# No Blackhawks for Canada



## FormerHorseGuard (20 Mar 2008)

see interesting news story

i never figured we would look at those birds after all we have the Griffons, another airframe to look after, was interesting read.


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/19/canada_nixes_black_hawk_helicopters/8365/


----------



## FoverF (20 Mar 2008)

I don't think we really _did_ look at them (not seriously, anyways). Sikorsky made an unsolicited and informal offer ("Pssst. Hey buddy, wanna buy some Blackhawks?"), and we declined ("_No._"). 

Canada is trying to bum some Chinooks from somebody while we wait for our fancy ones to get built. Sikorsky just saw an easy buck in trying to get us to buy/lease some Black Hawks ("or Lease-To-OWN, with no money down, and a limited 30-day warantee* against manufacturing defects") instead.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2008)

Why would you want a Blackhawk when the made in Canada Griffon is available?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2008)

Friggin right. I'd rather fly in a griffon over a blackhawk ANY day! Hell are blackhawks even tested in combat like our griffons are?


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2008)

I've flown in both.....but I'm not a pilot or FE, just an old infanteer that likes choppers.
I have seen a Blackhawk lift a fully loaded (about 7,000 lbs GVW) HumVee. Can the Grif do this???


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I have seen a Blackhawk lift a fully loaded (about 7,000 lbs GVW) HumVee. Can the Grif do this???



And with that much weight to lift, how much fuel do you think that blackhawk carried. The more weight you sling the less the aircraft itself can weight. First thing to go when thrying to lighten an aircraft is fuel. Less fuel, less distance traveled.

because it can sling 7000 lbs doesnt make it a good idea all the time.


----------



## PO2FinClk (20 Mar 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Hell are blackhawks even tested in combat like our griffons are?


I take it you meant this in jest right? :


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (20 Mar 2008)

I think what's being missed is the level of infrastructure and support required to undertake a purchase such as this. It's not as simple as just picking up your shiny new Blackhawks at Sikorsky and plunking them down on an existing squadron. More helicopters will require more aircrew to man them, as well as the relevant training to qualify them on the helicopter. It will also require more technicians with more training infrastructure to qualify them to service the helicopters. There's also all the equipment necessary to service these machines. New training and operational doctrines will have to be written. This all at a time with stretched budgets and limited manpower.


----------



## time expired (20 Mar 2008)

Funny that,the Aussies seem to be able to cope-
-Sea King mk.50
Sikorsky S70 Seahawk
Kaman SH-2G
Aerospatiale AS350BA
Sikorsky S70A9 Blackhawk
Bell UH-1H Iroquois
Bell 206B-1Kiowa
CH-47D Chinook
Eurocopter Tiger ARH
 Plus I believe they are obtaining a version of the EH101 to replace the Sea King I think.
                           Regards


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> Funny that,the Aussies seem to be able to cope-
> -Sea King mk.50
> Sikorsky S70 Seahawk
> Kaman SH-2G
> ...



They didnt start operating all this all at the same time now did they ?


----------



## time expired (20 Mar 2008)

Whats your point,they are operating them now.
                                   Regards


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> Whats your point,they are operating them now.
> Regards



My point is that it took the Australians years to build an infrastructure ( both personel and resources) capable of supporting that many different fleets.

EDIT : Just to drive the point home a little bit more, we dont have enough technicians, aircrews and support personel to fully man operations of the fleets we have now. We "rob Peter to pay paul" by posting people around so that every once in a while, a fleet gets people for a year or two and so on. Adding another fleet now just adds more pressure to a system in Crisis. The CC-177's intro into service was made slightly less painful by the fact that only 1st line servicing is done (as i understand it) by military technicians. The CH-149 Cormorant is maintaned by contract with IMP. The last few days i have learned that alot of AMS lab fuctions are goign civy contract too......even with all that, we are still criticaly short.


----------



## AirCanuck (20 Mar 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> Funny that,the Aussies seem to be able to cope-
> -Sea King mk.50
> Sikorsky S70 Seahawk
> Kaman SH-2G
> ...



so many quotes I'd like to respond here.  First, I believe the ADF has a substantially higher priority in it's governmental funding (unless I'm mistaken) due to an eye-opening incident that happened in Timor (correct me if I'm wrong).  That certainly makes it easier to afford the infrastructure of so many different aircraft.  I wouldn't say Canada is in any shape to start picking up another heavy lift helicopter while waiting for the Chinooks to be ready.  Just doesn't make sense.

As for the comment above about our Griffs being able to lift a humvee, I have no idea if they can do that, but I certainly know that they can lift a small artillery gun.

Third, I really do hope the comment about whether a blackhawk has been tested in combat was a joke?


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2008)

I'm just luggage so my opinion does not count for much.

 BUT

In my experiences as luggage - I vastly prefer the Blackhawk to the CH146.

The BlackHawk outstrips the Ch146 wholeheartedly -- and any pilot I know agrees 

  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			










The Blackhawk is NOT a heavy lift chopper (and neither in the Chinook -- the Hook is a med - the Blackhawk a Utility hence UH-60, and CH-47 for the Hook)

  Canada blew it when we got the 146, but the Hawk is an older airframe now -- there may be a better platform out there if we need to jetision the 146's


----------



## AirCanuck (20 Mar 2008)

interesting opinion.  Mine only really counts as speculation as well - I am only a pilot in training at the moment with no time in choppers - however, I am aiming to end in griffins (although it will still be a while before I even get my hands on the Harvard II trainer at the rate the line is moving)

Personally, I've always loved the blackhawk - I'd certainly prefer it over the Chinook.  My point above referred to the (what I believe is a fact?) that we have already purchased the chinooks?


----------



## time expired (20 Mar 2008)

What you are saying is that 30 millions Canadians and their politicians
don't feel it is worth while investing in their own defence and 20 million
Australians do.IMHO you are absolutely right.
                                Regards
PS How many Aussies were killed in that incident in East Timor compared
with Canadians in 9-11?.


----------



## slowmode (20 Mar 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> What you are saying is that 30 millions Canadians and their politicians
> don't feel it is worth while investing in their own defence and 20 million
> Australians do.IMHO you are absolutely right.
> Regards
> ...



   First of all let me post my opinion about this article. Its a good thing we turned down the blackhawks and we could spend our money on some other fleet of helicopters. Now I dont know much about helicopters so I cant comment from experience but what I can say is I dont think the blackhawks are big enough. I think we need Chinooks or something big to carry our men and equipment. Now if i'm wrong about this by all means someone correct me

 Also the reason why the AUstralians have a bigger fleet of Helicopters is the fact that they have more technitions, and workers able to work on them. They also had the need for them. Since Canada has not really been in an intense combat role like afghan since Korea The government did not see the need to invest in helicopters. *This can get deep like the fact we had a liberal gov for most of this period but this is not a thread for politics". Canada so far is doing a great job rearming her self. In the span of 4 years we have modernized our army and given our soldiers one of the best equipment. THe main priority should also be the soldiers first, then the extra equipment, like helicopters, Humvies. But it seems that were spending on these items now, and its great. 

Now i'm not fully education on this topic so dont take my word on it, But I give you what I believe.


----------



## AirCanuck (20 Mar 2008)

slowmode, very well put on the rearming comment.  I personally feel that the chinooks seem a bit unwieldy in comparison to the blackhawks - but i think it's a moot point as as far as I know we've already purchased the hooks.

time expired, not sure on the casualties for the aussies, but I think the reason it opened their eyes had less to do with the amount of casualties they took as the state of degradation their military was in with regards to equipment and training. (something along the lines of they were using the wrong charts, crossed a border inadvertently and got their butts kicked)


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> I personally feel that the chinooks seem a bit unwieldy in comparison to the blackhawks



2 Different helos built for 2 different roles. We were looking for a medium-to-heavy lift helos and the blackhawk is neither of those. You insist on comparing apples to basketballs.


----------



## cobbler (20 Mar 2008)

> PS How many Aussies were killed in that incident in East Timor compared
> with Canadians in 9-11?.



I dont see how the two compare. I cannot think of any incident in Timor where there was multiple loss of ADF life.
East Timor was an operation. 9-11 was a terrorist incident. Maybe you are getting confused with the Bali bombings, in which case 88 Aussies dies. Or even the Jakarta Embassy bombing.



			
				AirCanuck said:
			
		

> time expired, not sure on the casualties for the aussies, but I think the reason it opened their eyes had less to do with the amount of casualties they took as the state of degradation their military was in with regards to equipment and training. (something along the lines of they were using the wrong charts, crossed a border inadvertently and got their butts kicked)





Excuse me?

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. So you have your head out abit far to go making wild claims like that.

As for exactly where some clashes may have happened, thats disputed. And the reasons behind it I doubt (though don't quote me on it) they are of public knowledge.

Either way, I dont see how a battle with Indonesian forces in which Australian Infantry killed quite a few Indonesian soldiers for no major casualties of our own translates into getting our "butts kicked". 
Pretty high expectations you have, whats the view like from up there on your pedestal?

PS: Australia had Blackhawks many years before Timor happened.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2008)

Since when have blackhawks been used in combat?  :

What about the blackhawks capability to offer fire support. They have some pretty good configurations.
But ya two different helicopters for 2 different roles.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2008)

Oh Come now Flawed Design!! We are going to arm the Griffons!!
Like the "mini tat" on the Kiowa.....need I say more....

OH BTW,,,I'm infantry with a keen interest in airmobile ops...I've flown in the Twin Huey, the Griffon, the Blackhawk and the Chinook, as a well as a short flight in a Kiowa (cool fun).

I would surmise all have their own roles....The old Twin Huey (doors open) was fun, and Chinooks with the rear ramp open when in flight was great.


----------



## AirCanuck (21 Mar 2008)

cobbler said:
			
		

> I dont see how the two compare. I cannot think of any incident in Timor where there was multiple loss of ADF life.
> East Timor was an operation. 9-11 was a terrorist incident. Maybe you are getting confused with the Bali bombings, in which case 88 Aussies dies. Or even the Jakarta Embassy bombing.
> 
> 
> ...



There's no need to squabble, I never meant to offend.  I was quoting off-hand an incident recounted to me by an old friend I haven't spoken to in years who was in the ADF.  Basically it came out of a conversation I was having with him at the time about how much I wished our government would ramp up our military (this was years ago).  He responded by telling me of an incident which ocurred during their operations in East Timor which was not heavily publicized but taught a sharp lesson - now perhaps he was misinformed but believe me I never meant anything harmful towards the aussies.


----------



## Scoobs (21 Mar 2008)

The Blackhawk is a good aircraft and I'm sure if we were replacing the Griffons we would consider them.  However, the reality is that we have the Griffons and it costs a lot of money to buy new helos.  The focus is on gaining a medium lift capability and the Blackhawk does not represent that.  The Chinook meets our medium lift capability requirements.  

Canada does not have enough money and it would be very hard to justify to the taxpayer why we need to replace the Griffon while we bought the Chinook.  This is reality and we must work with the machine that we have.


----------



## AirCanuck (21 Mar 2008)

yes I agree - I think the mistake we've gotten caught up in here (myself included) is, as said above, comparing apples to basketballs.   originally it was why didn't we get the blackhawks - and I believe someone said it wasn't in the works.  From there we've sort of drifted into more of a 'what's your favorite helicopter of these three' discussion.



> Oh Come now Flawed Design!! We are going to arm the Griffons!!
> Like the "mini tat" on the Kiowa.....need I say more....



Just a comment on that - what are we waiting for?  I have a friend who was involved on tests with even just having a mounted c-9 on each side of the griffin years ago.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> Just a comment on that - what are we waiting for?



We are not waiting for anything. If you do a search on this site you will see that arming the CH-146 with alot more bang than a C-9 LMG is in the contracting process.

Here :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70710.0.html

Now, please, research things a bit before posting.


----------



## AirCanuck (21 Mar 2008)

what I mean was what are we waiting for in terms of how long we'd had the griffin - it seems to me that if that was the role we wanted to deploy it in (and believe me, as it's the aircraft I want to fly hearing you say that is music to my ears!) then we have been taking our time in arming it.  When you say a lot more bang, can you be more specific?


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Mar 2008)

We should have gotten the M2 Bradley to replace the LAV-III while we were waiting for the Leopard 2's.

G2G


----------



## aesop081 (21 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> When you say a lot more bang, can you be more specific?




Humm, lets see

C-9 LMG is  a single barrel 5.56mm machine gun

DMG134S MiniGun  is a 6-barrel 7.62mm  Gatling Gun

Did you even bother reading the link i provided ?


----------



## AirCanuck (21 Mar 2008)

no need to get snappy, I just scrolled too fast and didn't see it.  I'll check it out, thanks for the link.  



> We should have gotten the M2 Bradley to replace the LAV-III while we were waiting for the Leopard 2's



isn't a comment about APCs and tanks a little off-topic in a discussion about helos?


just read that link - Dillon Aero DMG134S MiniGun looks amazing.  That will be quite a thing to see.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> isn't a comment about APCs and tanks a little off-topic in a discussion about helos?



It was rather relevant considering your comments. Take a few minutes to think about it and i'm sure the meaning will come clear.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Mar 2008)

READ it as such-

We should of bought a APC (bradley) to replace our new/usable vehicle (lav 3) while we waited for the new leopards (a MBT).

Think think think super sleuth (come on..if you got kids you know what I'm talkin about!)


----------



## Spring_bok (21 Mar 2008)

If you got a problem...
Think! Think! Think!

Consider this mystery solverized.


----------



## eurowing (21 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> what I mean was what are we waiting for in terms of how long we'd had the griffin - it seems to me that if that was the role we wanted to deploy it in (and believe me, as it's the aircraft I want to fly hearing you say that is music to my ears!) then we have been taking our time in arming it.  When you say a lot more bang, can you be more specific?



Just for future reference, it's Griffon, not Griffin.


----------



## AirCanuck (21 Mar 2008)

thanks.  I always get that mixed up.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2008)

In theory it is actually a great idea, the CH-92 Cyclones which we are getting to replace the Sea King are a Sikorsky design which is essentially a Blackhawk drivetrain and rotor mated to a larger fuselage. Since we are going to get the Cyclone, we will develop the infrastructure to take care of Blackhawks as well. I suspect Sikorsky was trying to whet our appetites for a bigger and more powerful Army utility helicopter to supplement and eventually replace the Griffon fleet.

Of course there would be manpower and resource issues surrounding a transition, but I suspect Sikorsky may try again when the first Cyclones get delivered using the common infrastructure/more capable airframe argument.


----------



## AirCanuck (22 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In theory it is actually a great idea, the CH-92 Cyclones which we are getting to replace the Sea King are a Sikorsky design which is essentially a Blackhawk drivetrain and rotor mated to a larger fuselage. Since we are going to get the Cyclone, we will develop the infrastructure to take care of Blackhawks as well. I suspect Sikorsky was trying to whet our appetites for a bigger and more powerful Army utility helicopter to supplement and eventually replace the Griffon fleet.
> 
> Of course there would be manpower and resource issues surrounding a transition, but I suspect Sikorsky may try again when the first Cyclones get delivered using the common infrastructure/more capable airframe argument.



but that still brings it back around to the fact that we aren't looking to replace the griffins with a utility lift... atm we're still after the chinooks which are another category altogether as we've already said, so isn't it a moot point if they try again?


----------



## aesop081 (22 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course there would be manpower and resource issues surrounding a transition,



Maybe its just because its hard to determine tone on this site at times but it apears to me that you are dismissing these issues as if they were minor.



			
				AirCanuck said:
			
		

> we aren't looking to replace the *griffins* with a utility lift...



Did someone not correct you already on that one ?   You can't spell it, you can't fly it   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Humm, lets see
> 
> C-9 LMG is  a single barrel 5.56mm machine gun
> 
> ...


Man I'm glad we don't have those in the infantry. Carrying one C9 barrel is annoying enough, I can't imagine carrying 5 extra ones.


----------



## AirCanuck (22 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Maybe its just because its hard to determine tone on this site at times but it apears to me that you are dismissing these issues as if they were minor.
> 
> Did someone not correct you already on that one ?   You can't spell it, you can't fly it   ;D



dammit.  Griffon.  Griffon.  Griffon.  Griffon. Griffon.  Griffon.  Griffon.  Griffon. Griffon.  Griffon.  Griffon.  Griffon.

That oughtta get it in there!  :warstory:


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Maybe its just because its hard to determine tone on this site at times but it apears to me that you are dismissing these issues as if they were minor.



Actually I have no idea how hard or easy it would be, hence "issues".



			
				AirCanuck said:
			
		

> but that still brings it back around to the fact that we aren't looking to replace the griffins with a utility lift... atm we're still after the chinooks which are another category altogether as we've already said, so isn't it a moot point if they try again?



*We* might not be looking, but Sikorsky is looking for a sale, so rest assured they will be back sometime.


----------



## AirCanuck (22 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> *We* might not be looking, but Sikorsky is looking for a sale, so rest assured they will be back sometime.





No I understand that, but what I meant was if we're not looking will it really matter?  I mean we aren't going to be persuaded, right?


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> No I understand that, but what I meant was if we're not looking will it really matter?  I mean we aren't going to be persuaded, right?



It depends on who is being persuaded and what the persuasion is. Is the Air Force being persuaded we need a bigger and more capable helicopter? Is a senior officer or civil servant being persuaded a big program and career advancement is in the offing? Is a politician being persuaded that contracts and spin-offs will go to his/her riding? The military has often received items for reasons other than actual utility.

If it was only as simple as dropping by "Honest Ed's Military products emporium and bait shop", kicking a few tires and flying off the lot....


----------



## AirCanuck (22 Mar 2008)

If only indeed.  The reasonings you mentioned really frustrate me...  I really despise the countless examples of millions wasted in either useless kit ordered or necessary kit canceled after having sunk in tons of money due to politics.


----------



## KevinB (23 Mar 2008)

Difference is the Blackhawk is a kick ass chopper


----------



## TheHead (23 Mar 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Since when have blackhawks been used in combat?  :
> 
> What about the blackhawks capability to offer fire support. They have some pretty good configurations.
> But ya two different helicopters for 2 different roles.



Variants of the Blackhawk have been used in combat in Iraq many times.   I hope you're being sarcastic.


----------



## AirCanuck (23 Mar 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Variants of the Blackhawk have been used in combat in Iraq many times.   I hope you're being sarcastic.




he was correcting an earlier statement, hence his mention of its ability to offer fire support.


----------



## TheHead (23 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> he was correcting an earlier statement, hence his mention of its ability to offer fire support.




My bad I was quickly skimming over this thread.


----------



## LordOsborne (24 Mar 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Man I'm glad we don't have those in the infantry. Carrying one C9 barrel is annoying enough, I can't imagine carrying 5 extra ones.



Wasn't it trialled on the set of Predator?  ;D







http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm
(bottom of page for article)


----------



## NL_engineer (24 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> he was correcting an earlier statement, hence his mention of its ability to offer fire support.



Really, so the automatic fire from a mini guns (in which mounts are built in for) is not fire support?  Well it is not an AH64, but thats comparing apples or oranges.


just my 2 cents 

Edited to correct the number for the Apache


----------



## AirCanuck (24 Mar 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Really, so the automatic fire from a mini guns (in which mounts are built in for) is not fire support?  Well it is not an AH64, but thats comparing apples or oranges.
> 
> 
> just my 2 cents
> ...



*sigh
that's exactly the point that was being made - the fact that they have been config'd for fire support.


----------

