset when people start shooting at them. Their preformance cannot be garunteed in a combat situation.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> For the most part civilian pilots tend to get upset when people start shooting at them. Their preformance cannot be garunteed in a combat situation.



Sure it can  

Fly the OTHER way...


----------



## baboon6 (25 Jul 2005)

Wouldn't buying more CH-149/EH101s make sense?


----------



## mover1 (25 Jul 2005)

We cant seem to get the ones we own flying on a regular baisis due to some manufacturing deficts. And the maintenece for them is all civillian.
Besides
Thats all we need is something we bought for SAR used as a combat helo and having the tail rotor fall of.


----------



## baboon6 (25 Jul 2005)

Well then the only way to go (and this has been discussed to death in other threads) for the CF would be the Chinook... again.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Jul 2005)

There is a medium lift version of the EH-101, so it shouldn't be discarded out of hand.

However, buying the Chinook makes sense for all sorts of reasons - operational commonality with the US and UK not being the least of them.  I agree that getting rid of ours was a mistake (and a decision that I still don't understand).  However, they'd be getting long in the tooth themselves by now and in need of replacement.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Jul 2005)

Would not getting more Cyclones be a better option? That way we could get more medium lift platforms instead of fewer?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Jul 2005)

Hmmm...  I know very little about the Cyclone, but if we are to embark "army" (yes, I use that term loosely   ) helicopters it would make sense; a ship-borne variant and a lift/ground support variant.  As was pointed out earlier in this thread, that's what the Brits have done with their Sea Kings.  Worth considering.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Jul 2005)

Cyclone (or equiv) may or may not work...folks will be evaluating its suitability to provide the required capability.

One must be mindful of the compromises that might have to be made if Cyclone were used to provide a medium lift capability.  As I have mentioned before, many folks appear to be getting focused on the "marinization" factor when the SCTF is being transported on the ship(s).  Let's not forget that these aircraft will also have a job to do, and a not insignificant one at that, once they make landfall and must support deployed troops in some challenging environmental conditions.  

Anyone know off hand how much an M777 155mm LWFH, limber, and gun crew weighs?


Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Sam69 (29 Jul 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Anyone know off hand how much an M777 155mm LWFH, limber, and gun crew weighs?



The gun itself (complete minus crew) is 3,745 KGs.  

Incidentally, the max external load for the H-92 Superhawk is 4,535 KGs; so it clearly has the capacity to lift this load plus crew. Is this the pacing requirement for TALC? 


Sam


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Jul 2005)

Rounds and something to pull it with might be useful as well.


----------



## Sam69 (29 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> (In reference to the CH-149
> 
> We cant seem to get the ones we own flying on a regular baisis due to some manufacturing deficts. And the maintenece for them is all civillian.
> Besides
> Thats all we need is something we bought for SAR used as a combat helo and having the tail rotor fall of.



It is not at all uncommon for new aircraft to have teething pains. We should be careful not to blindly judge the utility of the EH-101/CH-149 by its early problems. Let's not forget what happened to our first Chinook as it was being delivered.... (crashed on its delivery flight resulting in 5 deaths).

It may seem from my comments in this thread that I have a preference of aircraft for the Medium Lift Helo project (TALC). I don't. I just don't like seeing a whole bunch of interesting options dismissed out of hand based on a bunch of half-truths, anecdotal evidence, and personal opinions when the capability requirement for the new helo has not even been drafted yet.

And if you really want heavy lift in an already marinized package, why not consider:







Carries up to 55 troops, and just about anything else that a helo could possibly carry:






Can even refuel while carrying tons of stuff:






Already used in Afghanistan:






Comes fully booted and spurred:






So, let's just keep our minds open... ok?


Sam


----------



## Sf2 (30 Jul 2005)

we all know they're situating the estimate around the Chinook......

Wait for it.....G models all around.......


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Jul 2005)

Don't get me wrong, folks... I'd fly the 53E as well, it has a boom and 35,000lbs on the hook is absolutely amazing!

Having worked with in the past and recently chatted with -53 drivers from 16 SOS in Hurlburt, though...I want to see some beefing of the tailrotor assy/capability since the 'Stallion weak chink in its armour is its susceptibility to moderate LTE at high DA's.

Sam, I had heard there was very slim picking on any excess/avail 53's...Conneticut isn't quite pumping beasties out of their plant like the boys over in Philly.  Mind you, I'm open to any (truly) BHH...none of this poofter S92 or EH101 fluff.  Sam, you could make a Sikorsky guy out of me yet, brother!  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## ArmyAviator (12 Aug 2005)

Floor armour in a Griffon.......colour it gone.  It is 600 lbs (somebody correct the weight for me: it has been a few years since I've flown with it) of useless weight.  Not that I am not concerned about the FE's and soldiers in the back, but it isn't going to do jacks^&* to protect you.  Take a look and the pictures of the helicopter shot up by small arms in Iraq.  There are a f*(&$ of a lot of holes through the sides and very few in the bottom.  From personal experience in Kosovo I can say that, while we never actually got hit, all the shots taken at us would have come in the front or sides.  

Anyways, that's my 2 cents worth of rant.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Aug 2005)

ArmyAviator said:
			
		

> Floor armour in a Griffon.......colour it gone.   It is 600 lbs (somebody correct the weight for me: it has been a few years since I've flown with it) of useless weight.   Not that I am not concerned about the FE's and soldiers in the back, but it isn't going to do jacks^&* to protect you.   Take a look and the pictures of the helicopter shot up by small arms in Iraq.   There are a f*(&$ of a lot of holes through the sides and very few in the bottom.   From personal experience in Kosovo I can say that, while we never actually got hit, all the shots taken at us would have come in the front or sides.
> 
> Anyways, that's my 2 cents worth of rant.



AA, yup, last thing I tried to get before moving on from the A7 Reqr/Eqpt slot was some ballistic lbanketing for the cabin and forward doors, from floor level up to the bottom of the windows...unfortunately the folks who made the stuff in Isreal weren't quite as tolerant of governmental time crunching and PWGSC inertia and moved on to other customers willing to provide cash in addition to all the nice talk and questions...    Perhaps we can keep looking at it...

Cheers,
Duey


----------

