# Hillier nixed Air Force 2005 plans for Hornets, Griffons in Afstan



## MarkOttawa (6 Jan 2008)

What to make of this story by Murray Brewster of CP?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080106.wafghancraft0106/BNStory/Afghanistan/home



> The Canadian military initially planned for a much wider involvement in the Afghan war than what it delivered in Kandahar, newly released documents show.
> 
> As a battle group of 2,200 soldiers was preparing to face the Taliban two years ago, the air force drew up plans in late 2005 to deploy eight CH-146 Griffon helicopters, specially modified as attack aircraft, and a fleet of CF-18 fighter-bombers.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Jan 2008)

How can you argue with the CDS ?


----------



## scotty884 (6 Jan 2008)

LOL dont have to argue, the Griffon suck, point taken and noted LONG TIME AGO lol


----------



## Armymedic (6 Jan 2008)

The were going to sent the Griffons over as attack choppers, not troop carriers. I am not a roto head type, so for those that are here:

How would that have been a good idea?


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jan 2008)

Scotty884 said:
			
		

> LOL dont have to argue, the Griffon suck, point taken and noted LONG TIME AGO lol



People who don't know what they're talking about also suck.  :

G2G


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Jan 2008)

I long ago figured out that everyone sucked but me  ;D

On a serious note, I can from a ground stand point see why CF-18's could be used heck we loved our CAS over there and to know that it could be Canadian pilots dropping those bombs well thats just an added bonus. As for the CH-146 It's not a bad platform for what is does I just don't see it in the context of a Multinational coalition which from what I can see needs more heavy/medium troop lift then it does anything else.

I accept though that I am an outsider looking in and I could very well be way ff base ref my comments about the CH-146


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Jan 2008)

What most civies do not understand is that we draw up contingency plans all the time and 90% of them are never used. The CDS reviewed his options and took the ones that he thought were best. I think he made some pretty good choices myself and considering that the government is making us fund this operation out of our operating budgets there is also a matter of cost. The cost to maintain CF 18s in theatre would be enormous and what is the point when the Dutch, French, US and Brits have the assets in place to do CAS?


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jan 2008)

I'm not in favour of Canada sending CAS unless the army is specifically requesting it. 

Although I do not doubt for one instant the competence of our air force pilots, I couldn't think of a worse public relations disaster for the Canadian Forces than a CF-18 bombing and strafing the wrong target- wedding, school, allied troops, our own people  -- take your pick.  Just my 0.02.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Jan 2008)

Personal opinion says it would be great to see our Air Force take on an offensive role with the Griffons and CF-18's, as the priority would go to our grounds forces when called for.

Like mentioned above I wonder about the cost for maintaining even a small contingent over there and if it's really required with all the other multi-national partners.  I also have questions about the ability for the Griffon to operate at such high altitudes, as the amount of munitions they could handle would be limited.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2008)

Psst

Are apologies to the Zoomie community in order yet?   Griffons have their defenders on this site but those poor fighter jocks seem to be without adequate support.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jan 2008)

"As the military variant of the civilian Bell 412, the Griffon has the capacity to carry 12 soldiers in full combat gear, or six stretchers."

Sure it does...

If "full combat gear" is for a bar brawl. Just because one can put twelve seats into it (in addition to the two pilots' seats and FE's seat) doesn't mean that one can lift that much weight off of the ground with a useful fuel load either.

"Six stretchers" can indeed be installed, if having the FE trapped in the middle between them where he/she cannot look out of the door and a complete absence of a med tech are acceptable.

And there is nothing that can turn a Griffon into an "attack helicopter" short of pushing it through a shredder and recycling the materials into an AH1Z or AH64. A bolt-on minigun makes it an ARMED helicopter, not an ATTACK helicopter.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jan 2008)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I couldn't think of a worse public relations disaster for the Canadian Forces than a CF-18 bombing and strafing the wrong target- wedding, school, allied troops, our own people  -- take your pick.



And what if an M777 or Leopard round goes astray? Anybody can screw up, and the slight potential of that happening is not a rational decision-making factor.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jan 2008)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> the priority would go to our grounds forces when called for.



Not necessarily, especially for the CF18s.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2008)

Loachman,

You beat me to it. 

"Fast air" goes into a big pot and is allocated by the air commander according to the priority of tasks, not the nationality of the troops requesting the support. The phrase "priority of tasks" or whatever words are in use at the time can convey different things to different people. The mysteries of air tasking have always baffled me and are so far outside my lane, I ain't going there. It also has been a highly emotional subject since the Second World War and one that has led to more than its fair share of animosity between the army and the air force.

To suggest that Canadian aircraft would support Canadian troops as a matter of priority is just plain wrong, in more than one way.


----------



## Furniture (7 Jan 2008)

> And what if an M777 or Leopard round goes astray? Anybody can screw up, and the slight potential of that happening is not a rational decision-making factor.



I'm sure you have some idea about the loops one has to jump through to shoot one of those M777s.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jan 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> To suggest that Canadian aircraft would support Canadian troops as a matter of priority is just plain wrong, in more than one way.



To suggest that they wouldn't is just plain wrong, in more than one way.


In a nutshell, that's why the US Army has attack helicopters... so they own their own air assets and aren't reliant on the USAF.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2008)

Other practical matters intrude as well: KAF is already one of the busiest airports on Earth, sharing fixed wing, rotary wing, transport, attack and even civil aviation 24/7. Where would we be putting the extra airpower, flight crews and support staff? I don't think anyone was suggesting they fly in from somewhere else to perform missions.

As was said earlier, this was one of many contingency plans prepared and evaluated. I'm sure the ever intrepid MSM will eventually discover other plans and be prepared to use speculation about the plan itself or lack of implementation to support some sort of position, without ever considering the other factors which resulted in the contingency plan being shelved. BTW, I'm sure it never occurred to the intrepid reporter that the plan is probably still "warm" in case conditions change and the benefits do outweigh the costs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "As the military variant of the civilian Bell 412, the Griffon has the capacity to carry 12 soldiers in full combat gear, or six stretchers."
> 
> Sure it does...
> 
> ...



It's a Canadian Attack Helicopter, it will just drop strongly worded letters, threatening to drop even more strongly worded letter, failing which it will be used to threaten the Taliban with a Royal Commission.  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To suggest that they wouldn't is just plain wrong, in more than one way.



Its all about whos available. If the Brits are on alert for CAS with the harriers they will be the ones responding. CAS aircraft wont be dealyed because its Canadian troops in contact and we want Canadian fighters to respond. If Canadian fighters were responding to a CAS requirement somewhere else in the country and Canadian tropps required CAS in Kandahar, our fighters wouldnt drop whatever they are doing to go help Canadians. Someone else would be launched and they might no be Canadian. Its whoever is airborne, on alert , *whatever the ATO says*.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2008)

Cdn Aviatior

Good reply. The key is that air power is centrally controlled by the air commander, not by a general. 

I think, however, one could read Dataperson's response in more than one way.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jan 2008)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I'm sure you have some idea about the loops one has to jump through to shoot one of those M777s.


"G11 this is 12, fire mission, over"


Something like that?


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2008)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I'm sure you have some idea about the loops one has to jump through to shoot one of those M777s.



You mean theres no hoops to jump through in order to drop a 1000lbs JDAM ?

You should see the hoops we have to jump through to put a Mk46 torp in the water......


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (7 Jan 2008)

Just a reminder that we could stray into OPSEC matters by getting too much into how fires are cleared.  I think that we can accept that all fires have some clearance involved and that there are consequences on both ends (some more immediate than others).  I can't tell which posts are being sarcastic, condescending or otherwise.

On a ligher note, I figure that the next article will be about how Gen Hillier nixed the Navy's plans for Afghanistan in 2005.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jan 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I can't tell which posts are being sarcastic, condescending or otherwise.


Ah, come on!  Even the Space Station could see my sarcasms! 



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> On a ligher note, I figure that the next article will be about how Gen Hillier nixed the Navy's plans for Afghanistan in 2005.


:rofl:
Well, our subs are in drydock: they would fit right in!

Put them at the front gate at KAF!
EDIT: Only if they can get clearance to fire off one of them torpedoes!   >


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2008)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I'm sure you have some idea about the loops one has to jump through to shoot one of those M777s.



I heard he nixed it when he found out the BHS couldn't sail up the Arghandab River....


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jan 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Cdn Aviatior
> 
> Good reply. The key is that air power is centrally controlled by the air commander, not by a general.
> 
> I think, however, one could read Dataperson's response in more than one way.



Close air support, to be useful, needs to be low, slow and on station.  Fast air at 30 000' (with 500lb bombs or PGMs) fails on all three counts.  The F22 and F35 were not designed to offer any of those three elements, and the F-15s,-16s and -18s that perform that task today  do it largely as an afterthought - so the key close air support airframe right now is still the 35 year old A-10.  To my knowledge (and I'd love to be proven wrong) there is no program in place to design a comparable aircraft to replace the A-10 at the end of its service life in 2028 (Freedom 55, I guess...).

The Key West agreement precludes the US Army from buying their own jets.  They are either reliant on the USAF to provide what they will, or must spend a great deal of money on helicopters to provide support that the air-superiority mafia view as beneath them (pardon the pun).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Ah, come on!  Even the Space Station could see my sarcasms!
> :rofl:
> Well, our subs are in drydock: they would fit right in!
> 
> ...



We are having problems installing the new anti grav drives.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Jan 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And what if an M777 or Leopard round goes astray? Anybody can screw up, and the slight potential of that happening is not a rational decision-making factor.


The point I am trying to make is that unless a fire mission for some reason pounds a refugee camp or orphange, the optics and spin in the public relations world will not even be in the same dimension when comparing an errant artillery fire mission to a  CF-18 on a bomb run causing the same damage. 

It's got nothing to do with the "slight potential", everybody accepts there are going to be some unfortunate stray rounds here and there which will at some time produce miserable results. But we also know that our fickle, second guessing MSM's ability to stir up phantom crap in what appears to be be a war of gaining unpopularity at home will defeat this mission long before the fight is good and over. 

IMO it would be a rather large assumption that political-optical considerations do not weigh heavily in the decisions over which weapons are deployed.   There appears to be very little that is rationale about the way the Canadian military forces have been deployed in Afghanistan- political, military or otherwise. Nothing against the troops or their leaders - it is what it is.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Close air support, to be useful, needs to be low, slow and on station.  Fast air at 30 000' (with 500lb bombs or PGMs) fails on all three counts.  The F22 and F35 were not designed to offer any of those three elements, and the F-15s,-16s and -18s that perform that task today  do it largely as an afterthought - so the key close air support airframe right now is still the 35 year old A-10.  To my knowledge (and I'd love to be proven wrong) there is no program in place to design a comparable aircraft to replace the A-10 at the end of its service life in 2028 (Freedom 55, I guess...).



Thanks for the CAS lesson, i'm sure i didnt need it. What does it have to do with your previous point about canadian aircraft supporting Canadian troops ?


----------



## geo (8 Jan 2008)

Could be wrong but, methinks that DAP was linking Tac Hel resources to the troops... not Fast air.
Helos are limited in the distances they will travel in operations and would stay relatively close to home .... able to continue support to your/our troops.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2008)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The point I am trying to make is that unless a fire mission for some reason pounds a refugee camp or orphange, the optics and spin in the public relations world will not even be in the same dimension when comparing an errant artillery fire mission to a  CF-18 on a bomb run causing the same damage.



And I really don't think that there's any real difference in likelihood, or of public reaction.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (8 Jan 2008)

> Close air support, to be useful, needs to be low, slow and on station.  Fast air at 30 000' (with 500lb bombs or PGMs) fails on all three counts.  The F22 and F35 were not designed to offer any of those three elements, and the F-15s,-16s and -18s that perform that task today  do it largely as an afterthought - so the key close air support airframe right now is still the 35 year old A-10.



One small correction: the F-35B variant (STOVL) isn't just a fast-mover.  Think of a stealthier Harrier.  At least, that's the design intent; we'll see how it works out in the field...


----------

