# No Canadian helocopters in Afghanistan; 30 Aug 07 - Sen Kenny calls for this to change.



## FormerHorseGuard (8 Jul 2006)

I was watching the military channel Thursday  night and they were running a program Task Force Red Dog. It was about a res force of Marines called upon to fly  helicopters in Afghanistan.  They showed the various choppers used by the unit,  BlackHawks, Cobras,Ch47s, and UH 1 Bell Helicopters for varios missions.
if they can fly UH1 birds why is Canada's new Bell Choppers not being used?

I do not understand much about helicopters and flight planning so educate me on this decesion. Or is it a case of it is not being  a CH47 model so we will not fly it?
or is the Canadian Bell Helicopter not able to fly in those conditions?
thanks in advance for the answers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Jul 2006)

What new helicopters are you refering too?


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2006)

Short answer:

We own the Gryphon, which for a variety of reasons, is unsuitable for use in Afghanistan, or anywhere outside of Canada, with the possible exception of Bosnia Roto 48.

...so we have to borrow helo lift from our allies.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Jul 2006)

if he's refering to the Griffon they are hardly new.


----------



## Armymatters (8 Jul 2006)

The Bell Model 412 (CH-146 Griffon) is considered by many in the CF to be anemic in terms of engine power, and that is in Canadian climates. I would hate to see what would happen if they were operating in the hot and high climate of Afghanistan, as it is common sentiment that due to the climate, the Griffons probally would lack the capability to carry any useful load.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (8 Jul 2006)

i should of said giffon choppers , sorry for any confusion.  they are the newer choopers, i last rode on the kiowa and the twin engine hueys back in my days.
why did we buy under powered birds?????????????????

duh........must be  a Canadian Government purchase I forgot the rules for buying  things with the government. must not be what is required just look good on paper, that is just one of the many rules they have for purchasing


----------



## Armymatters (8 Jul 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> i should of said giffon choppers , sorry for any confusion.  they are the newer choopers, i last rode on the kiowa and the twin engine hueys back in my days.
> why did we buy under powered birds?????????????????
> 
> duh........must be  a Canadian Government purchase I forgot the rules for buying  things with the government. must not be what is required just look good on paper, that is just one of the many rules they have for purchasing



Blame Brian Mulroney, as he single sourced the bird from Bell, as they were transfering production of the Model 412 to Quebec, and he needed to do something to help boost polls in Quebec. The Auditor General was later on extremely critical of the government's decision to purchase the helicopter and in regards to single sourcing the helicopter without a competition.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Jul 2006)

Are you just providing facts or trying to hint at a corollary between that and the apparent contract awarding to Boeing for the Chinook and C 17?


----------



## Armymatters (8 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Are you just providing facts or trying to hint at a corollary between that and the apparent contract awarding to Boeing for the Chinook and C 17?



Only the facts. I am in favour of the Chinook and C-17, as it is evident that they are the best solutions the CF can acquire today, compared to back then with the Griffons were procured as there were other more superior options (the Griffon purchase in my opinion was a political tool to garner votes in Quebec). And there is a proper competition with Chinook and C-17 procurement, it is just that it so happens that one company can satify the requirements.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Jul 2006)

Exxxxxccccccccceeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnntttttttttttttt.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jul 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> The Bell Model 412 (CH-146 Griffon) is considered by many in the CF to be anemic in terms of engine power, and that is in Canadian climates. I would hate to see what would happen if they were operating in the hot and high climate of Afghanistan, as it is common sentiment that due to the climate, the Griffons probally would lack the capability to carry any useful load.



DISAGREE



			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> Only the facts. I am in favour of the Chinook and C-17, as it is evident that they are the best solutions the CF can acquire today, compared to back then with the Griffons were procured as there were other more superior options (the Griffon purchase in my opinion was a political tool to garner votes in Quebec). And there is a proper competition with Chinook and C-17 procurement, it is just that it so happens that one company can satisfy the requirements.



AGREE




I'd fly a CH146 Griffon for my operator brethren around K-har without a second thought.  IMO, politics are keeping it out of theatre...maybe if the Chinook clears any ACAN contests we can whip a det of 146 into K-har in double-time.  While I'd love to get back in the cockpit of a '47, I'd like even more to beat around the hills of Kandahar/Helmand/Oruzgan in a Griffy just to point out some of the ongoing fallacies regarding the Griffon.  It doesn't do what a Chinook can do, but it certainly does a fair bit more than what the Twin Huey did.  While the Twin was what I flew the largest chunk of flight time on (~1,500 hrs), I'm not about to romanticize its capabilities as something far superior to the Griffon.  Sure, Griffon was primarily a politically-directed compromise procurement, but it is not the piece of crap that those who haven't flown it themselves say it is...

My 2 ¢

Duey


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (8 Jul 2006)

I sort of figured the 412 could handle the taskings over there, if the UH 1 could do the job, I figured a newer machine could do the job. I was not thinking the Bell 412 could do the job of a CH 47, that  would be like saying the mini van could do the job of the greyhound bus. 
I was just curious why the 412 was not operating in the present taskings. 

if they sent the 412 over I am sure there is a wide range of taskings it could provide and the crews would get to see some operational action that would be useful back home in training crews that were going over there to work.
thanks for the answers guys


----------



## Jantor (8 Jul 2006)

Duey:

Please correct me if this is wrong but was it you that said that the turbines in the Griffon were fine, it was the transmission that was the weak link. So much so that the turbines were actually de-rated?

Thanks


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Blame Brian Mulroney, as he single sourced the bird from Bell, as they were transfering production of the Model 412 to Quebec, and he needed to do something to help boost polls in Quebec. The Auditor General was later on extremely critical of the government's decision to purchase the helicopter and in regards to single sourcing the helicopter without a competition.



Ah!  Yess!  Back when the EH 101 was all the front page news prior to the election, this purchase was announced in a one paragraph statement hidden away on page 26, or so, of the Globe and Mail.  An announcement that the Bell plant between Montreal and Mirabel, had gotten the contract to replace the Twin Huey.   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jul 2006)

Jantor said:
			
		

> Duey:
> 
> Please correct me if this is wrong but was it you that said that the turbines in the Griffon were fine, it was the transmission that was the weak link. So much so that the turbines were actually de-rated?
> 
> Thanks



Jantor, that's roughly the gist of it.  The Griffon's PW&C PT6T-3D is an upgrade from the Twin Huey's PT6T-3*B*.  Better hot and high performance and single-engine (OEI) capability.  Both PT6T PowerPac's (3B and 3D) were de-rated automatically from their theoretical maximum combined power of 1800shp, however the derated amount when both engines were operating is greater in the Griffon because its transmission can accept a greater continuous power input -- max 2-engine power on the Huey was 1290 shp and is 1584 shp for the Griffon.  This may be partially be offset by the fact that the Griffon is a little heavier than the Huey, but the additional dual engine power available through the transmission is a real-world boost in the seat of the pants.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!  Yess!  Back when the EH 101 was all the front page news prior to the election, this purchase was announced in a one paragraph statement hidden away on page 26, or so, of the Globe and Mail.  An announcement that the Bell plant between Montreal and Mirabel, had gotten the contract to replace the Twin Huey.   ;D



George, entry in my log book: 29 APR 1992 - 1.0/1.5(hr) YOW-YMX-YOW - VIP M.MASSE.  I actually flew the guy to Bell to make the announcement...forgive me, I knew not what I was doing...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Jantor (8 Jul 2006)

OK, got it. Thanks Duey


----------



## Armymatters (8 Jul 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> I sort of figured the 412 could handle the taskings over there, if the UH 1 could do the job, I figured a newer machine could do the job. I was not thinking the Bell 412 could do the job of a CH 47, that  would be like saying the mini van could do the job of the greyhound bus.
> I was just curious why the 412 was not operating in the present taskings.
> 
> if they sent the 412 over I am sure there is a wide range of taskings it could provide and the crews would get to see some operational action that would be useful back home in training crews that were going over there to work.
> thanks for the answers guys



USMC Huey's have an even further upgraded transmission and have two GE T700 turboshafts, as found in the Blackhawk, EH-101, and S-92. In short, USMC Huey's have even more power than our 412's. Not only that, they are also slightly larger than the Bell 412.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jul 2006)

HML/A-157 was flying the UH-1N in Afghanistan...the UH-1Y is not operational yet.  The UH-1N has the same PW&C PT6T-3B as out CH135 Twin Huey had...


----------



## Scoobs (12 Jul 2006)

Duey,

you are correct that the twin pack is derated for the Griffon.  The PT6 is a good engine.  It is used on numerous a/c around the world, such as the Dash series a/c, etc.  I'm not sure if the other readers understand the exact way a helo gets lift, i.e. can take off and fly.  So, I will try to explain it simply.  The rotors are actually airfoils (wings) spinning around.  The only way you can get lift is to have air flowing over the airfoils (rotors).  In a helo, this is done by spinning the rotors around.  This causes the air to go over the rotors and because of their shape, lift is produced, and the helo can take off.  The thing that affects lift the most (lift varies with the square of the velocity while the other terms only vary to the first power) is the velocity of the air going over and under the blades.  So, why don't we speed up the rotors?  Well, a problem comes up where the rotor blade tips (end of rotor) could actually go supersonic if the rotors were sped up too fast.  That is really bad and could cause the blades to break apart, stall, etc.  Generally put in the bad category.  Another way to explain it is to tie a rock to a string and spin it around.  The rock has to be going faster than the string near your hand in order to cover the larger distance the rock travels in the same time that the distance the string near your hand travels.  So, if we can't speed up the blades to get more lift, what do we do?  Well, the answer is to increase the surface area of the blades.  You can do this different ways but the two general ways are to increase the number of blades or increase the width (i.e. chord) of the rotors (blades).  However, this causes another problem.  This will increase the torque that is felt by the mast.  This torque has to be overcome by the engines (through the combining reduction gear box, then through the transmission, and then through the mast).  A helo's engines are almost always turboshafts, such as the PT6 is (smaller helos actually use piston engines).  Turboshafts don't give a high velocity of air out the rear end, like turbojets do.  Most of the power a turboshaft produces goes into turning the compressor and then the remainder goes into the shaft that goes into the reduction gear box.  As for the mast, the thicker the mast, the more torque it can take.
Now, for the Griffon as compared to the Twin Huey or the new Yankee class "Super Huey" that the Marines have planned.  The Griffon was originally designed to have a larger payload than the Twin Huey.  It does have a greater all up weight (aircraft plus payload, essentially) than the twin.  One other major difference is that the Twin never had what is called a torque tube.  The Griffon does.  This measures the torque that the mast is feeling.  I venture to say that a lot of Hueys were being overtorqued and nobody knew about it.  The Griffon has a small mast as compared to the Black Hawks, etc.  Therefore, it is torque limited, thus the engines must be de-rated.
From above, one can see that you can't just throw in more powerful engines in a helo and hope to get more lift and thus be able to take off with more mass.  It ain't going to happen.  In combination with the more powerful engines, you need a beefed up RGB, tranny, and most importantly, mast.  That is what the Super Huey (Yankee model) has, in combo with the more powerful GE engines.  
On a side note, unless my material is date (been away from Tac Hel for one year now), the Super Huey has not entered into full production due to a lack of older models to refurbish (read war in Iraq causing these probs).  Duey, do you know if this prob has been fixed?

Duey, when did you get to 427?  I don't remember seeing you there when I was there (I saw your pic in front of the Chinook in a different post).

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse anyone.  I'm available for questions if you have any.  I was at Tac Hel and I'm an AERE (Aerospace Eng).


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jul 2006)

Scoobs

From your Quote below:



			
				Scoobs said:
			
		

> ...........  The Griffon was originally designed to have a larger payload than the Twin Huey.  It does have a greater all up weight (aircraft plus payload, essentially) than the twin.  One other major difference is that the Twin never had what is called a torque tube.  The Griffon does.  This measures the torque that the mast is feeling.  I venture to say that a lot of Hueys were being overtorqued and nobody knew about it.  The Griffon has a small mast as compared to the Black Hawks, etc.  Therefore, it is torque limited, thus the engines must be de-rated.
> From above, one can see that you can't just throw in more powerful engines in a helo and hope to get more lift and thus be able to take off with more mass.  It ain't going to happen.  In combination with the more powerful engines, you need a beefed up RGB, tranny, and most importantly, mast.  That is what the Super Huey (Yankee model) has, in combo with the more powerful GE engines.



Am I to take it that the Griffon was originally designed to have a larger mast, but it (the mast) never made it to production ?


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2006)

George, the Griffon's mast is about as big as you could reasonably design without making it relatively stronger than several other components.  Scoobs is right that for the rotor system of the 412, the mast (along with the glass-fibre blades) principally limits how much power you can apply to the main head...if you added more, however, you would have to beef up other components along the way.  

Not sure if everyone caught the nuance of a single power-pac that is actually made by twinning two separate engines into a unified power pack.  There are actually two PT6 turbines add their power together in a combining gear box (CBOX) which is then output from the power pack into the main transmission.  The main transmission only sees a single input shaft and doesn't really care where the power is coming from, just that there is enough to balance off the aerodynamic loads of the blades to keep the drive system from slowing down (i.e. rotor from "drooping") The PT6 Twin Pac turbine system can in most conditions still provide much more power than the Bell 412's dynamic system is capable of reasonably absorbing...what this means is that by down-rating the engines, they will actually operate much more reliably and with fewer problems -- kind of like using only 50-60% max power of the engines in normal operation.  OEI (one engine inoperative) will max out a single engine (which on its own could provide up to ~71% of the main transmission requirements)...and in some extreme cases (we're talking like 60*C) may actually put the combined power sections near the upper combustion/exhaust component temperature limit.

Frankly, I think the weakest link (in terms of how close a component's actual strength compared is to its minimum design load limit requirement) is the tail structure...specifically the fin, and some of the tail rotor components.  I scared the crap out of myself once by playing "door kicker" once in the back of the chopper and took a look back at the tail rotor when the guys up front were pulling into the flare to insert the guys....   Note to self: don't look at how much the skin wrinkles on the inboard side of the tail fin...eeeks!

Scoobs, arriving in weeks few...stuff to clean up in current life.   No, I missed crossing paths with you while you were up in the "Den".  See you at the next Gathering!  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobs (12 Jul 2006)

Duey,

not scare you or anything, but that is a common area in the vertical stab where we find problems with the internal support structure or we find rivets popping.  Look for black powder around the rivets.  This is a tell-tale sign for worn rivets.  If this scares you, I guess you wouldn't want to see the rotors through a high speed camera!  Can you say flapping like a bird!  

All the best Duey, I've got to get offline and go prepare a lesson for tomorrow.

Scoobs.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jul 2006)

Here's another question for you Duey, all that gucci kit that they have hung onto the 407 for the ARH programme, couldn't the same stuff but more of it be hung from the 412s/Griffons?

http://www.helinews.com/multicomparison.shtml
http://www.helinews.com/turbinecomparison.shtml 

The rough numbers on the above sites would seem to indicate that the 412EP has about twice the useful load of the 407 and yet they are talking about the 407 lifting its FLIR gear and up to 2x19 70mm packs.  Why couldn't our existing 412s lift that and 7.62 minigun?  Or was that part of the ERSTA programme that got canned?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (12 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> if he's refering to the Griffon they are hardly new.



I was in Goose Bay when they delivered the first one to triple 4 San......1995. I guess by Sea King standards they are new!! :


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Here's another question for you Duey, all that gucci kit that they have hung onto the 407 for the ARH programme, couldn't the same stuff but more of it be hung from the 412s/Griffons?
> 
> http://www.helinews.com/multicomparison.shtml
> http://www.helinews.com/turbinecomparison.shtml
> ...



We looked at putting anything from M2 .50, GAU-19A .50, 30mm low-recoil, AGM-114K Hellfire, CRV-7, etc... anything that hooks to a NATO std 14" lug and uses a controller that is compatible with a MIL-STD-1553B digital databus...

I'll dig up the picks we had taken when we arranged things years ago as the Griffon was starting to come into service (97-ish).  To some degree, it was part of the ERSTA effort, but was technically a separate, although related capability.


----------



## Rescue Randy (14 Jul 2006)

If I read all this correctly, there is no apparent technical or doctrinal reason why the Griffon is not deployed at this time.  It appears that we need helo support, and it is at least as capable as some machines currently serving in the region.  The conclusion that I am drawing is that the CF does not want to use the Griffon - the obvious question is "why not"?


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jul 2006)

Money!  The Tasking came down from the Government to DND, who only had so much monies from the Government to do the job.  DND and NDHQ then draw up a plan of what they need there manpower and equipment wise.  They start off with a 'Wish List' of what they think they will need ideally, and then start chopping the 'luxuries' off until they can afford the mission with what money they have been allotted by the Government.

It is not like the Military of Canada has money growing on trees and can put what they want into every mission that the Government sends them on.  They are limited by their budget.  I am sure that DND would like to have a whole Sqn of Coyotes, perhaps a whole Armd Regt; a full Arty Bty or more; a full Bn of Inf; an Engr Sqn, a Service Bn; as well as the existing tail in the NSE; and also Air elements to provide 'Lift' and 'Support'; but alas there is not enough budgeted for this, nor the manpower or equipment to sustain it.  That is why you don't see any helicopters, CF 18's, Leopard tanks, and more over there.

Money.


----------



## GAP (14 Jul 2006)

This just in from the Pak Tribune regarding the British difficulty with helicopters in the Sandbox

British troops facing air supply crisis in Afghanistan  
Thursday July 06, 2006 Pak Tribune
http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=149015

KABUL: British forces in Afghanistan are facing a supply crisis because nearly half of their helicopter transport fleet is unable to fly in daylight hours due to the searing Helmand heat. 
The 3,300 British troops in the south rely on six Chinook and four Lynx aircraft for all transport and supply. The extreme heat and thin, rising air of the Helmand desert has limited the Lynx, an attack and utility helicopter, to use between dusk and dawn, when temperatures fall to acceptable levels, military sources confirmed. 

Captain Drew Gibson, the British military spokesman with the Helmand force, declined to comment on the Lynx problems, citing "operational reasons". 
More on Link


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> We looked at putting anything from M2 .50, GAU-19A .50, 30mm low-recoil, AGM-114K Hellfire, CRV-7, etc... anything that hooks to a NATO std 14" lug and uses a controller that is compatible with a MIL-STD-1553B digital databus...
> 
> I'll dig up the picks we had taken when we arranged things years ago as the Griffon was starting to come into service (97-ish).  To some degree, it was part of the ERSTA effort, but was technically a separate, although related capability.



As promised...


----------



## GO!!! (14 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> As promised...



I call Gunner!!

But seriously, it was mentioned earlier that "*political considerations*" are the only thing holding the Gryphon back from an Afghanistan deployment, that there is no doctrinal or technical reason NOT to deploy them.

Can anyone elaborate on this?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jul 2006)

And she could lift like that Duey?

Amaaaazing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2006)

Thanks for the explanations, so what is the difference between a 212 and a 214, I was in Venezuela in 94 where they were using 214’s to lift drill rigs. They were powered by P&W 1875 shaft HP engines if I recall correctly, the main complaint was that the engines were not the “hot and high” required for the hot and high conditions of the area.

Perhaps this government could be convinced that we should bring our current helo’s into the mix in addition to the support we receive from our allies currently.


----------



## Popurhedoff (14 Jul 2006)

Duey,

Looking forward to seeing you in the Den.  

Cheers
Pop


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And she could lift like that Duey?
> 
> Amaaaazing.



Not cleared for flight or permanent fitment, but what you see (plank, GAU-19A .50, LR30 [ a 30mm version of LAV's 25], and Hellfire) would have weighed about 1300 lbs, or about the equivalent of 5 soldiers with kit (note: 1300 lbs including the loaded .50 ammo bin just out of view and 2 x AGM-114 Hellfire on the other side as well).  This would require a tac fuel load (around 45-60 mins on station for CAS) but it would definitely kick some butt.  Many (most?) higher-ups in the Air Force were not at all supportive of seeing any teeth go on the Griffon.  If you think inter-arm rivalry is something in the Army....you guys don't have anything on the Air Force..."I'm sorry, you're not a Hornet or Aurora you say?  Can't help you...stay in your lane, no weapons for you"  :

Colin, a 214 is a big beast...Blackhawk-sized.  Originally made for the Iranian Air Force when the Shah was still in power...it uses GE CT7 turboshafts, same engines as the Cormorant, essentially civy variants of the T700 military turboshaft used in Blackhawks and the new Super Hueys and Cobra's.  

GO!!!  Correct, there is neither any doctrinal nor any technical reason why Griffon cannot be in AFG right now...  I'll leave it up to others more qualified in assessing political exigencies to discuss same...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, you're not a Hornet or Aurora you say?



Duey, The Aurora has no friends in today's air force.  PM me if you want to hear the latest, i'll get back to you when i get home from RIMPAC


----------



## civmick (14 Jul 2006)

I thought the -18s couldn't go to Afstan due issues with comms.  I have a dim recall of reading something like that when NATO went in.  Has that been fixed or could they have gone any time?


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jul 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Duey, The Aurora has no friends in today's air force.  PM me if you want to hear the latest, i'll get back to you when i get home from RIMPAC



Aesop, except for a few "electric golfball" types...a big one of whom really counts in the "protecting Aurora" corner.  I think the MP communities error was in not getting on board the ISR train before now.  I wrote a Capability Deficiency paper on the Aerospace Systems Course over ten years ago as to why the CP140 should have a self-defence suite (SDS) and was told by my course director "what does a tac hel guy know about maritime patrol...stay in your lane."  I was pressured to change my topic, but resisted, wrote on CP140 SDS anyway and was given a C- on my paper.  If the guy were still in, I'd send him a copy of my paper again and asked him what he thought about my 1995 paper now... :

Pop, see you in a few weeks...'pop'ed (uugh, bad joke, I know) up earlier this week to get some resource issues worked out...will see you guys in a bit!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## GO!!! (14 Jul 2006)

civmick said:
			
		

> I thought the -18s couldn't go to Afstan due issues with comms.  I have a dim recall of reading something like that when NATO went in.  Has that been fixed or could they have gone any time?



I am under the impression that fast air requires an ENORMOUS logistical tail, in regards to maintenance, refueling etc. We also lack many of the precision weapons that our allies have an overwhelming prepondrance of.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I am under the impression that fast air requires an ENORMOUS logistical tail, in regards to maintenance, refueling etc. We also lack many of the precision weapons that our allies have an overwhelming prepondrance of.



I was under the impression that we have since restocked our PGMs?


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2006)

I am not as certain as Duey that the Griffon, the LSVW of the helicopter world, would perform well in Afghanistan in the utility role but then I've got far less time on it, am not current, and am admittedly biased as a Kiowa guy.

The real limitation is more likely the state of 1 Wing today - very short of experienced aircrew and techs. I do not think that we could sustain a deployment under the circumstances, and, while a one-shot deployment might be doable, it may not be worth the effort.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jul 2006)

Loachman, I think we'll have to have differing views on this one...UK AAC has Lynx in theatre now, challenging but doable, especially when biased towads night ops.  Griffon actually has more cap than the Lynx.  A bud of mine is exchange with the AAC as their Lynx Det Comd, his opinion would be close to mine.  Personally, I think putting in any capability that supports the boots on the ground is well worth the effort.  Not to get into details, but I know that there are some options being considered that would be sustainable and meaningful.  As I've said in other threads...I'd go back to the sand box in a heartbeat, especially in a cockpit and leading some of the finest men and women the AF has to offer!  Huah!  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Loachman (20 Jul 2006)

Which is why I highlighted my lack of currency and bias - gained honestly during the early days of the equipping of 400 Sqn. I also deal (try to, at least) almost daily with the lack of serviceable and available machines. Granted, that's not necessarily the fault of the machine and there are many factors but I'd have to be severely convinced that a deployment would be doable and worthwhile.

Is Lynx being used in a utility role or recce role?

I could accept the latter role for the CH146, but then there are obvious equipment and training issues to be resolved first.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jul 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Which is why I highlighted my lack of currency and bias - gained honestly during the early days of the equipping of 400 Sqn. I also deal (try to, at least) almost daily with the lack of serviceable and available machines. Granted, that's not necessarily the fault of the machine and there are many factors but I'd have to be severely convinced that a deployment would be doable and worthwhile.
> 
> Is Lynx being used in a utility role or recce role?
> 
> I could accept the latter role for the CH146, but then there are obvious equipment and training issues to be resolved first.



Yup...ack that (recce bit.)  Folks should keep in mind there's a difference between "light utility" (like Lynx is doing along with recce, tac security, convoy FP, etc...) and "tactical mobility".  Griffon could easily do what Lynx is primarily doing today.  Lynx should have EO-IR capability in theatre shortly.  Currently it does both recce and utility, but recce is limited to portable sensor solutions (as in stab-binos).  UK AAC is working at getting fleet fitment "for" on all its battlefield utility aircraft in concert with the RAF (as it turns out, the L3 Wescam MX-15, like was selected for the now-defunct CH146 ERSTA programme).    EO-IR could be put on the Griffon in less time than it would take guys to get up to speed on TTPs.  

At the end of the day, it's more a question of people high enough up the food chain being willing to support the actual fitment of the aircraft with the relatively simple-to-add (but harder to do the paperwork) sensor equipment than it is whether the aircraft can provide meaningful support or not.

Mein swei centen...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (22 Jul 2006)

they mounted light machine guns for gulf war 1 in seakings, why not do the same for the ch146, at least they  could fly over the troops and over some fire support and protection while on patrol with the god issued c1a2 standard issue eye balls?
add some night vision or plain old day time glasses and it would be better then nothing . they could always help fly in supplies and fly out the wounded or fly in extra troops?
but i know i am way out of my lane but just asking


----------



## Zoomie (22 Jul 2006)

Everything that you just suggested for the -146 they currently have and use.  There is a C-6 mount for the FE and flying on NVGs is the forestay of our tac-hel brethren.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jul 2006)

TACHEL has way better NV system that the ground forces (which is how it should be BTW)

I will defer everything to Duey though as no doubt soone he will be back here flying  8)


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jul 2006)

ANVIS-9 kicks butt over anything we flew with before!  When I first started flying NVG's in '90, they were cut-rate US ANVIS-5 (our name AN/AAQ-501(A)) that gave us about 20/40(45) vision.  The ANVIS-9's we use today can give you 20/20 equivalent vision when set up properly.  You can see small branches and leaves on trees that you couldn't see a decade and a half ago.  My default for avn ops in AFG would be night time, with an extremely good reason for flying in the day (CASEVAC being one of them.)  We are actually looking at a range of weaponry to fit to the Griffon in AFG, C6 (MAG58 / M240B/G) is of course current fitment, and a very potent, aimable gun system.  We're also looking at systems such as GAU-16 Mini 5.56 and the GAU-21 M3M .50 (hi-rate M2) as well as the good old CRV-7 and newer variants of it.  

It'll be  ahorse race to see who gets to theatre first, Griffon or Chinook (if we in fact get some loaners, otherwise it'll be Griffy for sure methinks....just a long as the CH147A contract is in place, then higher-ups will breath a sigh of relief and allow Griffon in)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB (22 Jul 2006)

I have a set of ANVIS-9 (grounds -- it has a different battery pack setup from the A/C  version)  --- very sweet to say the least.

The GAU-16 would be my fav for a point defence setup -- I've seen some of the USSOC Hummer with them -- pretty potentant in close.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Jul 2006)

Any thought given to the underbelly mounted mini-gun available on the old Kiowa? Is that not an option on the Griffon?

Cheers


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2006)

The MiniTAT (Tactical Armament Turret) was not a weapon, it was an anchor. Had anybody put one on my Kiowa in a real war situation, I'd have pickled it (accidentally) over the nearest lake.

Stowed, it hung just inboard of the left-hand skid about an inch or so above the ground - not good on soft ground during sloppy seasons or winter. Deployed, it hung a couple of feet below the skids along the hel's centreline. This caused most guys to fly about ten feet higher than normal in order to avoid snagging it on fences, shrubbery, and livestock - not good, when the tactical situation required one to follow every little fold in the ground (our minimum tactical altitude was "skids clear of ground). The thought of sustaining an engine failure at low altitude with gun deployed was not comforting either, but this did not happen until shortly before the Kiowa's unfortunate demise. I can't remember the details, but the gun ripped off with no harm done to the crew.

The standard 7.62 mm Minigun on this mount was de-rated to two rates of fire - 750 and 1500 RPM. It was fired in the fixed forward position by the trigger on the pilot's cyclic or by a pantograph sight and trigger unit mounted to the observer's door post (left hand side), in which mode it was fully flexible. The observer, however, usually had a lap and both hands full of maps, CEOIs, codes, stab or regular binos, aides-memoire, and other clutter (while navigating, talking on two radios, and watching out for hazards). By the time that he was able to recognize that his hel was under fire, determine where it was coming from, drop whatever he was holding, grab the trigger unit, and get the gun into action the pilot would already have done a 180 and headed back to cover - ten feet too high.

The site was a plastic disc with faint soap-bubble-rainbow-like coloured rings. It was not designed for accuracy, and neither was the MiniTAT. Rounds would spew everywhere. We would set out runs with standard target balloons at the start of a week-long range practice and never have to replace any. Most would survive the entire week.

The MiniTAT with full 1100 round ammo load (five standard belts linked and contained in a long box across the back seat) brought the Kiowa up to max gross weight, plus or minus a few rounds, with full fuel and crew of two. This was significant in an already underpowered machine. Certain engines seemed to develop less power than they should (manifested by running hot) despite the best efforts of our techs. I had one of those one hot July day in Pet and could not pick up into a hover with a heavier observer and full fuel. Needless to say, agility - an important factor in one's survival and effectiveness - suffered tremendously.

"Effective" range officially was 1200 m. but really more like a few feet. Tactical bounds were often a couple of k or more, which negated the option of fire and movement. Not even having the range to reach one's No 2 when moving, let alone somebody engaging him from his front, is useless at best.

The value of a 7.62 mm MG on a thin aluminum-and-Plexiglas machine operating on a mechanized battlefield against masses of heavy armour with stuff up to 125 mm was zero, and, as stated, the additional weight made one a better target.

The long flexible ammo guide to the flexible gun was not ammo friendly and frequently caused stoppages.

While I miss the Kiowa and its role, I do not miss the MiniTAT.

There was, however, one area where I thought it useful - northern Norway. There are only a couple of roads running the length of a narrow country that the Russians would have had to try and jam four or five divisions down. These wound along fjords and valleys and through restrictive passes. Off-road movement for much of the year was dicfficult at best because the ground was rocky, boggy, of covered in deep snow, often all three at once, and weather was highly unpredictable and variable. Ski patrols were common along the parallel valleys, for recce, OP, and FAC purposes. Determining friend from foe was relatively simple - direction of movement was obvious from the ski and pole marks (ski tracks themselves were very easy to find), and webbing contrasted nicely against white cam for confirmation, and had distinctive patterns. It was the only time where I outgunned my enemy, didn't have to worry about flying a little higher, and got a slight performance boost from the colder air. And, on the first exercise that I was there for, there were lots of enemy helicopters that I could jump out and yell "BOO!!" at.

The gun itself is good; the problems were solely with the mount and its application to an unsuitable platform.

Regardless of that, its only useful application in a tac hel environment is as a close-in defensive weapon and I do not really see any great advantage over the C6, which is simple and reliable and for the most part uses standard parts. The Minigun is only useful if one is going to emply it at its higher rates of fire, with the attendant greater appetite and consequent weight penalty.

Prior to Afghanistan, I was opposed to attempting to mount an offensive gun on a utility helicopter such as the CH146 with its lack of survivability features. I believe firmly that the weight penalty outweighs the tactical value of a gun regardless of practicably-mountable calibre, although I would of course do my best to keep an open mind. In a shoot-out between an armoured vehicle able to adopt a hull-down and concealed position and an unarmoured hel having to be fully exposed in order to fire, with both armed with cannon of similar or identical calibre, the ground-based vehicle clearly has the advantage. Missiles such as Hellfire, or some of the newer 2.75 in rocket versions, are the only way to go. Our current situation changes that - something around 25 mm and fully stabilized would be most worthwhile. Even .50 cal would be okay - but one definitely needs to be able to stay well out of 7.62 mm and RPG range.


----------



## Jammer (23 Jul 2006)

G'Day,
The DEA in Kandahar are using UH-1Ds for poppy eradiaction...they don't sem to have a prob flying in hot/high conditions. From my experience there it would sure be nice to be able to rely on our own lifts to where we neen to be, instead of taking a number.
Goin' back in a couple of weeks to beg borrow and steel a seat on a shithook or 'hawk. Gotta love the '64s though...nice to have them when you need 'em


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jul 2006)

Thanks Loachman. Good post.


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2006)

You're welcome, Whiskey601. The MiniTAT was one of my major pet peeves. Our last CDS was CO of 444 Sqn for my last two years there. He vowed to get MiniTATs in Germany (we were the only Reg F Sqn that didn't have them - no suitable ranges was the common reason given). It didn't happen, thank f.

He's another of my pet peeves, for that and many other reasons.

How much fuel are those UH-1Ds carrying, Jammer, and how many guys and how much cargo? It makes a difference.


----------



## Jammer (23 Jul 2006)

From what I was able to see (on the sly of course).
2X pilots, 1X FE
Approx 3X 50gal drums of ??? incl spray eqpt.


----------



## Scoobs (24 Jul 2006)

If you're thinking of using the Griffon for a utility role in Afghanistan, then I think that is the wrong role for it.  Recce could be done with the equipment that we currently have, such as the FLIR, NVGs, and plain old eye ball.  However, I wish ERSTA would be stood back up but I don't think you'll see this happen until (or ever) the issue of what we're going to do with the numbers of 146's is resolved when the Chinook comes in.  If Griffons are sent over, I could see maybe three 6 month rotos max until no one is left to support it.  With 427 essentially out of the picture now, only 408 and 430 would primarily be left, with augmentation from 438 and 400.  I would not send 403 over as this wasn't exactly a good idea the last time it was done due to the impact on trg for the pilots and FEs.
Pt is, Griffon can function in Afghanistan for certain roles, just like ATAC taught me, but not very good for utility role as compared to other helos, such as the Chinook.

Man, I miss Tac Hel.......   :'(

Does anyone think that having a Griffon would have helped provide cover for the patrol that was recently hit and two of our boys were killed?  Do you think that they would have been able to warn the patrol that someone was coming up behind them?


----------



## KevinB (24 Jul 2006)

Its not just the DEA -- DynCorp's Airwing (which runs both DOS and DEA air here) are flying them amongst others (Italians are flying a 212 variant as well)  Some of the Dyn Birds I have seen have 6 shooters -- 2 x M60 or M240 for aerial gunnery and crew.


----------



## Mud (24 Jul 2006)

I saw a pic a while back of a Griffon (yes a Canadian Griffon) with Hellfires  and a 20mm gun - the complete weapon system was apparently not installed, just an aerodynamic test maybe?  Anyways, does anyone know what became of this?  Duey?  Anyone?  Bueller?Anyone?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46992/post-411833.html#msg411833

Try this link Mud.  Is this the one you were thinking of?  Originally posted by Duey on this thread last week.


----------



## Scoobs (24 Jul 2006)

That was just a picture and nothing else.  The a/c was just mounted with this stuff, not officially I might add, and never took off.  There was and may still be an idea to arm the Griffon and make it an "Armed Helo", but this has never really taken off within 1 Wg or the Air Force.  When I say armed, I'm not refering to the C6 or the flares that are currently on the Griffon.  Duey will probably have more info on this as to where the picture was taken, but once again, the a/c never flew with it.


----------



## Loachman (25 Jul 2006)

There was once an official - perhaps not so much plan as dream - of carrying through ERSTA to a fully armed version. It was rather contingent upon upgrading to UH-1Y standard. The odds back then were considered less than slim too.

There is still life in the recce role today. A wandering demo of a Wescam system was recently conducted by 438 ETAH. The visit to LFCA impressed at least a few key senior officers.

It's a much better concept than UAVs for close(r) recce as the field of view is much greater - the whole crew are looking out and can spot something suspicious which can then be investigated. I picked up most of the "contacts" that we found on our own while I was doing the police helicopter thing a few years ago, purely because the police observer was concentrating on the thermal imager (as he should have been) while I was checking the wider area. The UAV misses that but, yes, has its niche to fill and both have their place.

Could such a capability have made a difference a few days ago? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly wouldn't have hurt, though.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2006)

Scoobs is right about that aircraft not flying.  We would have gotten in serious kaka, as it was we (Scotty D and me) swung the kit down to Ft.Worth by pulling in a few IOU's and some connections to dry-fit the plank to the Griffon floor, and mount the various goodies on the plank.  We didn't tell anyone what we were doing (specifically) until after we got the pics sent back up to us.  The aircraft was CH146401, on of the two bailed aircraft we had down in FW to do the initial aircrew converson onto the 146.  To start the whole thing, SD and I had asked Comd 1 Wing if we could work on a proposal to mock-up some potential system configs and take some pics.  He was a bit surprised at first, but rather pleased to see the result...it got a fair bit of traction to get some folks thinking creatively.....that is under the "System" sucked all the creativity and effort out of the vital support chain at the Op and Strat levels...ERSTA fell quickly after that, everyone agreeing it was a good idea and no one putting there hand up when the Vice asked "who's supporting ERSTA?" at the spring 2003 JCRB...alas.... :'(  That is why I sometimes appear to the chain as having a conspicuous lack of faith..."once bitten, ..."

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## observor 69 (26 Jul 2006)

Just did some checking. The RAF Lynx is being used in south Afghan and has less power than our Griffin. Mind you, it says, they only fly at night when it is cooler. Would we gain much by having Griffins over there?


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Jul 2006)

observor said:
			
		

> Just did some checking. The RAF Lynx is being used in south Afghan and has less power than our Griffin. Mind you, it says, they only fly at night when it is cooler. Would we gain much by having Griffins over there?



I think so.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2006)

Observor, I think Duey in being polite.  Unless I mistake the situation you might find that he and others have already addressed your question earlier in this thread.  If you have already read over the discussion and can't find the answer I apologize.

Cheers.


----------



## mdh (26 Jul 2006)

> That is why I sometimes appear to the chain as having a conspicuous lack of faith..."once bitten, ..."



Duey

Do you think the air force is damaging its credibility by not being more responsive to the AF mission and making the Griffon deployment happen whatever the obstacles (or indeed the CF18). From what I've read it seems that deployment of our air assets would be possible with a more determined AF leadership but it's just not happening. 

Or is that too simplistic? - and there are insuperable logistical and technical problems that prevent Griffons and CF18s from being sent overseas?

Cheers, mdh


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Jul 2006)

MDH, in the case of the Griffon, it's not the AF, it's political and higher up than the AF.  I know of two very determined pushes (and I mean multi-leaf Generals lobbying HARD) to put Griffon into theatre, each with a slightly different angle.  It was clear that the time wasn't considered "right" by some.  Recenet development (not Lebanon) may result in Griffon going in sooner than later, and of course without the luxury of as much time now (or soon) as we would have had going in more deliberately, earlier.  We'll go from, "shut up, sit on your hands" to ""why the hell aren't you over there yet?  Get moving!"  I won't complain about that, better to be over there doing what we train to do than sitting around having my non-flying buds ask me why the boys and I "aren't in the fight"!  All I can say is hopefully Tac Vest Mk.II is around when I go back in theatre...that first canvas piece of turd sucked...heck, maybe I'll just asked some 'friends' to lend me one of those nice 10-mag chest rigs for use along with my C8...  >

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## mdh (26 Jul 2006)

> All I can say is hopefully Tac Vest Mk.II is around when I go back in theatre...that first canvas piece of turd sucked...heck, maybe I'll just asked some 'friends' to lend me one of those nice 10-mag chest rigs for use along with my C8...



+1  

As always thanks for your perspective,

cheers, mdh


----------



## GO!!! (26 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> All I can say is hopefully Tac Vest Mk.II is around when I go back in theatre...that first canvas piece of turd sucked...heck, maybe I'll just asked some 'friends' to lend me one of those nice 10-mag chest rigs for use along with my C8...  >



....and then you can give it to me, and I'll put on a school for you!!  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2006)

Has the AF approved the wear of such Tac Vests.  I hear they can be pretty specific as to what you can have in the cockpit.


----------



## Loachman (27 Jul 2006)

Aviation Life Support Equipment (ALSE) includes everything worn by the crew, and, yes, its pretty tightly controlled. It is not supposed to burn, snag on switches, catch when exiting normally or in a mad panic, tangle with seat harnesses, contribute to deceleration injuries in a crash, and a whole bunch of other stuff. That being said, I've seen a few nutty things in the past.

The current Life Preserver Survival Vest (LPSV) is a pretty good piece of kit, especially compared to its predecessors, but I would consider it totally unsuitable for a combat situation. It's designed to keep one afloat (the inflatable collar is removeable and obviously woould be taken off for Afghanistan) and support one during an impromptu camping trip of about three days' duration.

There would be no use for snare wire and such in the environment under consideration here. I see the biggest single threat as the gents that just shot one down. That requires a pistol with many mags and multiple mags for a 5.56 mm weapon. It has to be understood that the preferred larger weapon may not be available post-crash, hence the requirement for a pistol. If it's not worn on one's body, it can be left in the hel as it burns or ejected and damaged etc. A decent combat first aid kit is a must-have. Water could rapidly become critical. Communication/signalling/locating devices are essential. Integration with body armour is absolutely necessary. A cutting tool to aid in escape from a mangled wreck and possibly defence is a good idea. An inflatable collar capability would be retained, although not used in Afghanistan.

The current LPSV is unsuitable for that role. We need a new THCSV - Tac Hel Combat and Survival Vest. Mag pouches can carry snare wire, windproof/waterproof matches, fishing kits and such in peacetime domestic flying ops, but the little pockets on today's vest will not carry 5.56 mm mags. The pistol would be carried in a thigh holster. The current tac vest and commercial versions would most likely not be cockpit compatible, and I'd prefer to be wearing as little nylon as possible in an environment that can get pretty hot pretty quickly. Nomex is not so durable, but our stuff is not normall subject to the same punishment.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

Thanks for the technical Loach.  I was just making a joke is all.


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jul 2006)

Hey Duey. I was in Baden along with many others waiting for the 409 CO and his boys to turn up. We had  been working at  preparations for the new world of CF-18 aviation when we hear the new high tech toy refused to fly. At lest that was the story I heard. Computer said overweight or some such!! Ah yes the new toy had excellent flight recorders. Anyway us old 104 guys got a smile.


----------



## Loachman (27 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Thanks for the technical Loach.  I was just making a joke is all.


Oh. Okay.

Somebody needs to be thinking about this officially, though, and I'm not so sure that somebody is.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

You are right of course.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Jul 2006)

TCCC-approved med-kit, Hook-112 (GPS PLB), water and 10 mags for my C8CQB (with the EOTech sight, of course)....that's all I need, and I'll take GO!!! up on schooling me in the ways!

Re: pistol, having it is, like Motar Guy said, like pissing yourself in a dark suit....feels good but doesn't impress those around you much.  Keep the fricking thing.  If I don't get out of my aircraft intact with my C8, I don't think a 9mm is going to help the situation much.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Jul 2006)

What Duey, you've never seen "Behind Enemy Lines", with Owen Wilson playing a downed US pilot in the former Yugo. ;D


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2006)

Rescue Randy said:
			
		

> If I read all this correctly, there is no apparent technical or doctrinal reason why the Griffin is not deployed at this time.  It appears that we need helo support, and it is at least as capable as some machines currently serving in the region.


There are certainly jobs for the Griffin supporting our troops in Afghanistan.  Observation, recce, liaison, etc.  There have been times where heavier airframes were unavailable, but had Griffins been in country they would have been preferred over the nothing that we got.


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Aug 2007)

He wants Griffons in Afstan asap; it seems to me that if the Griffons could do a useful job they would already have been sent (fair provisions use of Copyright Act):

More choppers, fewer casualties: senator
Kenny wants Griffon fleet to be used instead of vulnerable ground convoys
David ********, _Ottawa Citizen_
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=6a669488-01c0-47bd-8d10-d6a0b4bab88e



> The head of the Senate's defence committee is calling on the government and the military to immediately send Griffon helicopters to Afghanistan as part of an effort to cut down on casualties.
> 
> Liberal Senator Colin Kenny says the use of the choppers as resupply transports would reduce the time troops spend operating ground supply convoys that are highly vulnerable to insurgent attacks and improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. IEDs are seen as the main threat to soldiers on the ground at this point, he said.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2007)

Flag hoisted.  I wonder if anyone will salute it?

G2G


----------



## c_canuk (30 Aug 2007)

I thought Griffons are the Milcot of the airforce, or are they modified to Operational Airforce Specs? 

I suppose that would breach OpSec to talk about on here if there is any thought to them being deployed...


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Aug 2007)

c_canuck: From the story:



> Defence Department spokeswoman Sarah Kavanagh said the current Afghanistan mission requires a medium-lift helicopter able to carry sufficient numbers of personnel, up to 30 at a time, or an appropriate amount of cargo and equipment.
> 
> "The role of the Griffon is not intended to fill the role of a medium-lift helicopter, and *at this time there is no intent to deploy the Griffon to Afghanistan* [emphasis added]," said Miss Kavanagh. But, she added, "While the performance characteristics of the Griffon are not ideally suited to the environment in Afghanistan, *the Canadian Forces continues to monitor the evolution of operations in that theatre to determine if there may be an appropriate role for the Griffon in the future* [emphasis added]."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (30 Aug 2007)

> He wants Griffons in Afstan asap; it seems to me that if the Griffons could do a useful job they would already have been sent (fair provisions use of Copyright Act



I think Senator Kenny needed to do what I did. (before he opened his yap)
I asked a former infantry Sergent what he though of the griffon.

The look on his face told me what he thought....... ;D


----------



## KevinB (30 Aug 2007)

FWIW - As someone not specifically enamoured with the CH146 Griffon (I'm a Blackhawk fan - and have way more hours being transported in them than I did the 146, but more -135 time than the others)

There are several posters here that are intimately familiar with both the Afghanistan mission and flying a Ch-146 -- I've listened to their comments, and I see what a 146 can do - in some roles - but it was NEVER a Medium utility helo anyway - and I dont think that role is realistic.
  CSAR, Light Aerial firesupport, insertion and extraction of small dets, and MedEvac are all possible roles from what I have heard SME's say (and by all means chirp in guys)


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2007)

With all due respect to the senator, the lash marks on this deceased equine are getting pretty thick.


----------



## Strike (30 Aug 2007)

> I asked a former infantry Sergent what he though of the griffon.
> 
> The look on his face told me what he thought.......



Unfortunately what someone thinks about a subject can sometimes show how little they know about it.  This subject has been discussed in depth by those who have flown this aircraft (and similar ones) in similar environments.  I would suggest we let those people throw in their $0.02.


Editted for spelling


----------



## GAP (30 Aug 2007)

Has this not been  :deadhorse: in other threads?


----------



## Loachman (30 Aug 2007)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I thought Griffons are the Milcot of the airforce,



LSVW.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> I think Senator Kenny needed to do what I did. (before he opened his yap)
> I asked a former infantry Sergent what he though of the griffon.
> 
> The look on his face told me what he thought....... ;D



It seems to work well for some follks....the former infantry sergeant need not loose sleep over his perceptions of the Griffon.


The "dead horse" lives *here*.



G2G


----------



## McG (30 Aug 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Has this not been  :deadhorse: in other threads?


It has been talked of a few times.  Typically, the guys that know the airframe show-up and remind us that Kandahar is not Kabul (so restrictions that made Griffons unsuited up in Kabul did not necessarily apply now that we are down in Kandahar).  We also get told that the Griffon can do varios light tasks in the Kandahar area.

If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt the SMEs), then we could provide a capability to fill light needs.  This would free heavier medium lift assets for heavier tasks.  In addition to the tasks listed by I6, we could also use Canadian helicopters to put more eyes over the battlefield.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2007)

Would they fit into a C-17?  Perhaps they will "trial some"


----------



## Scoobs (30 Aug 2007)

Yes, they will fit into a C-17.  You can fit them in a Herc (been there, done that), but must take the head off (the thing that the rotor blades attach to).  With the C-17, just remove one bolt for two blades, use blade folding kit, and tow the helo into the C-17.  Strap it down and voila, a Griffon to go.  Best thing is that when you get to Afghanistan, the Griffon just roles off the C-17 and there is no need for a test flight.  However, this still may be done for other purposes.  Every helo has limitations when it comes to outside temp and altitude.  The difference is what capabilities the helo starts with.  The Blackhawk starts with very good capabilities and thus it can still perform most, if not all, of its roles in theatre.  That being said, the Griffon can still perform a role in Afghanistan.  However, the reality is that how could the CDS get the government to buy Chinooks if the Griffon was in theatre?  Obviously if the Griffon was in theatre, he would have a harder time selling that we need the Chinooks (which we do and I am very glad we are getting).  What Mr Kennedy doesn't realize is that sending helos won't solve all the problems.  I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2007)

Thanks, great resposne, I certainly hope they "test the deployment capability of the Griffion via a C-17" soon.


----------



## McG (30 Aug 2007)

Once we do have the Chinook, the Griffon may be our only option for the escort helicopter.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2007)

The senator suggested the deployment of the Griffon to replace the use of ground vehicles in resupply convoys. Is that a viable role? 

Even if we deployed 18 as he proposed, not all the helos would be available at any one time, and a couple just might be earmarked for ferrying the commander and a couple more in reserve. I hate to sound like a dork, but what we are left with is a dozen or so minivans trying to do the job of some honking big trucks.

Now that I have displayed my ignorance, comments please.


----------

