# Should TAC HEL be the only thing In the CF Helio World



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2005)

On the subject of Tac Hel, I am wondering why we really call all our Helio resources Tac Hel?  If we had the money, we probably should divide our Helio resources into two; Transport and Tac Hel.   The Griffin is more of a Utility/Transport Helio than a Attack Helio.  If we really wanted a Tac Hel, shouldn't we have the equipment to do that job?  I talking Apache's, Kiowa's or some other Scout, and CH 53's.  Leave the Griffons and CH 47's to the Transport guys.

Just a few musings of a (Army) guy who would like to see us capable of at least having the lift to move a Bn or BG in one lift all at once, not several over a period of hours.


----------



## baboon6 (7 Sep 2005)

Well isn't there the plan for the CF to get about 20 Chinooks? Remember those will (if they ever arrive) be used in a tactical role too, bringing troops directly into action, bringing in supplies, arty etc wherever needed. To me they are "battlefield" helicopters (as opposed to naval or SAR) whether they are attack, scout or lift and should be under the same command and closely integrated, part of the same community. The only example I can think of where they aren't is in the UK where the Army Air Corps has the attack, scouts and light utility helos and the RAF has the medium/heavy lift (though they are now meant to be all part of a Joint Helicopter Command). This is an odd situation and has led to constant bickering over who is responsible for what. And why would a CH-53 be "tactical" and a CH-47 "transport"? (Not that anyone operates both). Unfortunately I think the best the CF can hope for is that the Chinooks are bought and that the remaining (upgraded to "UH-1Y" standard) Griffons can then be used mainly as light utility/scouts/light attack, or maybe some ARHs(the new type of Kiowa) can be bought.


----------



## Sf2 (7 Sep 2005)

I'm afraid you have your definitions wrong.

Tactical helicopters encompass everything from mobility, recce, aerial firepower....it says so in YOUR army doctrine.  Your proposal only addresses a small portion of the doctrinal tac hel community.  Just because the griffon does not have the present capability of throwing a TOW or Hellfire at an armoured vehicle, doen't not make it tactical.  As it stands now, TAC HEL isn't the only thing in your CF helio world, have you forgotten SAR?  Maritime Patrol?  Training?


----------



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2005)

Yes I did, only looking at the 'Ground' side.  However, I do see a distiction between Tac Hel and Tpt.   A whole different set of skill sets.  In My world, there is a distinction between Tankers and Recce, as there is also in the Infantry a distinction between Riflemen, Paras, Recce, Mortars, etc.  We have Armour types and Infantry types who have different skill sets to do their jobs.  So I look at the Army Helio world the same way....if you catch my drift.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Sep 2005)

George, according to our doctrine (B-GA-440 series of pubs and buried in some of the B-GL-300's), "Tactical Aviation" (a.k.a. Tac Hel) can operate four types of rotary aircraft: Transport, Attack, Utility and Recconaisance (a.k.a. Observation).  As well, there can be a subset of, or a more specific characterization of one of the basic four types...and sometimes the lines also get blurred a bit.  Eg: 

Transport: MTH - medium transport helicopter...what we called the CH147 Chinook; HTH - heavy tpt hel: MH-53E Super Stallion, Mi-26 Halo, etc...

Attack: AH - attack helicopter; Apache, Hind, Tiger (France, Germany), Lynx (often in the Anti-armour role but also direct action,) etc...

Utility: UTTH - utility and tactical transport helicopter; Blackhawk, Puma, Cougar, Hip, Griffon, etc...

Recce: RH/RAH/ARH/LOH/OH - many categories for these; Kiowa Warrior, Lynx, Tiger (note: an "ARH" in Australia, as opposed to an "AH" in France/Germany...same helo though)

There are also hybrids out there, most notably folks who are starting to add very respectable sensor packages and armament systems (Romanian's have a butt-kicking version of their Puma)...I think you will hear more mention made of ARUH-type helos... Armed, recconaisance/utility helicopters...like the USMC "Yankee Huey", designated UH-1Y, but doctrinally described by some as an ARUH, jack of all trades but not master of any in particular...    An armed Griffon with ERSTA pod and laser-guided CRV-7 rockets would also be considered an ARUH.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobs (8 Sep 2005)

Duey,

where'd the Griffon go in utility?  Hmm, seems kind of small.  Good one.  I catch'ya!! 

Throwing ERSTA, tow, etc onto one Griffon is not feasible, unless you want to fly for 10 minutes?  I'm sure you know that but I thought it necessary to point out to others.  Upgrading to the Yankee model would definitely help, but is not the only solution.  Perhaps a section of Griffons, with one equipped with ERSTA and the other armed with tow or rockets, etc?  Learned this on ATAC.  Remember, it's not the machine that's important but how you implement the mission (as long as you can accomplish the mission with what you have).

For others, armed is different than attack.  Armed typically refers to a utility a/c that has been armed with rockets, etc.  Attack is a helo that has been designed from the ground up for the combat role, such as the Apache, Tiger (saw it in France) (EH didn't let us get close though since they had just lost the MH contract, whiners!!!).

The CF is too small to split the role of Tac hel and so called "transport" helos.  The amount of additional pers that would be needed for this to happen would cause the AF to exceed its budget.  Besides, I think that Duey hit it on the head with his definitions.

I didn't know that the Brits separate their helos the way they do.  It is true, you do learn something new every day.

Scoobs out...


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Sep 2005)

Scoobs, if you do the numbers, and ERSTA equipped Griffon could carry 2-4 Hellfire type missiles or 15-30 CRV-7 type rockets still with 2 hours of fuel + reserves...especially if the ERSTA was fully integrated into the CH146 avionics and operated by the pilots (as I personally believe it should be).  We also looked at mutliple combinations of "sensor/shooter" configurations.  Before folks "go off" on me, this is exactly what the USMC does with the UH-1N in Iraq and Afghanistan TODAY, and the UH-1N has no greater performance than the CH146.  Since this class of machine is doing this today, I will pay no heed to those who say "it can't be done"...it can be done.

Interesting bit about helos and the CF.  Scoobs, you're right...no splitting up of types in the future.  If anything, we would look as a consolidation of helo forces, much like the Brits did with their helicopters in recent years with the establishment of JHC, Joint Helicopter Command.  1 Wing and 12 Wing already operate fundamentally similary in the "support to other arms" mode and there is a lot of similarity between the communities.

Cheers,
Duey


----------

