# Req : Possible Griffon Replacement



## Navor86

Moin,
I have been following the Canadian Helo Force some time now.
And after some research on this and other sites it was stated that the Griffon has the following shortcomings (generalization)
-Overloaded due to to upgrades
-Can not operate effective in high altitudes
-Troop Lift

So when is the the Griffon due to be replaced? I know that they are just around 10 Years old,but concerning the new Role of the CF a replacement should be on track.
For example I can not think that the Griffon could effectively fly SpecOps Missions outside Canada,because of needed  electronic upgrades and Lift Capacity,which can not be supported by the Airframe:
Another Point is that 16 Chinooks might sound godd but seem seem some Airframes short to effectivly support Deployment,Training ,Repair.So the work must be done by the Helos.


----------



## Loachman

There is currently no plan to replace Griffon. We typically operate aircraft for thirty years or more. Major capital acquisitions are government decisions.

Sixteen Chinooks is twice the highest number that we ever had. It's a good start.


----------



## Sf2

This topic has been beaten to death but I'll bite.

No one outside the community seems to understand the concept of trade offs.  Take less fuel, take more troops, can't go far.  Troops carry less gear, carry more troops.  Need to fly far, take less troops or less gear.  Troops carry lots of gear, take less troops.  I won't get into numbers, but the Griffon can do it.

You're right, what you said is a very, very, very broad generalization.  But it also holds true for about 90% of the other Light Utility Helicopters out there, which is what the Griffon is.  So does that warrant replacement?  The Griffon isn't a chinook.  I was never meant to be.   So don't call the airframe a shortcoming because it can't haul 13 troops around the mountains in the middle of the day (btw, the chinook can't either).  What new role of the CF, as you say, warrants the replacement of the Griffon?

And you wanna replace the Griffon with the Chinook?  Then how would you go about doing a det level kinetic assault in an urban environment in a place like, say Haiti, with a chinook?  Would you conduct convoy overwatch or c3 with a Chinook?  Are you going to attach a WESCAM to the nose of a chinook and the circle overhead the battlefield?

You see where I'm going with this?  You don't need to replace the griffon.  You need to augment it with something with larger capacities do the stuff you have locked in your brain.


----------



## Loachman

SF2 said:
			
		

> You don't need to replace the griffon.



The Wing Commander appears to disagree with that, as do I.

As you said, though, it has been beaten to a creamy paste and the Search Function does seem to work.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

SF2 said:
			
		

> This topic has been beaten to death but I'll bite.
> 
> No one outside the community seems to understand the concept of trade offs.  Take less fuel, take more troops, can't go far.  Troops carry less gear, carry more troops.  Need to fly far, take less troops or less gear.  Troops carry lots of gear, take less troops.  I won't get into numbers, but the Griffon can do it.
> 
> You're right, what you said is a very, very, very broad generalization.  But it also holds true for about 90% of the other Light Utility Helicopters out there, which is what the Griffon is.  So does that warrant replacement?  The Griffon isn't a chinook.  I was never meant to be.   So don't call the airframe a shortcoming because *it can't haul 13 troops around the mountains in the middle of the day (btw, the chinook can't either*).  What new role of the CF, as you say, warrants the replacement of the Griffon?
> 
> And you wanna replace the Griffon with the Chinook?  Then how would you go about doing a det level kinetic assault in an urban environment in a place like, say Haiti, with a chinook?  Would you conduct convoy overwatch or c3 with a Chinook?  Are you going to attach a WESCAM to the nose of a chinook and the circle overhead the battlefield?
> 
> You see where I'm going with this?  You don't need to replace the griffon.  You need to augment it with something with larger capacities do the stuff you have locked in your brain.



You got proof of that? IIRC a CHINOOK can carry alot more than that in worst conditions than Afghanistan


----------



## Good2Golf

The Griffon is not being replaced, for the foreseeable future.  As Loachman stated, most helicopters have an effective life expectancy (ELE) of 30 years or so -- that puts the Griffon in the replacement window at around 2025.  The pre-90's tactical aviation fleet was a balanced organization for its assigned roles and consisted of light observation helicopters, utility/tactical transporters and heavy lifters (Kiowa, Twin Huey, Chinook).  Two types were retired and one replaced (Kiowa, Chinook gone, Twin Huey replaced by Griffon).  This was primarily a resource-constrained survival move to keep from disbanding an entire functional branch of the Air Force.  People should be under no illusion that the Griffon was somehow meant to magically replace the Kiowa, Huey and Chinook.  Problem is, many folks (Army and Air Force alike) started bad mouthing the Griffon at an early point in its career, and much of the maligning was reinforced with stories and hearsay.  Without putting unrealistic expectations on it, the Griffon is a reasonable light utility helicopter, not without some warts, but not the "bucket of crap" that many people like to paint with a poorly informed brush.  

Given that the Chinook is on its way into service some time in the coming years and there are improvements both short-term (one or two years) and a little longer planned to be undertaken for the Griffon, is it possible that the CF will pursue another helicopter...possible, but not likely IMO.  If it did happen, the irony of returning to a multiple type fleet of tactical helicopters (light, util and heavy) as we had until the early 90's would indeed be something to see.  What was old would be new again...

G2G


----------



## geo

G2G,
I agree with you.... 
but I see some form of gunship in our near future - needed to provide some protection for the Chinooks and the Griffons in trooplift mode.... 

But that's just me as a member of the green machine.


----------



## Loachman

The only obstacles to that are lack of political will and lack of money, and the latter is only a sub-component of the former.


----------



## a_majoor

From the sounds of it, greater demands are being put on the airframe and there is a desire to fly higher, faster, farther than the Griffon is capable of doing. It sounds like most people who have reservations about the Griffon really want it to do the duties of a Medium Utility Helicopter.

I have nothing against that myself, and as Imperator would fully endorse a Medium helicopter fleet and converting the Griffons to perform special duties like being ERSTA platforms. Of course that is even _more_ expensive than simply replacing the Griffons, so you can guess how far that idea will go in the real world. Still, it might be worth giving the S-92 Cyclone a look as a medium utility platform. It will be coming into service soon(?) and getting a bigger buy adding "Army" utility helicopters will provide some economies of scale and logistical consolidation for the Air Force.


----------



## Welshy

I think this is getting away from the bigger issue. We don't have enough pilots even if we wanted to spend money on more airframes. We already mothballed a bunch of griffons (now going to be used on BHT). It's not a simple matter of throwing money at the problem, we have personnel issues than need to be solved first.


----------



## Welshy

geo said:
			
		

> but I see some form of gunship in our near future - needed to provide some protection for the Chinooks and the Griffons in trooplift mode....



I believe there is something in the works to beef up the firepower on the griffon for this role. Someone correct me if I am wrong or elaborate further in that.


----------



## Loachman

Minigun. Not great from my point of view, as trading 7.62 mm rounds with somebody on the ground is a bit silly but at least the gravitational effects favour our rounds over theirs.

So you're still alive, eh?

How're things?


----------



## geo

Welshy said:
			
		

> I believe there is something in the works to beef up the firepower on the griffon for this role. Someone correct me if I am wrong or elaborate further in that.


Long term solution. This is not a solution - more like a Band-Aid.  Once you've invested a bundle in the Chinooks, are you going to nickle and dime the problem of providing protection or are you going to solve it?


----------



## Strike

Loachman said:
			
		

> So you're still alive, eh?
> 
> How're things?



He was whining yesterday about how he had a whole 3 books for each of his 5 classes.   :'(  

Already getting on my nerves.  Thankfully he's only here twice a week. ;D


----------



## Welshy

Admit it, you love having me around



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Long term solution. This is not a solution - more like a Band-Aid.  Once you've invested a bundle in the Chinooks, are you going to nickle and dime the problem of providing protection or are you going to solve it?


Well, I'm not going to hold out any hope that we would get something better in terms of a ground support role. The forces will step over a dollar to save a dime. I'm not saying its the best option, but I guess it is better than nothing.


----------



## Mountie

Let's try to revive an old topic. 

I realize there is no plan to replace the Griffon in the near future.  However, when the time comes, or "if" it were being replaced now, what would the best option be?

Would the Griffon be able to take the same upgrade as the UH-1Y Venom of the USMC?  Or would the RCAF be better off with the UH-60 Black Hawk?

I think best-case scenario would be a common fleet of H-60 variants for the MHP and UTTH fleets.  MH-60R Sea Hawk ASW variant and MH-60S Sea Hawk General Support variant for the MHP to replaced the failed CH-148 Cyclone procurement.  To replace the CH-146 Griffon would be the UH-60M Black Hawk utility variant (with option to convert to AH-60 Battle Hawk attack variant when needed), the MH-60M Black Hawk special operations variant, and the HH-60M Rescue Hawk in the SAR/Base Rescue/Combat Support role.  This would give a common fleet for ease of training, maintenance and logistics as well as being inter-operatable with the US military.

MHP - 18 MH-60R AWS & 12 MH-60S GS 
UTTH - 48 UH-60M
SAR - 10 HH-60M 
Special Ops - 12 MH-60M 

Total of 100 aircraft


----------



## x_para76

Welshy said:
			
		

> I believe there is something in the works to beef up the firepower on the griffon for this role. Someone correct me if I am wrong or elaborate further in that.



I know that they've equipped the Griffon's with the Dillon miniguns but some friends of mine who've filled tastings as door gunners have said that the Griffon isn't a very good platform for doing gun runs and that it was a bit of an embarrassment overseas.


----------



## Strike

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I know that they've equipped the Griffon's with the Dillon miniguns but some friends of mine who've filled tastings as door gunners have said that the Griffon isn't a very good platform for doing gun runs and that* it was a bit of an embarrassment overseas*.



rly:

Really I heard quite the opposite.  Something about other helos being unable to move their firepower independent of the aircraft position.


----------



## x_para76

I asked a friend of mine from DHTC his thoughts on the Griffon and his thoughts were that it was find for domestic ops but was never meant for out of area ops. Hence why they used Russian and American helo's overseas.


----------



## Strike

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I asked a friend of mine from DHTC his thoughts on the Griffon and his thoughts were that it was find for domestic ops but was never meant for out of area ops. Hence why they used Russian and American helo's overseas.



The demands of DHTC ops are quite different from the rest of the Army.  You can trust that the Griffons were well represented escorting their own while in Afghanistan (which is both hot and high by the way).  Were there issues when the hot weather hit?  Of course there were, but every other country was also dealing with those same issues.

Would it be nice to have a specialized helo for spec ops?  Of course it would.  Is it going to happen?  Probably not.  In the meantime, 427 is flying that machine as hard as it will let them.

Remember, if the Twin Huey were to be considered a pick-up truck, the Griffon is an SUV.  You can still off-road with an SUV. You just have to be a bit more careful about it and be aware of your limitations.


----------



## vonGarvin

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I asked a friend of mine from DHTC his thoughts on the Griffon and his thoughts were that it was find for domestic ops but was never meant for out of area ops. Hence why they used Russian and American helo's overseas.


"A friend of mine..."

I call BS on that.  I mean, in Dom Ops, the Griffon is used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  In "out of area" ops, they are used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  Same job.  Just done "out of area".  I'm not a pilot, nor am I in the RCAF.  But I have been deployed on operations where the Griffon was used.  They had their limitations (just as all things do), but they weren't junk.  And they had some advantages over other "things".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "A friend of mine..."
> 
> I call BS on that.  I mean, in Dom Ops, the Griffon is used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  In "out of area" ops, they are used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  Same job.  Just done "out of area".  I'm not a pilot, nor am I in the RCAF.  But I have been deployed on operations where the Griffon was used.  They had their limitations (just as all things do), but they weren't junk.  And they had some advantages over other "things".



granted, they are considerably slower then a chinook which they escort but their ability to swivel their guns make them quite useful for providing fire support.


----------



## x_para76

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "A friend of mine..."
> 
> I call BS on that.  I mean, in Dom Ops, the Griffon is used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  In "out of area" ops, they are used to fly people from point A to point B, to provide some surveillance and some limited fire support.  Same job.  Just done "out of area".  I'm not a pilot, nor am I in the RCAF.  But I have been deployed on operations where the Griffon was used.  They had their limitations (just as all things do), but they weren't junk.  And they had some advantages over other "things".



Why is that B.S? Is it inconceivable that I would have a friend at the hill?  That's a typical BS rebuttal! Still you failed to address why the Hill would have been using Russian and American choppers in stead of Griffon's.  

From what I understood there were problems with integrating the dillon system in to the Griffon and even then they could on mount it out of one side of the chopper where as with a Blackhawk they could mount them port and starboard.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Still you failed to address why the Hill would have been using Russian and American choppers in stead of Griffon's.



 :dunno: Because of their total anathema to using anything Canadian issued, from uniforms to vehicles? :dunno:


----------



## vonGarvin

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> granted, they are considerably slower then a chinook which they escort but their ability to swivel their guns make them quite useful for providing fire support.


Exactly. They can dwell on target when other birds have to break off and come back.


----------



## vonGarvin

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Why is that B.S? Is it inconceivable that I would have a friend at the hill?  That's a typical BS rebuttal! Still you failed to address why the Hill would have been using Russian and American choppers in stead of Griffon's.
> 
> From what I understood there were problems with integrating the dillon system in to the Griffon and even then they could on mount it out of one side of the chopper where as with a Blackhawk they could mount them port and starboard.


All Canadian troops on operations in Kandahar used a variety of helicopters from a variety of nations.  Last I checked, Russia wasn't part of ISAF. 
As for taskings of theatre assets, the way it works is based on capacity and capability, with national caveats sometimes used. Mostly not. Heck, I tasked a company of Royal Marines on Canadian chinooks.  Why? Because that's what Air Ops allocated for that mission.
And you offered up that JTF 2 used other birds exclusively, not me. So, the onus isn't on me to defend your assertion.


----------



## Good2Golf

> From what I understood there were problems with integrating the dillon system in to the Griffon and even then they could on mount it out of one side of the chopper where as with a Blackhawk they could mount them port and starboard.



You understood wrong.

1.  The only reason there was ONE Dillon on the Griffon in theatre us because it also had ONE .50cal high-rate (1200 rd/min) GAU-21 on the OTHER side.

2.  Yeah, the Griffon was crappy enough that it earned the nickname "Allah's Breath" from the Taliban, a mark of respect for a formidable foe.

3.  NO OTHER helicopter is/was as fast as a Chinook in theatre.  The Griffon was actually faster than pylon-carrying shooters like Apache and Cobra.

4.  The Griffon's side-mounted weaponry was actually far better suited for intimate, top-cover/overwatch fire support than nose-shooters that would have to stand-off to get suitable depression angle or run-in lines for that's...not so with Griffon.

5.  Operator will use best tools at hand.  If you're moving troops as the primary role and you can't get Chinooks, you probably go with the next best thing, like a Black Hawk or Hip, as that's what they were made to do. There is a difference between troop transport and light utility, like the Griffon, that you take what you can get, when you can get it.

Nothing to do with helicopters, but more your incessant "I have a friend at, blah, blah, blah..." -- there are many many people here on Army.ca who "have a friend" at all sorts of places, DHTC included, but they respect the nature of those personal relationships and don't go blabbing about things that most likely are mentioned in relative confidence.  Whenever someone starts to yap about "my friend at DHTC (or wherever)" they actually devalue whatever comes next...if there was any value at all.

Why don't you do us a favour, and stick to your own lane for a bit?

Back to on topic, an SH-60R / UH-60M mix wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure that would ever happen.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Why don't you do us a favour, and stick to your own lane for a bit?


   :nod:

Yep; once again, there are opinions and there are _informed_ opinions.  With every post, it's more obvious where _some_ people fit into the spectrum.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You understood wrong.
> 
> 1.  The only reason there was ONE Dillon on the Griffon in theatre us because it also had ONE .50cal high-rate (1200 rd/min) GAU-21 on the OTHER side.
> 
> 2.  Yeah, the Griffon was crappy enough that it earned the nickname "Allah's Breath" from the Taliban, a mark of respect for a formidable foe.
> 
> 3.  NO OTHER helicopter is/was as fast as a Chinook in theatre.  The Griffon was actually faster than pylon-carrying shooters like Apache and Cobra.
> 
> 4.  The Griffon's side-mounted weaponry was actually far better suited for intimate, top-cover/overwatch fire support than nose-shooters that would have to stand-off to get suitable depression angle or run-in lines for that's...not so with Griffon.
> 
> 5.  Operator will use best tools at hand.  If you're moving troops as the primary role and you can't get Chinooks, you probably go with the next best thing, like a Black Hawk or Hip, as that's what they were made to do. There is a difference between troop transport and light utility, like the Griffon, that you take what you can get, when you can get it.
> 
> Nothing to do with helicopters, but more your incessant "I have a friend at, blah, blah, blah..." -- there are many many people here on Army.ca who "have a friend" at all sorts of places, DHTC included, but they respect the nature of those personal relationships and don't go blabbing about things that most likely are mentioned in relative confidence.  Whenever someone starts to yap about "my friend at DHTC (or wherever)" they actually devalue whatever comes next...if there was any value at all.
> 
> Why don't you do us a favour, and stick to your own lane for a bit?
> 
> Back to on topic, an SH-60R / UH-60M mix wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure that would ever happen.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I think it is about time to bring out the spongebob video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQHYy0TaYg

Ref the Mi-17's that have been brought up in this thread, here is a picture:







My understanding is these were leased following the release of the Manley Report which highlighted lack rotorary-wing assets as a critical shortfall in the mission.  I think it had to do more with the fact we had no helo's in theatre and needed some real fast.  Not because they were any more favourable to SOF Ops like X_para76 suggests.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

These were Polish helicopters as I understand it on lease. I wonder if any of the pilots are free to talk about their experiences with them?


----------



## The Bread Guy

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> My understanding is these were leased following the release of the Manley Report which highlighted lack rotorary-wing assets as a critical shortfall in the mission.  I think it had to do more with the fact we had no helo's in theatre and needed some real fast.  Not because they were any more favourable to SOF Ops like X_para76 suggests.





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> These were Polish helicopters as I understand it on lease. I wonder if any of the pilots are free to talk about their experiences with them?


A bit more backstory on this in another thread here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This one appears to be armed, so unlikely a "skylink" leased one.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> This one appears to be armed, so unlikely a "skylink" leased one.



Plenty of other contracted companies used armed helicopters so I don't see any reason why we wouldn't arm the helicopters we were leasing?

Who knows what the actual specifics of the lease were or who flew them.... at the end of the day it is all ancient history at this point


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One that would be worthy of a book I say. It's remarkable that we were able to jump out of our boxes in this regard. Imagine telling someone that Canadians would be flying armed Mi-17's in Afghanistan during combats ops with tanks in support in Apr 2001, you would have been laughed out of the room and likely taken for a drug test.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> One that would be worthy of a book I say. It's remarkable that we were able to jump out of our boxes in this regard. Imagine telling someone that Canadians would be flying armed Mi-17's in Afghanistan during combats ops with tanks in support in Apr 2001, you would have been laughed out of the room and likely taken for a drug test.



An interesting book on the use of contracted helicopters in recent conflict is one written about Neall Ellis, one of South Africa's most prominent "gun's for hire"

It is called "Gunship Ace:  The Wars of Neall Ellis, Gunship Pilot & Mercenary" and is written by A.J. Venter.

See it here:  http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11426131-gunship-ace






I own the book and it is very interesting, the final few chapters are dedicated to the extensive work Ellis did in Afghanistan flying contracted Mi-17's for ISAF and US Forces.  It also goes into great detail explaining other AO's he worked in including:  "South-West Africa, Angola, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Afghanistan".  He was the guy that flew the contracted Mi-24 Gunship in support of British Forces during Op BARRAS in Sierra Leone when they took out the West Side Boys and rescued a bunch of POW Royal Irish Regiment soldiers.  If any of you are interested in learned more about PSC's and how they work this is one book I would suggest picking up.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Back to on topic, an SH-60R / UH-60M mix wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure that would ever happen.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



From the Cyclone thread... courtesy of Milnews.ca and CBC



> CBC News has learned the government is considering a major rethink of how the military uses its helicopters at sea. The change, if implemented, would spell the end for a five-year-old, $5-billion contract with Sikorsky to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea Kings, instead opting for smaller, cheaper helicopters.



Maybe the Blackhawk/Seahawk speculation might be appropriate to the Cyclone discussion.

New combinations:

MH-60R + MH-60S 
MH-60R + Cormorant/Merlin UTTH
MH-60R + Chinook

Wildcat + Cormorant/Merlin UTTH
Wildcat + Chinook

NH-90 (Nahhh)

Any and all of the above in combination with Firescout B and C


----------



## x_para76

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> An interesting book on the use of contracted helicopters in recent conflict is one written about Neall Ellis, one of South Africa's most prominent "gun's for hire"
> 
> It is called "Gunship Ace:  The Wars of Neall Ellis, Gunship Pilot & Mercenary" and is written by A.J. Venter.
> 
> See it here:  http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11426131-gunship-ace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own the book and it is very interesting, the final few chapters are dedicated to the extensive work Ellis did in Afghanistan flying contracted Mi-17's for ISAF and US Forces.  It also goes into great detail explaining other AO's he worked in including:  "South-West Africa, Angola, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Afghanistan".  He was the guy that flew the contracted Mi-24 Gunship in support of British Forces during Op BARRAS in Sierra Leone when they took out the West Side Boys and rescued a bunch of POW Royal Irish Regiment soldiers.  If any of you are interested in learned more about PSC's and how they work this is one book I would suggest picking up.



He was also interviewed in a documentary called "Shadow company" which is about the rise of PMC's post 911.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> One that would be worthy of a book I say. It's remarkable that we were able to jump out of our boxes in this regard. Imagine telling someone that Canadians would be flying armed Mi-17's in Afghanistan during combats ops with tanks in support in Apr 2001, you would have been laughed out of the room and likely taken for a drug test.



I was just thinking the same thing when I saw the above picture. Just shows you how things can change in just a short time. 

Quick question: Who were the pilots? Canadians? Poles? Other?


----------



## a_majoor

It is very dissapointing that the Cyclone project has gone so far off the rails, but another alternative might be to look at the "commercial" S-92, since they are in service and in general use as utility helicopters (offshore oil rig contractors use these to transport men and equipment). There is a lot of space to carry pers and equipment:



> The utility transport version has 22 side-facing seats with a full cabin width rear ramp. The 733 ft³ interior cabin area can also be configured to accommodate up to three airline-style LD3 cargo containers. Additional stowage space is available in the 140 ft³ area located in the aft ramp compartment.



This would certainly qualify as a medium lift helicopter, although it would not have the same versatility and logistical benefits as buying a fleet of Blackhawk/Seahawk helicopters to replace/suppliment the Griffon and Sea Kings. Given the oft stated desire to have AH class helicopters in the inventory, or at least the capability, Blackhawks can be fitted with various weapons kits, up to the "Battlehawk" faux AH.

If we really want to go that route, we should also seek to include other potential users like the Coast Guard, air ambulance operators, Provincial Ministries of Natural Resources etc. to get a real bulk purchase and economies of scale.


----------



## a_majoor

Long and interesting article about the US Army's program to develop replacements for the Blackhawk and AH-64 series of helicopters. Given the age of these platforms, now is probably a good time to start looking, and given the usual time frame of these progams, we could "look in" as well, since they will probably have something ready just in time for us when we want to replace the Griffon.

Most interesting is the various companies have split between tilt rotor and compound helicopters to meet the various performance demands. Long article, follow the link for the detailed breakdown of the various offerings:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jmr-fvl-the-us-militarys-future-helicopters-014035/



> *JMR-FVL: The US Military’s Future “Helicopters”?*
> 
> Oct 22, 2013 11:38 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff
> 
> Oct 16-17/13: Bell V-280. Bell Helicopter announces that GE is joining its V-280 Valor tilt-rotor team as its engine supplier, while GKN will manufacture the rear V-tail structure.
> 
> GKN’s expertise is in metalworking and composite construction. GE’s engine isn’t specified, and remains ambiguous. GE is developing the 7,500 shp GE38 for the CH-53K helicopter program,... {click to expand +}
> 
> Keep reading for the whole story with recent events put in context
> 
> The JMR-TD program is the science and technology precursor to the Department of Defense’s estimated $100 billion Future Vertical Lift program, which is expected to replace between 2,000-4,000 medium class UH-60 utility and AH-64 attack helicopters after 2030.
> 
> In reality, FVL will fall far short of that number if it ever goes ahead, but those figures are the current official fantasy. While they’re at it, the Pentagon wants breakthrough performance that includes the same hovering capability as smaller armed scout helicopters, and a 100+ knot improvement in cruising speed to 230+ knots. That’s almost certainly achievable, thanks to new developments that involve very different helicopter designs.
> 
> The JMR-TD Precursor Program
> 
> We’ll begin with the Army’s core justification for FVL, and its Joint Multi-Role Technology Development precursor:
> 
> “Recent study findings concluded that the DoD rotary wing aviation fleet is aging and upgrades to current fleet aircraft will not provide the capabilities required for future operations. Additionally, because of the time in service for currently fielded helicopters, many of the decision points for the future fleet will occur within the next 10 years. The Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was, and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is, five times that of peacetime, and much higher than the design usage spectrum, further taxing the already aging fleet. The current fleet of DoD rotorcraft cannot continue to be incrementally improved to meet future operational requirements. Significant improvement in vertical lift, range, speed, payload, survivability, reliability, and reduced logistical footprint are all required to meet future needs and can only be achieved through the application of new technologies and designs. Operational costs must be reduced to a fraction of those for the current fleet.”
> 
> This combination of significant improvements and much lower operating costs is almost always asked for. It almost never happens. The request is akin to demanding a major-league baseball player who hits 30+ home runs per season, with under 50 strikeouts. New technologies and designs mean risk and added complexity, both of which tend to increase maintenance and operating costs. They also tend to lower mission availability percentages.
> 
> On the other hand, profoundly new helicopter technologies are now in development for civilian as well as military applications, and new onboard monitoring systems and vibration control promise big improvements in maintenance and operating costs. There’s also a potential promise of significant parts commonality, and the US Marines’ UH-1Y/ AH-1Z program indicates that this is achievable in a utility/ attack helicopter pair.
> 
> So why not try? The point of JMR-TD, Phase 1 is to investigate some of the new technologies and configurations that are maturing, test metrics like weight and performance, identify performance and manufacturing risks, and improve analytical tools to deal with the new technologies.
> 
> Key Phase 1 criteria include a design that can perform medium utility or attack missions, a 230+ knot cruise speed (which stretches compound helicopters if you want them armed), the ability to hover out of ground effect at 6,000 feet in 95 degree temperatures, and a low noise level. That last item is a much-delayed but welcome recognition, and comes from hard experience in theater where loudness equals enemy warning time. Airframe life for Phase 1 prototypes need only be 200 hours or so, though it’s an advantage to be able to last longer.
> 
> Can these new technologies be brought to a high enough Technology Readiness level for use in a defense Program of Record, while meeting performance goals? The Army is betting that they can, and 1st flights are expected in Summer 2017.
> 
> The original target was 2 award winners, but the solicitation acknowledged that 3 winners were possible, and there are indications that the Army is pursuing that path. From FBO.gov:
> 
> “It is possible that, given multiple meritorious proposals and proposed work that offers the potential for significant improvement to the Government’s best available knowledge in the first nine months, more than two initial selections will be made. In that case, the number of participants may be reduced after the initial design and risk review to match available funding or to minimize program risk.”
> 
> JMR-TD Phase 2 will develop mission systems that can be common to utility and attack helicopters. This phase is much closer to present reality. Bell Helicopter’s UH-1Y and AH-1Z already have a substantially common mission system, and Sikorsky is fielding “armed MH-60S” kits that are being installed by the US Navy in their maritime utility helicopters, as well as Battlehawk kits to arm the UAE’s UH-60Ms. Sensors and equipment are also keeping pace. There have been battlefield instances of AH-64 Apache attack helicopter pilots asking the UH-60 Black Hawks they were escorting to use their onboard sensor turrets, because they were more modern and more capable than the Apache’s.


----------



## SupersonicMax

My take on it: 1 type for everything, for medium-size helos (i.e.: Heavy lift excluded):

UH-60 Black Hawk - Utility
SH-60 Sea Hawk - Ship-Borne
HH-60 Pave Hawk - (C?)SAR

1 Supply Chain
Common general training
Common Technicians
Proven Airframes

Convert the Griffons for Portage.

That's in my simple mind though...


----------



## dapaterson

Can we trade in the CF-18s used for ground attack for Herc gunships as well?  Common platform for air transport and for air to ground attack, common supply chain, common training, common technicians, proven airframes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The difference being the multi-role helo 'makes sense' and could possibly work whereas your *idea* couldn't.


----------



## dapaterson

Proven ground attack aircraft (AC-130) vs developmental program with lots of cost and schedule overruns - the F35.

From a ground support perspective, I know which one work better...

 >


----------



## Quirky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Proven ground attack aircraft (AC-130)



Ahh yes, those came in handy during the Libya campaign.


----------



## Sf2

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My take on it: 1 type for everything, for medium-size helos (i.e.: Heavy lift excluded):
> 
> UH-60 Black Hawk - Utility
> SH-60 Sea Hawk - Ship-Borne
> HH-60 Pave Hawk - (C?)SAR
> 
> 1 Supply Chain
> Common general training
> Common Technicians
> Proven Airframes
> 
> Convert the Griffons for Portage.
> 
> That's in my simple mind though...



Canada is in no position to stand up a CSAR capability.


----------



## Good2Golf

In short, the Griffon may very well be 'replaced' with....a refreshed Griffon.

Some may recall when the H-90 was the preferred platform to replace the Twin Huey helicopter, prior to the Government's 1992 decision to buy the Griffon.  In retrospect, the Griffon procurement wasn't that bad a thing, as the Griffon substantively no less a machine than the Twin Huey and in many cases significantly more.  Most importantly, it reinforced the case for something more valuable to a Department than money...people.  With probably a fleet size of twice as many Griffons as we would have bought Blackhawks, the organization had to retain the people required to operate the Griffon fleet, even while other organizations within the CF were having forced reductions imposed upon them.

If one is looking for a practical/realistic 'replacement' for the Griffon, it may be a pragmatic, limited program to replace obsolescent components (old avionics, non-FADEC engines, etc...), and that's about it.  The actual replacement of the Griffon as an entire aircraft is likely not a realistic solution in these financially pressured times.  To refresh some systems on a 20-year old aircraft, yes. Whole new aircraft?  Unlikely.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the 412 is still in production? If so, we could do a slow moving replacement program, mid life low hour airframes in batches and slowly replace the higher hour ones with new versions.


----------



## Zoomie

Y model Duey?


----------



## Sf2

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Y model Duey?



Nope.  You'll see ours around 'till 2030 - albeit with some life-extension upgrades.  No Y's on the horizon.


----------



## Good2Golf

Zoomie: Like SF2 notes, probably a mild avionics refresh to leverage multi-function display-driven AMS and the FADEC engines, and that's it.  That would be a pragmatic allocation of taxpayers' dollars.  With the unrealistic expectations of "lift" (in the sense of more than just light utility lift) removed from the Griffon's principle repertoire, it should be able to be employed in a focused, tailored manner with greater supportability than it currently does sitting t a fifth of a century age with minimal mods.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Zoomie

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> a mild avionics refresh


Maybe a glance at the 412CF that 3CFFTS uses currently - all the leg work has been done by the contractor.


----------



## Good2Golf

It's not bad, Zoomie. I've flown the Outlaw FSim and the AMS is nice, but the PFD is a smaller designated format (two stacked 4" displays), vice larger MFD-based, which might limit the operational flexibility (mapping, nav, , etc...) Definitely a move in the right direction, beyond 40's/50's era dials (ironically driven by dual 1553 buses and an AIRINC 429 bus).  A fourth channel on the AFCS would be nice...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It's not bad, Zoomie. I've flown the Outlaw FSim and the AMS is nice, but the PFD is a smaller designated format (two stacked 4" displays), vice larger MFD-based, which might limit the operational flexibility (mapping, nav, , etc...) Definitely a move in the right direction, beyond 40's/50's era dials (ironically driven by dual 1553 buses and an AIRINC 429 bus).  A fourth channel on the AFCS would be nice...



I can drive a bus :christmas happy:


----------



## GAP

recceguy said:
			
		

> I can drive a bus :christmas happy:



a short bus?  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GAP said:
			
		

> a short bus?  ;D



If need be 

Buckle up yer helmets!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It's not bad, Zoomie. I've flown the Outlaw FSim and the AMS is nice, but the PFD is a smaller designated format (two stacked 4" displays), vice larger MFD-based, which might limit the operational flexibility (mapping, nav, , etc...) Definitely a move in the right direction, beyond 40's/50's era dials (ironically driven by dual 1553 buses and an AIRINC 429 bus).  A fourth channel on the AFCS would be nice...



This 1553 bus of which you speak...'tis the devils talk.  It has no place in aviation.  Why, the next heresy you utter will no doubt be that dials are some how inferior to them new fangled telemuvision screens...or that a gyro can be solid state.  Impossible, I say!   

Can you tell how old an airplane I fly in?


----------



## Good2Golf

And one that doesn't even have an instrument 'T'!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> And one that doesn't even have an instrument 'T'!



We prefer a random pattern of instruments.  Forces pilots to scan.  None of this cockpit ergonomics nonsense for us.    :nod:


----------



## SupersonicMax

SF2:  That's why I put a question mark by the C.  Nonetheless, it could be a viable SAR platform, like it already is in the States.


----------



## AirDet

Mountie said:
			
		

> Let's try to revive an old topic.
> 
> I realize there is no plan to replace the Griffon in the near future.  However, when the time comes, or "if" it were being replaced now, what would the best option be?
> 
> Would the Griffon be able to take the same upgrade as the UH-1Y Venom of the USMC?  Or would the RCAF be better off with the UH-60 Black Hawk?
> 
> I think best-case scenario would be a common fleet of H-60 variants for the MHP and UTTH fleets.  MH-60R Sea Hawk ASW variant and MH-60S Sea Hawk General Support variant for the MHP to replaced the failed CH-148 Cyclone procurement.  To replace the CH-146 Griffon would be the UH-60M Black Hawk utility variant (with option to convert to AH-60 Battle Hawk attack variant when needed), the MH-60M Black Hawk special operations variant, and the HH-60M Rescue Hawk in the SAR/Base Rescue/Combat Support role.  This would give a common fleet for ease of training, maintenance and logistics as well as being inter-operatable with the US military.
> 
> MHP - 18 MH-60R AWS & 12 MH-60S GS
> UTTH - 48 UH-60M
> SAR - 10 HH-60M
> Special Ops - 12 MH-60M
> 
> Total of 100 aircraft



A friend of mine (an RCAF Seaking Pilot) was flying Seahawks with the USN when the CBC reported that pilots couldn't escape from the Seahawk if it ditched. He was furious because he felt that a mix of Seahawks and blackhawks would've met Canada's needs economically. While I'm not an expert he was. He agreed with you. The numbers he would propose I'm sure would've been different but the concept was a good one. he woud also point out that the hawk family is the developed world's most used helo.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I'm out of my lane here, so a little info from the pros would help me:

It was my understanding that the Seahawk is meant to work in conjunction with its "mother ship" for prosecutions at least in ASW, while the Seaking and its replacement are capable of completely autonomous ASW ops. Is my info wrong, or just outdated (i.e. it was like that at first, but not anymore)?


----------



## AirDet

Hopefully and AESOP or TACCO will correct me if I get this wrong, but I think the ability to operate alone or with Mother depends on the equipment suite we choose. Given that the Saehawk may have been a contender. She won't be as capable as the mighty Seaking though.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I'm out of my lane here, so a little info from the pros would help me:
> 
> It was my understanding that the Seahawk is meant to work in conjunction with its "mother ship" for prosecutions at least in ASW, while the Seaking and its replacement are capable of completely autonomous ASW ops. Is my info wrong, or just outdated (i.e. it was like that at first, but not anymore)?



My limited understanding of Seahawks is that the early models were tethered to their ships through hawk link.
The Romeo model seems to be pretty capable on its own.


----------



## Baz

There were two models of the Seahawk, 60B (Lamps Mk III) and 60F.  The replaced, respectively, the Sea Sprite (LAmps Mk I) for outer zone ASW, and the Sea King for inner zone ASW.

The 60B did not have a dipping sonar.  It was tethered to the ship via Hawk Link when required.  In effect, you could send one of two things down the link: surface, mainly radar; or subsurface, mainly sono acoustics.  However, it also had the capacitiy to process either of these in abscence of the link, as well as its MAD.  Its limiting factor was crew: 3, the pilot, Co-Pilot / ATO (airborne Tactical Officer), and sensor operator.  This was augmented by up to four directly in the ship's ops room: ASTAC, Air Controller, Above Water, and Below Water (nominally).  Later on they also pushed video down the Hawk Link.  Mainly small deck based.

The 60F had a dipping sonar, but no radar.  It didn't have Hawk Link, but did have a databurst in its tactical computer (as did the Sea King... our Sea King had the software but it was never hooked up to the radio except in trials).  It had a more robust crew of 4: Pilot, Co-Pilot / ATO, enlisted Tactical Sensor Operator (ran the rear tactical computer), and enlisted acoustic sonsor operator.  Mainly carrier based.

The 60R is meant to replace both the 'B and the 'F... it has sonar, sonos, radar, ESM, EO/IR, but no MAD.  It carries an improved hawk Link based on TCDL (Tactical Common Data Link, the same radio type as our Griffins, Auroros, and Sea Kings have), but also has Link-16 to give it enhanced inner zone or independant ops.  Limiting factor is still the crew of three.  Small deck and carrier based.

Finally, the 60S is to replace a bunch of other helos: Mine Counter Measure Sea Stallions, Sea Knights, etc, plus gives them a better shooter capability.  No Hawk Link, but has Link-16.  Only real sensor is EO/IR.  Makes a good hunter killer team with the 60R... the 'R searches actively and the 'S kills quietly.

With the TCDL in the Sea King the Canadian MH community is already having to consider what gets pushed to the ship and what doesn't.  Since now the ship can see your plot (including AIS), video, and pictures, then sometimes there's an expectation that they will make all the decisions... but sometimes there's other info (like the pilot's eyes) that gives the helo a better SA.  The next MH will continue to change the dynamic; unfortunately no Link-16 or TCDL, but Link-11/22 will make us more Merlin like.

Funny this is in a thread about Griffins???

By the way, the 60R can't meet the Canadian requirement (although we could change the requirement).  With all the ASW gear it only has space for a crew of three, plus one squished little pax seat.  As well, anyone talking about commonality between 60 versions doesn't understand the first thing about what it takes to marinize a helo... there's very little actually in common.


----------



## x_para76

:goodpost:


----------



## ArmyRick

Given the fiscal restraints we are facing again, me thinks no helicopters will be a coming in the next few years (or decades?).

Scary thought but as pointed out early, no political will for it. 

I still remember John Manley getting flown around in Bosnia in Dutch helicopters in Bosnia. Not sure why our griffons in theatre didn't lift him.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I still remember John Manley getting flown around in Bosnia in Dutch helicopters in Bosnia. Not sure why our griffons in theatre didn't lift him.


They were employed on _real_ operations rather than higher-HQ tourism?


----------



## Good2Golf

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Given the fiscal restraints we are facing again, me thinks no helicopters will be a coming in the next few years (or decades?)...



Other than the remainder of the CH-147F Chinooks that are arriving in Canada, about one every three weeks from Boeing, until all 15 have been delivered by the beginning of this summer.  


Regards
G2G


----------



## ArmyRick

Rog. The chinook is a signed and done deal. I meant as no new helicopters from ground up will be procured in the foreseeable future. Existing or otherwise.


----------



## Mountie

The Japanese Self-Defence Force is procuring the Bell/Fuji 412 EPI+ variant.  The news release says the + variant has an improved transmission, glass cockpit, higher gross weight, greater airframe durability and longer run-dry endurance.  The helicopter will be available for export.  

This could be a Canadian-manufactured improvement/replacement for the CH-146.  The commonality would allow for a smooth transition for pilot and ground crew training.  The CH-146+ variants could be used by 1 Wing for expeditionary operations while the Combat Support Squadrons could maintain the older Griffons with a modest upgrade.  Replacement aircraft and spare parts would be endless with the aircraft from 1 Wing being replaced and used for spare parts.

Not the best option, but perhaps the only affordable options.


----------



## Loachman

If one is going to upgrade an aircraft, one may as well upgrade the whole fleet rather than keep two similar ones around.

And a marginally-improved Griffon is still only a marginally-improved Griffon. If we are going to stick with a Huey variant, then the UH1Y is the only worthwhile option, in my opinion.


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> ..... If we are going to stick with a Huey variant, then the UH1Y is the only worthwhile option, in my opinion.



Basically an upgraded and improved "Twin Huey" ?


----------



## Good2Golf

No, it only looks like a slightly stretched UH-1N.  Its T700-based power train is essentially the same as the Blackhawk or Apache.  Its all-up weight is nearly twice that of a Griffon or Twin Huey.  The Marines did a great job in selling the UH-1Y as an "upgrade"...


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No, it only looks like a slightly stretched UH-1N.  Its T700-based power train is essentially the same as the Blackhawk or Apache.  Its all-up weight is nearly twice that of a Griffon or Twin Huey.  The Marines did a great job in selling the UH-1Y as an "upgrade"...














Helicopters: Rotors, transmission and engine with something for the pilot to hang on to.

Body shape is a secondary consideration,


----------



## Mountie

Loachman said:
			
		

> If we are going to stick with a Huey variant, then the UH1Y is the only worthwhile option, in my opinion.



Couldn't agree more.  I was just trying to be realistic cost wise.


----------



## MilEME09

Mountie said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more.  I was just trying to be realistic cost wise.



Not to mention the Production line is still open I believe, so if we wanted them, lets do it, I am sure the USMC could be convinced to bump a delivery back a bit so we can get a few faster


----------



## Loachman

Regrettably, we will be stuck with Griffon, with minimal upgrades, for a long time to come.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Not to mention the Production line is still open I believe, so if we wanted them, lets do it, I am sure the USMC could be convinced to bump a delivery back a bit so we can get a few faster



Why would the Marines do that? ???

They said no to any early CH-53Ks so I don't think they'd be any more benevolent with the Yankees.

op:

G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax

Why not Blackhawks?


----------



## The Bread Guy

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Why not Blackhawks?


Off the rack = not enough Canadian content?


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Why not Blackhawks?



No capability - related reason.

The main reason would be political - we have a Bell plant in Mirabel, which may make a purchase a little more palatable. 85% commonality with AH1Z is nice but of no significance as we are unlikely to purchase an AH.

After doing some quick searching around the internet, my earlier assumptions no longer seem to be valid. UH1Y was originally billed as "giving Black Hawk (correct spelling - two words) performance at half of the cost". While costs vary wildly from site-to-site, as does key performance information, Black Hawk cost is generally claimed to be the lesser while it can lift more (8000 lbs vice 6660 lbs for UH1Y). Lower UH60 cost is likely due to economy-of-scale - far, far more have been built.

UH1Y does come with a FLIR system, though, and is designed to be armed.

Either would be a major step up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not sure if they have any left, but we could get some slightly used Blackhawks https://www.army.mil/article/128123/Exchange_of_A_model_Black_Hawks_generates_significant_cost_savings


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not sure if they have any left, but we could get some slightly used Blackhawks https://www.army.mil/article/128123/Exchange_of_A_model_Black_Hawks_generates_significant_cost_savings



Sweet!  We could also save money over F-35 by buying some original Hornets from the early-80's.


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sweet!  We could also save money over F-35 by buying some original Hornets from the early-80's.


Do they come in blue?

See Canada here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASq2CYZlqD0


----------



## BurmaShave

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sweet!  We could also save money over F-35 by buying some original Hornets from the early-80's.



Screw gently-used Hornets. What we really need is to resurrect the world-beating, cancelled-by-the-Americans-cause-they-afraid CF-105 Avro Arrow. With quick dab of the stealth juice, we could have a made-in-Canada replacement for the F-18 at 1/4th the price of competitors!  8)

(It don't have anything to do with helos...I just saw that idea on Facebook and needed to vent before I exploded)


----------



## George Wallace

BurmaShave said:
			
		

> Screw gently-used Hornets. What we really need is to resurrect the world-beating, cancelled-by-the-Americans-cause-they-afraid CF-105 Avro Arrow. With quick dab of the stealth juice, we could have a made-in-Canada replacement for the F-18 at 1/4th the price of competitors!  8)
> 
> (It don't have anything to do with helos...I just saw that idea on Facebook and needed to vent before I exploded)



Here we go again.....Resurecting the Avro Arrow thread are we?    [

Lobbying to replace the F-35 with (a modernized) Avro Arrow


----------

