# Dutch Apaches



## ChopperHead

I heard somewhere Don't rember where but That Canada was considering purchasing 5 used Apaches from the Dutch. General Hilier said that the main focus is accuire heavy lift helicopters, but if the price is right there is no way you could turn them down. Just wondering what has happened with this issue did we end up buying them or does anyone have any info. thanx




Kyle.


----------



## scm77

Found a little bit...

*CASR  Commentary Column ...*

27 July 2005  â â€  Dave Piedra, Toronto, ON
Dutch Treat: Are Surplus Netherlands Air Force Apaches too Good to Pass Up?

The Netherlands has recently announced it is selling a small number ( five or so ) AH-64D Apache  attack  helicopters  that are surplus to it's requirements. These aircraft are only a few years old and presumably in good condition. With the CF troops heading to Kandahar and the Afghan commitment likely a long-term one, shouldn't the Canadian government be looking at snapping up those Apaches?

As General Hillier has pointed out, medium-lift helicopters are a priority but, if the price of the Dutch Apaches is good, one can hardly argue against the usefulness of attack helicopters to support Canadian troops in the Afghanistan theatre.
*
Response*
28 July 2005  â â€œ  Stephen Priestley  (CASR moderator)
Re:  Are Surplus Netherlands Air Force Apaches too Good to Pass Up?

The Netherlands originally leased AH-64As from the US for $1 each. If we go for this Dutch AH-64D deal, we could probably arrrange training with the US Army.

The KLu sent six AH-64s to Afghanistan aboard a Volga-Dnepr An-124. The KLu AH-64s were exposed to hostile fire right away â â€œ probably doesn't help that they are indistinguishable from US aircraft â â€œ but the only loss was Q-20 (attributed to â Å“technical problemsâ ?). These Dutch AH-64D Apaches are based at Kabul airport.

Does anyone know what became of the AH-1s that Turkey was trying to buy from the US?  Maybe DND could follow the example of the Marines â â€œ  upgrade Cobras to AH-1U status and trade in the Griffons for similarly T700-powered Bell UH-1Us.
*
Response*
29 July 2005  â â€œ  Jeremy Oreskovich,  Sarnia, ON
Re:  Are Surplus Netherlands Air Force Apaches too Good to Pass Up?

The idea of acquiring surplus Apaches, though appealing, might not be the best course of action for DND at this time. The AH-64 is a technically complex aircraft and getting only five or six of these helicopters would not make financial sense â â€œ no matter how cheap they are.  One must also consider their attendant logistical trains  â â€œ  new parts streams, a new engine type, and armaments that have little in common with anything else currently in the inventory.  The AH-1T/W/U, on the other hand, has much in common with helicopters already in service with the CF.

I believe that Bell tested a Cobra with the same four-bladed rotor head now used by the Griffon; could such a retrofit work?

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/zz-apache.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/zz-apache-2.htm


----------



## ChopperHead

ya I already read that I was just wondering if anyone Knows what has come of this? is it going to happen or is it all just talk?





kyle.


----------



## Gunnerlove

While having Apaches in our inventory would be "cool" it is for the most part an anti armour weapon system and as we are not facing down any large armoured forces it would be employed for the most part as a Reece aircraft. Cost wise we would be better off spending the acquisition and maint money (huge amount) on other programs such as smart anti armour artillery munitions, a mid range anti armour missile system, heavy(er) lift choppers, and up arming Griffons into gunships (If the twin Huey can carry door or stub mounted 7.62 miniguns and TOW missiles our 412s can).

These projects would offer a more economical increase to our capabilities without putting all our eggs in one basket.  

My understanding is that they are such maint pigs that we would need all five in theater if we wanted one that would be good to go. They travel with a bigger entourage than J-lo.

I think they would become an albatross around our neck, but thats just my opinion.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

I disagree entirely.

We used Dutch Apaches to very good effect in Kabul earlier this year and ISAF was beginning to panic after they realized that they were being withdrawn later in the Spring.

The AH-64 is an excellent surveillance and reconnaissance platform that was critical to the success of a number of major operations.  Moreover, it was built into virtually every contingency plan developed by the Brigade, including a couple of "coalition operations".  Apaches were also used for very public deterrence displays and even played prominent roles in a couple of President Karzai's public appearances.  They worked hand-in-glove with Recce Sqn and had an excellent operational focus.

The Dutch were able to maintain very high readiness levels throughout the tour and never (AFAIK) experienced maintenance problems to the point where mission availability was affected.  The Apache is light-years more capable than a Griffon with an _ad hoc_ "gunship" capability could ever hope to be.  "Cool" isn't an issue - platform capacity is.

If we're to go down this route (and I think we should - and partially pay for it by scrapping "direct fire" ADATS  ;D), we'd need more than five aircraft to be effective.  Personally, I think about 18 - 24 would do it.

My two cents. 

Teddy "Apache" Ruxpin


----------



## Britney Spears

(Disclaimer: Staying in my lane? Screw that,  I'm going to the air weapons range, on the other side of the training area. I'm not even on the map.)

Anyone like the idea of cheaper, smaller attack helicopters like the AH-1Z or even the OH-6 little bird for these kinds of missions, instead of big, expensive, "kill a T-72 from 20kms away" Apaches? 

Or even a <a href=http://g2mil.com/O-6B.htm>fixed wing propellor aircraft</a>


----------



## Unknown Factor

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The AH-64 is an excellent surveillance and reconnaissance platform that was critical to the success of a number of major operations.   Moreover, it was built into virtually every contingency plan developed by the Brigade, including a couple of "coalition operations".



I agree with Teddy.

More so than ever before is the need to place more emphasis on direct and indirect fire systems within the CF. With more attention being placed in the areas of mobility the flexability of the airframe is undisputed by those that saw it as their 911 in the sky.   More so will they prove to be invaluable to future Heavy Lift Helos as escort and LZ security.   Having served on Roto 2 I can attest to much of what 'teddy' says and being the foot on the ground it's all about the fire power available.   Canadian leadership is well aware of the flexability and speed that airmobility provides and the benefits that it provides in operations such as those ongoing in Afghanistan,   it would only be prudent to compliment this ability with a fire support aspect that is so dearly needed in operations outside Canada controlled by Canadians. - Cheers!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Brit:

"Z" would work just fine, especially if the new Cobra Longbow radar was fitted.  The Turks are actually building them new, so there must be something right about the aircraft.

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=291

Why not?  Probably cheaper than the Apache too...

I don't think the OH-6 would work too well.  You'd need a platform with decent surveillance suite and I don't think that the Little Bird has the same capability (not to mention firepower).  Another alternative might be the Tiger - just bought by the Aussies.

I'm rapidly leaving my lane too - I don't know what makes 'em go...!


----------



## ChopperHead

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> .
> 
> 
> 
> we'd need more than five aircraft to be effective.   Personally, I think about 18 - 24 would do it.




Thats probably true around 20 would be Ideal However wouldnt 5 or 6 be better then none? At least you would have some airsupport for our troops.

Kyle.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Five or six is too few.  You have to have a critical mass of any piece of equipment to ensure the training system is getting value for money and that it is economical to stock spares, ammunition, etc..  There has to be a certain number of aircraft remaining in Canada to ensure training for crews and for units using the capabilities of the helicopters.  With only five or six aircraft, the entire fleet would be likely to be overseas all the time, which is unworkable in realitiy. 

IMHO, you'd be looking at equipping a squadron (to provide the critical mass, command and control, etc.), with that squadron capable of deploying (say) six aircraft at any given time.  That leads me to my (very uneducated) guess of 18 - 24 helicopters.


----------



## Inch

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Five or six is too few.   You have to have a critical mass of any piece of equipment to ensure the training system is getting value for money and that it is economical to stock spares, ammunition, etc..   There has to be a certain number of aircraft remaining in Canada to ensure training for crews and for units using the capabilities of the helicopters.   With only five or six aircraft, the entire fleet would be likely to be overseas all the time, which is unworkable in realitiy.
> 
> IMHO, you'd be looking at equipping a squadron (to provide the critical mass, command and control, etc.), with that squadron capable of deploying (say) six aircraft at any given time.   That leads me to my (very uneducated) guess of 18 - 24 helicopters.



It may be uneducated but it's a damn good guess.   

You hit on all the pertinent points, training and maintenance are two things that people often forget about when thinking of equipment numbers. I would say that 18-24 aircraft is pretty bang on in this situation.


----------



## aesop081

Inch said:
			
		

> It may be uneducated but it's a damn good guess.
> 
> You hit on all the pertinent points, training and maintenance are two things that people often forget about when thinking of equipment numbers. I would say that 18-24 aircraft is pretty bang on in this situation.



don't forget normal attrition due to accidents and also factor in combat losses.


----------



## Gunnerlove

Perhaps I should have made my cost point a little clearer. IMO the cost of operating a fleet comprised of 4-5 specific and complex aircraft will be disproportionately high compared to the benefit to Canadian soldiers in the field.    

If we are going to join the anti armour helo gunship club, it should be a program that will be big enough to justify the cost. For example the Dutch bought 30 for operations and leased 12 for training.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

when we had the kiowa helicopters for reece, ( i did get some flight time with the air res wing in toronto took pics for the LFCA newspaper at the time) they  were a nice small chopper, the guys told me about the gun system they had for them in storage in monteal, no one at the wing had seen it on any  helicopter, none of the pilots had any  trigger time I flew with, they were told cost, maintaining, and training time was too costly for them to be allowed. 

they  got the flight time and stuff but the guns were in montreal, the tech never got to mount one to learn how. 

so that  was a small bird. the ah 64 models are way out of our price ranges, and there woud not be enough for the troops to learn to train with let alone take on missions.  myself I was thinking at least 12 birds for flying the 18  to 24 number sounds more realistic.  that  does include airframes for the tech people to train on, plus spares for training at home and to have missions overseas, so we are now looking at least 30 plus airframes.  we already  storing large numbers of the F18s because we cannot afford the updates for all aircraft. what  would we have to give up to pay  for the ah 64 , the rest of the f18s, the new to us helicopters we have now giffons?  give up our small apc fleet?  or just give up the entire res force programs?  that  is alot of money  for a small bang overall. 

we could use some light helicopter, updated oh 58s , more medium lift choppers,  blackhawks, costly  but lots of USA army  orders for spare parts  be cheap, another bell purchase would be better money spent. 

we have to remember Canada has a history  of buying helicopters and keeping them forever. Fly them long past the life span they were purchased for. so we have to get a good one and lots of them for the money spent.


----------



## Blue Max

In the case of Canada's needs and abilities why not take a page out of the Mariine Corp operations. Since the Vietnam war the Marines have stayed with the Cobra and then Super Cobra even when superior helo's were availible for the following reason:

 have chosen to go with the Super Cobra for a number of years over the Apaches


----------



## a_majoor

The preception of "the price is right" misses the entire equipping of the CF saga; nothing shall be purchased which cannot be translated into political pork for our supporters.

Over the years I have heard rumors and read reports in the press which would make a strong man weep; the Dutch retiring (and offering to sell) an entire armoured brigade of 400 Leopard 1s, the Germans offering to leave a Panzerbrigades worth of equipment in Shilo, rather than pay the expense of bringing it home, the United States offering to put us in a production run of MLVW type trucks, only to be shot down (and then see the Treasury board point out a "made in Canada" production run of the few trucks we need would cost about $700 million more than the American deal, not $700 million but $700 million *MORE*), Bristol Aerospace having their better bid quashed in order to send CF-18 maintenance to Montreal, C-7 rifles costing about $1000 each, when an almost identical M-16A2 cost about $300....well, the list goes on and on. 

The constant factors are: despite the real or potential benefits to be gained in theory, the Government is not interested if they cannot throw money to their friends as part of the deal; and; they do not care what is actually produced (Bombardier versions of the Illtis and MLVW, Western Star's LSVW), as long as their friends are getting the money.

So unless the Dutch could somehow get the transfer of the helicopters incorporated into the Sponsorship program, there will be no serious consideration of transferring AH-64s from the Netherlands, or indeed any other nation.

The other reasons we won't (or shouldn't) consider such an offer have been stated in the preceding replies to this thread, so I won't belabour the obvious. If I were to make a suggestion as to our CAS needs, Hellfire armed Predators might be more to our taste, being inexpensive, having many of the virtues of the propeller driven CAS proposals highlighted by Britney, and usable as recce platforms when not off on the hunt. While they are not as sexy or flexible as helos or A-10s, we could get a useful number for a fraction of the cost of the "real thing".


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Cynical, but good points...

Lately, I have a bit more faith in the CDS' ability to get things through, though, and I know aviation was on his "to do" list... 




			
				Blue Max said:
			
		

> In the case of Canada's needs and abilities why not take a page out of the Mariine Corp operations. Since the Vietnam war the Marines have stayed with the Cobra and then Super Cobra even when superior helo's were availible for the following reason:
> 
> have chosen to go with the Super Cobra for a number of years over the Apaches



As was stated earlier, there's nothing wrong with AH-1Zs...


----------



## Britney Spears

> As was stated earlier, there's nothing wrong with AH-1Zs...



As I understand, the role of the AH-64 from it's inception was to be a sort of mobile tank destroyer brigade to counter a Soviet armoured breakthrough on the plains of central Europe. A Sqd of Hellfire armed Apaches would be sortied and "surged" to the point of a breackthrough to blunt the tank column before it can exploit the breakthorugh.  It was never designed to provide sustained support for infantry operating in complex terrain, something that the Cobra had been doing  since the Vietnam War. It *can* perform in the role but a smaller, cheaper, more agile helicopter would be better suited for the role.


----------



## Blue Max

Sorry I had a miss post.

IMHO Canada could take a page out of the Marine Corp operations hand book. Since the Vietnam war the Marines have stayed with the Cobra and then Super Cobra even when superior hello's were available for the following reason:

 - Cobra and then Super Cobra have been more then adequate to all tasks demanded of Marine corp operations, with generational upgrades.
 - Apache is not affordable by the smallest budget in the pentagon (marines).
 - Logistical tail and maintenance demands of Apache's are too large for Marine corp operations. It was rumoured to have been a sour note for this very reason that the US Army could not get Apaches into the Bulkans fast enough.
 - Super Cobra's have done an excellent job in the Balkans and two Iraqi wars for the marines, with I believe no losses from their MOP hitting the enemy(I stand to be corrected). Where as the Apaches MOP did not go unscathed when deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan with withering ground fire.

If Canada were ever to realise any attack Hello capability and choose the Super Cobra, it would allow the CF to spin being frugal.


----------



## a_majoor

Sidestepping the virtues of various makes of attack helos for a moment; do we even require this capability? 

As was pointed out the AH 64 is designed for a high intensity mechanized warfare battle, while the Cobra is more of a "general purpose" weapon. Light and medium attack helicopters exist which can be configured for various roles. Prop driven ground attack airplanes might prove useful in a low to mid intensity theater, since they combine high speed, extended loiter time and a large stores capacity, while the A-10 provides the same suite of capabilities for a high intensity theater.

Based on the sort of missions we have been doing, loiter time seems to be more important, since the enemy is very elusive and usually appears in small numbers. Alternatively, a very small machine which could be "parked" relatively close and launch at a moment's notice might do as well. Turboprop trainers, "Little bird" helicopters, UAV or UACVs could provide these sorts of capabilities without the large and expensive logistics tail of AH-64 class helicopters. Buying AH 64's because they are available is no bargain if they do not fit into our doctrine.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

The problem with the other platforms you mention is capability.  One of the major benefits of both the AH-64 and the AH-1Z is their ability to mount extensive surveillance suites and to use them from a relatively static position.  A propellor-driven aircraft cannot do this.  Moreover, A-10s aside, they possess very limited firepower.  Frankly, I'm not fussy on what helicopter is bought.  The Super Cobra seems decent, inexpensive and in use by the Americans.  It also has many of the features of the Apache on a smaller, lighter platform.

In a previous thread, I highlighted some of the potential benefits of an attack aviation capability.  As I see it, these are:


Ability to conduct stand-off surveillance of static and moving targets
Ability to engage static and moving targets of virtually any description
24-hour capability
Extensive communications
Training, spare parts and doctrinal compatibility with major allies
Outstanding deterrance/show of force capability
Deployability at least equal to that of the ADATS, which we're intending to use in an AT role
Austere/no airfield capability

These are just a few.  Doubtless the better educated can come up with more.  I believe that attack aviation would be _enormously _ useful to the CF, just as it is to the Dutch.  As I said earlier, ISAF was screaming when the Netherlands announced the withdrawal of their AH-64s, for very good reason.  Just because we haven't bothered to write the doctrine for it doesn't mean that it isn't needed.


----------



## Inch

Teddy, I'm not sure I would classify the Super Cobra as "lighter and smaller" than the Apache. They're within 6 inches of total length of each other (approx 58' rotors turning, for comparison, the Hornet is about 58' as well while the Sea King is 72'), the Apache is about 18" higher to the top of the rotor and they're within 350lbs max takeoff weight of each other.

The Super Cobra shares the same engine/transmission/tail boom with the Twin Huey to give you an idea of how big it is.

Nitpicking I know, but size wise, they're pretty damn close.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/index.html

That site has a lot of the specs on pretty much every US aircraft.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Seen and thanks.  I had read that the SC was somewhat bigger than a typical "old" AH-1...probably got my wires crossed that way...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Gunnerlove

Interesting that the last army cobras were replaced by kiowas.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/oh-58.htm


----------



## a_majoor

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Just because we haven't bothered to write the doctrine for it doesn't mean that it isn't needed.



I can hardly disagree with that, but perhaps a historical analogy? The French invented one of the first practical machineguns (mitralleuse) prior to the Franco Prussian war of 1870, but hadn't developed a doctrine for its use (it was considered a type of artillery). When war came, everyone watched to see how the French "wonder weapon" would crush the Germans, but the Mitralleuse were too few and far between, and employed so ineffectually that they were mostly curiosities.

The French had a capability (the Mitralleuse), a need (defend against mass infantry attacks, support French infantry assaults), but couldn't get a doctrine together so the two were matched. Perhaps not too surprisingly, the French had a similar problem in 1940, where they had more and better tanks than the Germans, but hadn't created a doctrine to use them effectively.

In our case, once we know and understand the need and reflect on the capacities we really require, then the answer may turn out to be the Agusta A129 Mangusta, or an armed version of the Blackhawk rather than an AH 64 (or something more exotic. Who knows?)


----------



## Britney Spears

Crossposting from Militaryphotos.net











Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc., (NYSE: TXT) was awarded a $2.2 billion contract by the United States Army to build its next generation Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, or ARH. The ARH will replace the Army's OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Helicopter also produced by Bell. The contract calls for Bell Helicopter to build 368 aircraft for delivery during fiscal years 2006 through 2013.

â Å“We are honored to have been chosen by the U.S. Army to continue our legacy of providing outstanding Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter technology,â ? said Mike Redenbaugh, Chief Executive Officer of Bell Helicopter Textron. â Å“The Army requires a state-of-the art Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter and that's exactly what Bell Helicopter will deliver.â ?

Bell's ARH is a militarized version of its highly successful 407 single engine light helicopter. Capable of being equipped with a wide variety of weapons, the Bell ARH will provide the Army with exceptional mission versatility and with the flexibility to accomplish armed reconnaissance, light attack, troop insertion, and special operations missions with a single aircraft. The Bell ARH will also provide greater deployability, interoperability and survivability.

â Å“We look forward to this partnership both with the Army and with our world-class aerospace suppliersâ â€to provide a premier aircraft to America's troops,â ? Redenbaugh said.

Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., a subsidiary of Textron Inc., is a leading producer of commercial and military helicopters and the pioneer of the revolutionary tilt rotor aircraft. Globally recognized for customer service, innovation and superior quality, Bell's global workforce of over 7,500 employees serves customers flying Bell aircraft in over 120 countries.

Textron Inc. is a $10 billion multi-industry company with 44,000 employees in 40 countries. The company leverages its global network of aircraft, industrial and finance businesses to provide customers with innovative solutions and services. Textron is known around the world for its powerful brands such as Bell Helicopter, Cessna Aircraft, Jacobsen, Kautex, Lycoming, E-Z-GO and Greenlee, among others.

<a href=http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/ARH/bellARH3.cfm>slick videos and website</a>

If we paint it in a non-threatening color (pink), maybe  the gov't won't notice that they are armed?


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer

Hey maybe they will sell the Chinooks back to us, alot more useful in the thin air in most parts of a-stan.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

a_majoor:  As I indicated earlier, doctrine doesn't necessarily have to be developed by Canada in isolation.  We have the singular benefit of having close allies (UK, US and - soon - Australia) operating attack aviation.

As for the ARH, it has the singular benefit of being built in Montreal, so who knows?  However, IMHO (based in this case on a gut feel rather than any concrete evidence) I suggest it's just a dressed-up Kiowa - advertising aside.  It may well suit US doctrine where reconnaissance helicopters act in a different role than attack helicopters, but I am skeptical that its sensor suite is comparable to an Apache, Super Cobra, Tiger or the like.  I am also skeptical as to its level of protection and system redundency.  If we're after an LOH, it might work just fine.  However, I suggest that we need a platform that can do a bit more.  Otherwise, we might as well hang things off a Griffon and be done with it.

My two cents, as always.

TR


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Just a question,  Why is no one asking or talking about geting the Ch-53 instead of the chinook's.  Both are heavy lift choppers.  The Chinook may be a little tough to get ahold of but I would think that we could steal some Pav Low 4's for a fair price from the Americans.  Are they to small not strong enough or to expensive?  Thoughts......


----------



## George Wallace

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Just a question,   Why is no one asking or talking about geting the Ch-53 instead of the chinook's.   Both are heavy lift choppers.   The Chinook may be a little tough to get ahold of but I would think that we could steal some Pav Low 4's for a fair price from the Americans.   Are they to small not strong enough or to expensive?   Thoughts......



I have brought this up in other threads....try looking into some of the Air Force threads.


----------



## ringo

I see no harm in acquiring a few Apaches, when forces deploy to a hot spot nice to a few of your own birds, earlier on this thread one of the poster's recommended paying off ADATS to pay for the Apaches IIRC the Apache fire control systems shares components with the ADATS.
RAF operates there Apaches off HMS Ocean do they have rotor folding?
I remember the forces selling the Chinooks off they did great work in the blizzard of 71 around London, I believe the forces should look at the CH-53 it may be better to operate of the navy's future support ships than Chinook.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I remember the forces selling the Chinooks off they did great work in the blizzard of 71 around London, I believe the forces should look at the CH-53 it may be better to operate of the navy's future support ships than Chinook


And you base that on....


----------



## ringo

The USMC uses Ch-53's from navy ships for heavy lift this helo is bigger than Chinook and has rotor fold for shipboard storage.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

personally i think the CH-53 might be a better buy then the CH-47.  As the 53 are more modern and would not require the upgrades that the 47's do.   I don't think 5 attack helo's of any kind would help the forces.  How do you deploy only five and train and have parts.  I think if you are going to do things especially in the CF we have to stop doing them half assed and either buy 18-25 of the birds or none at all.  Of course this is just MOO


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I was under the impression that the CH53 was no longer being made whereas the CH47S are. Both would serve our needs but is not the Chinook more prevalent throughout the world thus would be easier to get spare parts when needed from different sources vice the CH53?


----------



## ringo

IIRC the USMC is soon to order about 150 new Ch-53's, the Chinook has out sold the Sea Stallion but the latter is a much larger helo perhaps overkill for some nations.


----------



## geo

As has been said, critical mass being an issue, it does not make sense to buy 5 of anything.... unless you are required to deploy only 1 at a time. They you have to think about parts, maintenance AND training the pilots to fly the bleeding thing.
You can't take a Griffon driver, give him the keys to your new Cobra/Apache and expect him to drive it competently without a lot of practice.

When the CF disposed of it's CH47 heavy lift capabilities a long time ago - it retained airframes (?)and pilots (reroling them to CH113s) so we have the people capable of operating twin rotor aircraft AND a training program to bring up more as required...........

With respect to the Apache - if we chose to go with this kind of aircraft, think the Cobras the USMC continues to operate says it all..........


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> With respect to the Apache - if we chose to go with this kind of aircraft, think the Cobras the USMC continues to operate says it all..........



Let's see.   Marine Expeditionary Force.   Equipment prepositioned.  On ships.   One AH64 Apache takes up the space of....three AH1-Y Super Cobras.   I think that the Super Cobra will be around for a while, primarily due to this Logistical fact.   The Super Cobra also presents a much smaller target.


----------



## Sf2

Its my opinion, and mine only, that Canada's future rests with med lift and armed recce.  The apache was designed to hang out at the line of departure and kill threats to make way for an advancing mechanized force.  That isn't Canada's doctrine anymore, not to mention the crazy costs.

Todays assymetric threats require a more surgical, and in Canada's context, CHEAPER method of being able to spot a small group of enemy, and either destroy them, or guide in someone else to do it.  We need something small, fast, with excellent electro-optic equipment, and a decent defensive/light offensive weapon, augmented by another chopper that can move a QRF should the LOH helicopter be unable to do the job itself.

Bell 407/Chinnook combo sounds good to me.....


----------



## Mud

Ok I'm the guy who strted that discussion on CASR - it was just a thought.  But since the Americans have announced that the 407-based entry won the recce competition it seems like a good choice - armed scout, likely able (with some mods) to carry a small team of operators AND it's made in Quebec - even the politicians can dig this one!


----------



## Centurian1985

Confusing title - I was thinking of Aboriginals from the Netherlands...   ;D


----------



## a_majoor

spidy said:
			
		

> Todays assymetric threats require a more surgical, and in Canada's context, CHEAPER method of being able to spot a small group of enemy, and either destroy them, or guide in someone else to do it.  We need something small, fast, with excellent electro-optic equipment, and a decent defensive/light offensive weapon, augmented by another chopper that can move a QRF should the LOH helicopter be unable to do the job itself.



How about this? http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_05/iss_4/CAJ_vol5.4_11_e.pdf


----------



## Eland

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I disagree entirely.
> 
> We used Dutch Apaches to very good effect in Kabul earlier this year and ISAF was beginning to panic after they realized that they were being withdrawn later in the Spring.
> 
> The AH-64 is an excellent surveillance and reconnaissance platform that was critical to the success of a number of major operations.  Moreover, it was built into virtually every contingency plan developed by the Brigade, including a couple of "coalition operations".  Apaches were also used for very public deterrence displays and even played prominent roles in a couple of President Karzai's public appearances.  They worked hand-in-glove with Recce Sqn and had an excellent operational focus.
> 
> The Dutch were able to maintain very high readiness levels throughout the tour and never (AFAIK) experienced maintenance problems to the point where mission availability was affected.  The Apache is light-years more capable than a Griffon with an _ad hoc_ "gunship" capability could ever hope to be.  "Cool" isn't an issue - platform capacity is.
> 
> If we're to go down this route (and I think we should - and partially pay for it by scrapping "direct fire" ADATS  ;D), we'd need more than five aircraft to be effective.  Personally, I think about 18 - 24 would do it.
> 
> My two cents.
> 
> Teddy "Apache" Ruxpin



Teddy,

Let's not forget that in addition to making a good surveillance and anti-armour platform, the Apache can also be used to great effect against soft-skinned vehicles and troops in the open or who are not well dug-in. An Apache can swing in and strike fast and forcefully, then be gone  before the targets know what's hit them.

I agree with you, five is better than none. And anyway, any serious piece of military kit has a significant logistical train attached to it. That is simply an inevitable side effect of technologically advanced materiel. Are we abandoning our CF-18 fleet, or for that matter, the Sea Kings just because of the significant O & M investment they require? No. The concern over cost, is, as usual, a red herring. I cite the MMEV project as proof. QED, as they say.

One of the biggest reasons why the Canadian military is in a mess right now is because of too much ad-hocery being practiced over the years in an attempt to save money. That is, we end up buying kit that doesn't really serve our needs to begin with, and then try to shoehorn it into a role it was never designed for. The MGS is a good example. It's designed for light cavalry fire support, but is replacing tanks built to take on a much more demanding role.


----------



## Armymatters

I don't think we want the Dutch Apache's currently in Afghanistan... I recieved word that recently, a Apache was turned over by the jet exhaust of a nearby Ilyushin 76, severely damaging it. The Dutch apparantly are sending a replacement to replace the damaged Apache.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/05/10/Navigation/177/206471/Pictures+Dutch+Boeing+AH-64D+Apache+'blown+over'+on+Day+Two+of+Afghan.html


----------



## a_majoor

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I don't think we want the Dutch Apache's currently in Afghanistan... I recieved word that recently, a Apache was turned over by the jet exhaust of a nearby Ilyushin 76, severely damaging it. The Dutch apparantly are sending a replacement to replace the damaged Apache.
> http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/05/10/Navigation/177/206471/Pictures+Dutch+Boeing+AH-64D+Apache+'blown+over'+on+Day+Two+of+Afghan.html



I am not sure how a runway accident like this reflects on the Apache either good or bad. For our own purposes, the Apache is very expensive, so it would be prudent to see what alternatives exist, either conventional attack helicopters (such as the Cobra series, Eurocopter Tiger, a129 Mongoose, etc.), light helicopters (such as the MD-500 series), or other means to the same ends (UACV's). 

Each alternative has various advantages and disadvantages, and needs careful consideration as to how it fits into our needs.


----------



## Armymatters

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I am not sure how a runway accident like this reflects on the Apache either good or bad. For our own purposes, the Apache is very expensive, so it would be prudent to see what alternatives exist, either conventional attack helicopters (such as the Cobra series, Eurocopter Tiger, a129 Mongoose, etc.), light helicopters (such as the MD-500 series), or other means to the same ends (UACV's).
> 
> Each alternative has various advantages and disadvantages, and needs careful consideration as to how it fits into our needs.



I was just stating that if we wanted Apaches, the Dutch ones in Afghanistan are probally not the best place to go looking for them. The AH-1 Cobra would probally be our best bet, as it is fairly cheap, and fires weapons that we are familiar with already (TOW).


----------

