Army.ca Forums

Air-Force.ca => Rotorheads => Topic started by: the patriot on November 14, 2000, 21:23:00

Title: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: the patriot on November 14, 2000, 21:23:00
JOINT TRIAL- PARACHUTE, RAPPEL AND SLING LOAD CERTIFICATION OF THE CH-146
GRIFFON HELICOPTER 26 JUL TO 14 AUG 98

written by: Sgt Normand Belisle

The new CH-146 Griffon helicopter has recently been brought into service within the CF. Prior to engaging this impressive helicopter in operations, there were several trials and evaluations which had to take place. The Griffon required "certification" for Slinging of loads, Parachute, and Rappel operations. A joint plan of test was prepared by the Canadian Parachute Centre
Airborne Trials and Evaluations Section (CPC ATES) and Land Aviation Test and Evaluation Flight (LATEF) and approved to conduct all aspects of this certification. After studying all possible sites, CFB Valcartier became the ideal location to conduct these tests as they could provide the personnel, drop zone and equipment. With a total of 50 soldiers provided from
A Cie 3 R22eR and the support of ATES, LATEF and the CF Photo unit, the testing began.
In order to conduct these trials adequately, in addition to their own Photo Tech a Photo Tech and a Video Tech were added to the ATES team. These experienced cameramen allowed ATES to demonstrate visually, all of the changes to the existing procedures and to produce a procedural and safety video. This video will be used as a training aid in conjunction with the
Canadian Forces Technical Orders written for each item of the tests.

On the 26th of July, CPC ATES initiated the series of tests. The tests began with the rappelling certification by dispatching troops from a height of 90 feet. A total of 310 dispatches took place including descents with and without rucksack. Several rappels took place with full winter kit including snowshoes/rifle combinations. Toboggans were also lowered to the ground
without any problem. In all cases, the trials proved to be very successful. No injuries were reported and all feedback from the soldiers (beside the burned hands) was positive.
The slinging portion of training happened in between rappel lifts. These trials were conducted during the first 2 weeks of testing.With only minor damage to the motorcycle and after several different tests, it was determined that all slinging configurations adhered to regulations and safety requirements. During the third week of the trials, the emphasis was on static line parachuting. A total of 204 jumps with CT-2 and CT-1 combined were conducted with only two minor injuries reported (neither attributed to the aircraft or exits) and all dispatches
carried out without any problems. The only limitation observed while using the CH-146 Griffon was that only six jumpers could be dispatched from the helicopter when jumping full equipment (including rifle/snowshoes). While eight jumpers could be dispatched safely without equipment.

Capt Lafrance from CPC ATES was the test director for this important task and WO Ingram, a Parachute Instructor and Rappel Master, was in charge of the Rappelling and parachuting phases. Sgt Gallant, also a Parachute Instructor, was in charge of slinging different pieces of Army equipment such as Skidoos, Motorcycles, Iltis trailer, and also the 105 LG1 MKII Gun. CFB Gagetown, LATEF provided an aircrew composed of Maj Jerry Demetriadis, Capt Lou Whitaker and Mcpl Liz White. The ATES team was fortunate to have warm and sunny weather throughout. The trials were completed on schedule with no major delays or injuries. The 3R22eR, especially their Commanding Officer LCol Tremblay, the Coy Commander, Maj
Gauthier, their CSM Adjum Poirier, Adj Colbert, Sgt Lakatos, Cplc Boyer and all the soldiers involved, displayed a great deal of professionalism, dedication and discipline, always offering to do more than what had been requested.

In the near future, all jump companies will receive the authorization to conduct parachute and rappel operations from the CH-146 Griffon. They will also be authorized to sling loads that have been covered during the trials. This sophisticated helicopter will finally become fully operational and the soldiers throughout the CF will benefit from this Army and Air Force
joint venture.

**************************************************

-the patriot-
Title: Re: Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter...
Post by: Brock on November 15, 2000, 14:22:00
The Griffon in the way you illustrate it seems like a marvel of modern engineering.  It may be able to perform well under nice sunny conditions and controlled testing environments, but what about it‘s multi-purpose capability in reguards to battlefield and training and its adverse flight characterists (these being essential for a military with limited financial resources).  The Griffon would not be able to withstand a combat environment.  This is due to its very limited flight characteristics.  It is unable to fly at sustained high speeds; its top speed is the averge cruising speed of all other modern battlefield helicopters.  This article points out that it has a limited lift capacity as it can only transport eight troops or the extremely light howitzer, the LG1 MkII which weighs a mere 1500kg.  A section of troops or a howitzer without ammunition or crew.  It would take five Griffons to deliver a platoon to a battlefield or three to deliver one light artillery piece.  Add to this a limited combat radius of action 150nm with a limited payload, at speeds 20 knots slower than modern helicopters and in relatively nice conditions, I think you get the point.  The Griffon is not a modern helicopter it is merely an updated old helicopter of 1960‘s fame spruced up to look as though it is a capable military helicopter, it may be new in terms of age, but is certainly not designed for modern military operations when compared to the capabilities of the Cougar or Blackhawk helicopters.
Title: Re: Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter...
Post by: Michael Dorosh on November 15, 2000, 18:27:00
I‘ll throw in two cents for what its worth; we had a couple of Griffons on an exercise a couple winters ago; it was pretty cozy in there with six of us wearing winter kit and carrying loaded rucksacks.

Don‘t know if it means anything, but the flight engineer (or whatever he‘s called) was really freaked out about us walking into the pitot tubes - he warned us three times that if we walked into the pitot tube while boarding the helicopter, that they would be grounded.
Title: Re: Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter...
Post by: bossi on November 16, 2000, 10:59:00
A while back, I remember doing some research ... and since the "party line", propaganda article left out these details ... (plus, two adjectives annoyed me in particular: "impressive ", and "sophisticated" - I‘m not impressed - a mentor once told me the truth does not need superlatives, but can stand on its‘ own ...).

If memory serves me, Bell Helicopter has two major manufacturing facilities; one in Texas (where they make milspec aircraft), and a second plant in Montreal (for civvie pattern product).

I‘m not sure who the Member of Parliament involved was when the contract was awarded (although that quisling Marcel Masse rings a bell), but you can guess where our eggbeaters were manufactured.

In a nutshell, the Griffon was described to me as a civvie version of the Huey, painted olive drab (but definitely not genuine milspec) - this reminds me of when our Air Force bought some Jet Rangers, or when the Canadian Army bought a bunch of civvie Jeeps ... they didn‘t really last too long, compared to real, rough-tough milspec aircraft/vehicles (like the "deuces" made in the ‘50‘s, which were older than me, yet still running when I joined in the late ‘70‘s ...).

Also, I‘ve heard from several pilots who are stuck flying Griffons, and they were unanimous in saying they didn‘t like it (compared to REAL military helicopters).

And, does anybody else out there find it amusing they‘d spell it "Griffon" instead of "Gryphon"?  Just wondering.

Finally, the article said "... The only limitation observed ..." - hmmm ... that‘s quite a limitation, I‘d have to say.  Isn‘t it ironic, or even unimpressive that the Griffon sling load trial included a mere motorcycle, and an Iltis trailer (but not an Iltis ...)?  Heck - a motorcycle can only carry two troopers, and what good is a trailer or a howitzer without a prime mover???

I‘m more IMPRESSED with how the Dutch military bought our Chinooks, and upgraded/refitted them with SOPHISTICATED modern gadgetry - they now have a chopper that is a real workhorse (and not a hobby horse, like the Griffon).  In contrast to Canada, other armies feel it worthwhile to maintain some medium, or even heavy lift capability in their hel fleets.  Equally, most other armies worth their salt purchase genuine milspec choppers (just in case somebody starts shooting at them ... a novel thought, eh?)

Okay, okay - I can hear the voice of Dilbert telling me to calm down ("... must ... control ... fist ... of ... death ...").  Nothing I say or write is going to change the status quo, but I just had to "vent".  Thanks for humouring me.  We now resume regularly scheduled programming ...
Title: Re: Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter...
Post by: Michael Dorosh on November 16, 2000, 17:13:00
The CF-18 was never called the Hornet (as the F-18 is in the States) because the French word for "hornet" literally means "useless drone."  I wonder if the (mis)spelling of Griffon has to do with the French as well.
Title: Re: Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter...
Post by: Mud Crawler on November 30, 2000, 13:24:00
it is the french translation of Gryphon.Bet whoever bought these helicopters wanted votes in Québec.Otherwise they wouldnt have called it griffon and built it in a plant where they do civvie choppers, right?Everything in the army is way too political, even to point where it endangers the soldiers.WE WANT BLACKHAWKS!!!!!! Sorry i‘m a BlackHawk fan.
Title: Re: Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter...
Post by: Brock on November 30, 2000, 23:21:00
Blackhawks are excellent helicopters, but since Canada already has the Griffon why not upgrade them to UH-1Y standard, for use until 2014-2017 and replace them with the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey and eventually replace the Cormorant with similar aircraft.  The UH-1Y if you are not familar with it is an upgrade of the UH-1N Twin Huey for the USMC.  Basically the same engines in the Blackhawk, the GE T-700, are put into the Griffon and a an upgraded four bladed main and tail rotor replace the Griffon‘s four and two bladed equivalent and a glass cockpit is fitted.  The UH-1Y is much more capable than the Griffon or basically similar UH-1N, it can sling 3000kg, but its flight performance is drastically improved in speed, range, handling, and performance in hot and high conditions.  It‘s cruise speed is faster than the Griffon‘s top speed (140kts).
Title: Re: Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter...
Post by: Brock on November 30, 2000, 23:22:00
Blackhawks are excellent helicopters, but since Canada already has the Griffon why not upgrade them to UH-1Y standard, for use until 2014-2017 and replace them with the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey and eventually replace the Cormorant with similar aircraft.  The UH-1Y if you are not familar with it is an upgrade of the UH-1N Twin Huey for the USMC.  Basically the same engines in the Blackhawk, the GE T-700, are put into the Griffon and a an upgraded four bladed main and tail rotor replace the Griffon‘s four and two bladed equivalent and a glass cockpit is fitted.  The UH-1Y is much more capable than the Griffon or basically similar UH-1N, it can sling 3000kg, but its flight performance is drastically improved in speed, range, handling, and performance in hot and high conditions.  It‘s cruise speed is faster than the Griffon‘s top speed (140kts).
Title: Re: Capabilities of the CH-146 Griffon Helicopter...
Post by: RCA on December 01, 2000, 03:00:00
Speaking from a gunner perspective if the army wants a troop lift capablity then it also requires to have sufficient lift for a 105mm How Bty with detachment and ammo (and with the gun having a range of appox 11,000m that is more than sufficent to support airmoble troops and I dare say they would probably appreciate it). The helocopter is the prime mover as well as used for the OP, recce and resupply. (Think of the Falklands). Without this lift capability the troops would have no fire support unless you count on the Griffon with its MGs. (or we move into the realm of gunships.)
  Secondly, the arguments with regards to "field testing" of the Griffon remind me of the same ones for the  MLVW (exhust pipe under the truck bed) and LSVW (non-addjutable drivers seat) which gives me shivers. However in todays climate when we just got around to replacing the Labrdors and Sea Kings I think we are indulging in a lot of wishfull thinking. We will probably have to get use to moving 30 troops at a time anywhere we go. (Too bad they got rid of the Chinooks)
Thats my two cents worth

Ubique
Title: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Brock on December 06, 2001, 18:50:00
I recently read an "Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin" report about expeirence in Kosovo essentially reporting the Griffon is essentially useless for airmobile warefare.  The report indicated that the Griffon can not operate carry more than 4 fully equipped troops if it is to fly a useful mission distance.  The reason being by the time the defensive warfare suite, cockpit armour, and crews weapons and equipment is added on the Griffon has to choose troops or fuel; the latter wins.
Even with the low troop load, the transport distance is still limited, about 100km radius.

Given the importance of support helicoter operations in peace support operations and low to mid-intensity conflicts, the CF desperately needs to build a better airlift capacity.  I suggest this options.  One the CF should buy 10-16 new-build or ex-US uupgraded Chinook heavy lift helicopters.  The cost is relatively low, $50-60 million a pop and the benefits are extremely advantageous.  In the mid-term, say next ten years, a major uprgade to UH-1Y standard is in order for the Griffons.  The UH-1Y program is currently being run for the USMC‘s basically similar UH-1N Twin Huey‘s.  The helicopter is stripped of all avionics, flight and engines systems and the airframe is retuned to zero hour status.  The helicopter is refitted with 2 GE-700-401C engines (twice the power of the current enginces), a passive and active defensive aids suite, a new "glass cockpit", a new four blade main and tail rotor system, and a strengthened and combat durable airframe is added.  The helicopter is now combat capable and can take battle damage and keep on flying at level comparable to a Sikorsky Blackhawk.  Most importantly the helicopter wouldl be capable of transporting an infantry "tactically "--unlike the current Griffon--and doing so at the current Griffon maximum flight speed at its maximum range with a full load.  The cost of an upgrade of this nature would be about $6-$10 million Canadian each.  Although this sound expensive it is relatively cheap compare to the $30 million for a new Blackhawk or $50 million for an EH-101 utility variant.  These are Canadian figures too with all the added political cost.  I would like to note that this option is politically acceptable, because both the Griffon upgrade and Chinook builiding could be done in Canada at Boeing‘s and Bell Heliocopters plants in Arnprior and Mirabel respectively.

Also the time is politically ripe to get upgrades of this sort on the go, because of the current war.

Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: fortuncookie5084 on December 06, 2001, 21:44:00
Canada had Chinooks.  We sold them to the Dutch for next to nothing, right around the same time the Yanks offered to send lots of utility helicopters our way (post cold war downsizing).  Marcel Masse had us buy the Griffon instead.  Sucks, eh?
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: Meditations in Green on December 07, 2001, 16:04:00
Another option (I don‘t know about the cost for this one though) would be acquiring helicopters from Eurocopter ( www.eurocopter.ca (http://www.eurocopter.ca) ). They have a plant in Ft. Erie, which would address a lot of the politcal end job wise. Eurocopter makes the Super Puma and Super Couger transport helicopters and Tiger gunships. An example: the Super Couger AS532 U2 A2 can carry 29 troops or 12 stretchers and is armed with 20mm axial guns or 68mm rockets in addition to machineguns. The Eurocopter models have seen a lot of use with forces around the world, especially within NATO, with good results I understand.
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: Soldier of Fortune on December 07, 2001, 21:59:00
Man...The CF is in a mess, I say they elect Generals and a Defence Ministers from the enlisted men. That oughta fix the problem.
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: Gordon Angus Mackinlay on December 07, 2001, 22:33:00
Sir,

The Cougar has exactly the same problem as the Griffon, it may be able to have 29 lightly equipped troops in its hold.  Unfortunatley it cannot fly very far with them.  Even without the defence suite, any form of weapons system etc, they were in Bosnia/Kosovo only rostered to carry nine fully equipped troops.

Whilst the original Puma version was a manouverable helicopter, the Cougar is not.  It also has the disadvantage in that it is hard for fully ladened soldiers to climb onboard.

If there had been any logical choice, it would have been the Merlin (EH-101) in its utility, naval, SAR versions for the Canadian Forces.  This will however never be (apart from the Comorant), the Griffons are relatively young aircraft, and it is quite obvious that the Sea Kings will fly for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your,
Jock in SYdney
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: MCG on December 10, 2001, 21:48:00
Quote
Originally posted by Gordon Angus Mackinlay:
[qb] . . . it is quite obvious that the Sea Kings will fly for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/qb]

Haven‘t they already flown  forever?
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: fortuncookie5084 on December 11, 2001, 00:22:00
I don‘t think it is too far fetched to say that we‘ll lose them all through attrition---their recent crash record is terrible and sad.  But would they be replaced??
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: bossi on December 11, 2001, 05:52:00
Only if it suits the agenda of the Liberal party (i.e. if they can be made in a riding with a Liberal Member of Parliament)

Ooops ... did I say that out loud?
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: Yard Ape on December 11, 2001, 08:25:00
Well, they certainly proved that they don‘t really care.  After yesterday‘s budget.  I guess our SF guys will have to ride into battle on some other country‘s birds.

   Yard Ape
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: Brock on December 11, 2001, 12:49:00
In regard to the "Super Cougar" it is actually called the Coulgar Mk.1, Cougar Mk.2, and/or EC 725.  The Super Puma is a civillian version of the Cougar Mk.1/2.  The Mk. 1/2 stand for short fuselage length (Mk.1) and long fuselage length (Mk.2).  There are also a variety of sub-variants that denoted armed and unarmed capabilities for both utility and maritime roles.  In response to Angus MacKinlay.  The Cougar Mk.2 used by the Dutch in Bosnia/Kosovo carries 13-16 fully loaded troops not nine, the nine would be based on increased fuel requirements for an extremely long range flight (see. Jane‘s International Defence Review August 2001 for more info.).  The EC 725 is essentially a Cougar Mk.2 with new more powerful and fuel efficient engines, a better all new rotor system, a new cockpit, and the ability to be fit with a wide range of standard add-on kits for Combat SAR.  It essentially rectifies existing problems with Cougar Mk.2.  If one want to go with Eurocopter, one should look at its sister company‘s NH-90 form NAHEMA Helicopter Industries (NHI).  NHI is a company owned by Eurocopter France, Portugal, and Germany; Agusta of Italy, and Fokker of the Netherlands.  The NH-90 is an excellent helicopter for both maritme roles and land support roles.  It is produced in two basic variants: the Tactical Transport Helicopter (TTH) and the NATO Frigate Helicopter (NFH) variants.  Both are extremely capabale 10 ton class helicopters.  The TTH can transport 16 fully equipped troops and four crew.  The TTH has two sliding cargo doors to port and starboard and a rear ramp.  The NFH variant is fully equipped for anti-submarine and anti-surface vessel warfare (ASW/ASVW).  Both helicopter are exceptional in terms of performance.  The NH-90 came to late to participate in the Search and Rescue Helicopter replacement project, but likely would have won, had it been available.  Concerns about its lower cabin height (160cm) have been addressed by producing a version with a 183cm cabin.  The NH-90 is truly an excellent all around helicopter and it is set to succeed the Super Puma/Cougar line.    If you want to know more see www.eurocopter.com (http://www.eurocopter.com) and follow the links to the products page.
Title: Re: Griffons Woes
Post by: Meditations in Green on December 11, 2001, 14:53:00
The main reason I had for suggesting Eurocopter as an alternative to the Blackhawk or the EH 101 is the political end of things. The politics will outweigh any operational considerations, especially with our current administration.

I did some looking around on the net. The NH-90 sounds like it‘ll be a pretty good helicopter. From the looks of things there is quite a bit of interest in the NH-90 from countries around the world.

A gut feeling tells me that even if they did buy new helicopters they‘d still end up making a questionable choice - and with the new budget I‘d be surprised if they even made any significant upgrades to existing choppers. As for the Sea "Kings" (they‘re Paupers now), who knows what they‘ll actually do outside of a report or commitee.
Title: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: TR23 on March 02, 2005, 14:22:59
Hello All,
I was wondering if someone would take the time to explain some of the problems with the CH-146 Griffon helicopter.   I understand that it seems to have a poor reputation in the forces, and I was hoping to learn more about why.   I believe that the Griffon is based on the Bell Helicopter 412 twin engine design.   I also thought that the 412 was development of the Twin Huey, which itselt stemmed from the original Huey.   Wasn't the original Huey revered as a marvel of design?   I would have thought that an update to the Huey, especially adding twin engine safety and capability to an already sound design would produce an excellent helicopter.   You can probably see by now that I know little about what I'm asking- I'm just hoping to learn more.   Please don't think that I'm suggesting the Griffon's reputation is undeserved, I'm simply trying to understand the problems.   Thanks.
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Inch on March 02, 2005, 16:47:22
First, multiple engines aren't for safety, they're for speed and power. The old saying amongst pilots is that 2 engines just means that you've got twice the chance of having an engine failure. In most cases, a twin engine helo with a failed engine won't be able to hover with that engine out, kind of a problem if you don't have an airport or a long, flat, and hard surface to do a run-on landing.

For the Griffon, it has a higher max weight than the Huey, but the aircraft itself also weighs more. As it works out according to the numbers published in Jane's, the Griffon's payload is 200 lbs less than the Huey's. The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges. If you compare the Huey to the Griffon, the numbers are quite similar and IMO, most of the negative press on the Griffon is unwarranted.  As for the rest of it, I'll leave that to Strike, our resident Griffon pilot.
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: InterestedParty on March 02, 2005, 19:09:05
The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges

Inch,

This is probably an unfair question, but how does the Griffon stack up to the Blackhawk overall as a tac helicopter in your view?

I know that they may not be strictly comparable, but are there some advantages in using the Griffon or is the BH just plainly superior?  Does it just depend on the role?

cheers, mdh
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Inch on March 02, 2005, 19:42:43
The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges

Inch,

This is probably an unfair question, but how does the Griffon stack up to the Blackhawk overall as a tac helicopter in your view?

I know that they may not be strictly comparable, but are there some advantages in using the Griffon or is the BH just plainly superior?   Does it just depend on the role?

cheers, mdh


Keep in mind that my opinion isn't grounded in being a TacHel pilot, but here it goes.

It all depends on what you're using it for and where you're using it. The Griffon is smaller and lighter, thus it can fit into smaller clearings in the trees and it doesn't put down as much rotorwash as a larger helicopter. The Griffon has skids so I'd be inclined to say that it's probably better at landing on soft surfaces (snow, etc) since the weight is more spread out than the 3 points of contact that the Blackhawk wheels make. I think I've seen pictures of the Blackhawk with skis attached to the landing gear so that would help, but I'm not certain how common this is or if it's a quick add-on.

Overall, I think the Blackhawk would be more suited to the majority of the roles that we use the Griffon for. However, I've said it once and I'll say it again, I believe very strongly that the right kit should be used for the job. The Blackhawk would bring it's own limitations with it, the US Army uses a few different helos for their Tac Aviation, whereas we try to use one and as I stated above, expectations that it should be able to do all jobs well is why the Griffon draws so much flak from the naysayers.
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Garry on March 02, 2005, 21:30:06
The Griffon replaced the Kiowa, Single Huey and the Twin Huey. The CH-47 was, iirc, gone prior to the buy.

The Kiowa was a scout helicopter. Typical tasks included FAC, Recce, RRB, FOO, MFCO, Liason, and Airmobile support. These taskings required low altitude flight (app 3 feet agl) as well as manouvering in tight conditions, at times flying under standard telephone wires (to avoid observation). This is a tough environment for a 3,000 pound aircraft, very (VERY) challenging for a 9,000 pound aircraft.

The Single Huey was a SAR aircraft, based (by the time of the Griffon arrival) solely at Jet airbases, and used to (primarily) retrieve downed aircrew. The Griffon does a fine job of that....although the winch tends to fail, and the static electricity generated by the aircraft is quite stunning, and tends to make those on the ground pay for any mistakes they make (such as grabbing the cable before it hits the ground)

The Twim Huey was employed primarily as an airmobile platform, transporting troops around the battlefield. It also moved some artillery guns. The Griffon is unable to move the same amount of men and material (weight limited) as the Huey could, nor can it move artillery pieces as far as the Huey could (again, weight limited).

The Griffon has better avionics and flight management sytems than the Huey did.

Cheers-Garry
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: TR23 on March 02, 2005, 23:31:11
Hey, thanks for the info, this is great.   I'm really enjoying what i've learned from this site, and I appreciate everyone putting up with someone who knows little to nothing.

What Garry said about the Kiowa provided the answer to something that had been kicking around in my head for awhile.   I had been pondering the possibility of reconfiguring some of the Griffons to an armed observation/scouting role, similar to the 'Kiowa to Kiowa Warrior' program in US Army Aviation.   I had thought that since both the Kiowa and the Griffon were Bell helicopters(meaning that Bell has experience in this kind of program), and seeing how Bell has a division in Montreal, this might be seen as a politically 'do-able' upgrade.   In my imagination i had seen new avionics, some sort of MMS (Mast Mounted Sight) like the Kiowa Warriors, and some light weaponry, like direct fired rockets or heavy guns, maybe even light/medium armour.   I imagine that while the troops would love true attack helicopter support, I can't see funding for that coming, even with budget increases.   So i thought any kind of air support would be appreciated.

I also thought that if Canada increased it's aerial recce abilities, and integrated them with the Coyote on the ground, as well as our infantry recce platoons, and UAV assets (which I'm not too sure of how well developed they are) we might be able to offer that as a 'package' option to allied/coalition operations.   I believe the US asked for coyote support on various operations, and it would seem like a 'high profile' operation that would look good for the army and the Canadian government.   This all popped into my head after reading the article on Canada reprocurring Chinooks as heavy lift birds, and i started wondering if their procurement would allow any griffons to be re-tasked.   I've always been impressed with the Kiowa Warrior, it seemed like an economical solution to a problem, by adapting relatively inexpensive aircraft -really Bell 206 JetRangers, I believe.

Anyway, I take from what Garry said that adapting the griffon to this role would be a poor compromise due its high weight, and perhaps lack of manuverablity?
I don't want to seem like i think i'm an expert by any means, i just had this idea and was wondering what you guys thought of it, how/if it would work, etc...

Trevor
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: InterestedParty on March 02, 2005, 23:35:22
That's actually a good question TR23 - I was going to ask how the Griffon would stack up as a gunship - I believe that it can carry some rockets now - and that machine guns can be mounted on the doors.
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: pipstah on March 04, 2005, 12:13:28
I'm gonna talk about my personnal point of view about the Gryffin. First of all, comparing the gryffin to the blackhawk is like comparing a sport car to a truck... it's fast and agile but cant load as much as we want. The gryffin right now have the option of mounted side HMG on each side. Dont remember if its the C6 or the C9 or maybe both...maybe someone can tell us. Sitting in the back of these littlebirds is kinda a good challenge... but its fun. On the winter sometime it get hard because of the tobogan. The pilots are professionnal and they try to do their best with what they have. The gryffin is doing a pretty good job but maybe for not all the roles its suppose to fullfill in the canadian forces. I dont know about the combat role it could play... if you want to use the gryffin for combat support you will need to put armor on wich mean more weight...less agile...less faster... less carrying load... it would be a nice challenge to solve! We will see with Gen Hillier what will happen... the tact helo world future seems that it will gonna change alot with the arrival of a land Gen... wich I think is pretty good. We just have to wait to see the new ideas...
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: TR23 on March 04, 2005, 12:24:03
Thanks for all the replies guys- it seems i was under a misconception, I had believed that the griffin was comparable to the twin huey, similar to what the USMC has, which are currently undergoing a refit to UH-1Y standard.  however, it seems that the griffin isn't as capable as the Twin Huey, especially the new standard Y model.  How do the Griffin and Huey compare?  How does a fully upgraded Huey compare to a Blackhawk?  Does the USMC operate them due to cost or preference?  Could Canada upgrade its Griffins to a smilar standard?  Tons of questions, and I hope you guys don't mind, but I'm learning tons.
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Inch on March 04, 2005, 18:58:53
K guys, it's spelled "Griffon".

You don't need a lot of armour, only a bit under and around the crew. If you're thinking along the lines of LAV armour, well that's not feasible for a helicopter. The fact is that the rotor head and blades aren't designed to take a lot of small arms fire, so armouring the hell out of it to protect the crew won't do you a whole lot of good if you take a few bullets in a rotor blade or the tail rotor gearbox. Helicopters rely on speed and agility as their primary defense, they use the contours and terrain to hide and move to where they want to go. They carry C6 GPMGs, an HMG I believe is .50 cal and up and they're not carried on any of our helos.

TR23, the Griffon is comparable to the Twin Huey, the Griffon will carry one guy less, that's pretty comparable if you ask me. I don't know the specs on the Y upgrade but I highly doubt it'll come close to a Blackhawk performance wise. The L model Blackhawks have an all up weight of 22,000 lbs. The rest of your questions I'm not too sure on so I'll leave those for Duey or someone else to answer.
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Strike on March 04, 2005, 20:26:02
Hey guys,

Sorry for the late reply.  I was busy getting ready for the field.

So, let's see what I can answer.  I never flew the Huey so I really can't compare them.  From what I've seen, the main reason some bash the Griffon is because they expect it to do the same roles the Kiowa, Iroquois (single Huey), Twin, and Chinook did.  Well, obviously not possible since it is one helicopter with only temporary add ons to change the configuration for different roles.

It certainly cannot do what a BH can.  Weight limitations (from what I have witnessed) seem to be due to the different head configuration.  Whereas most helo have all the blades attached to a single point, the Griffon has two plates laying on top of each other with the blades attached at the ends.  This generally adds for a smoother and quieter ride (unless these elastomeric bearings are cold) but also makes them a little more susceptible to torque.  You certainly can't treat it like you would a Sea King taking off from deck.  Even a Jet Ranger (of which the Kiowa is a derivation) is much more forgiving when it comes to pulling torque.

The main role we seem to be tasked with and train for is troup transport but, after the role 430 Sqn played in Haiti, we are exploring other options.  The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry.  One of their main roles was to monitor various areas with the FLIR and send reports back.  Can you imagine hearing a helicopter but not seeing it because all of their lights are out?  Suddenly you are lit up by the "Night Sun" and a dozen Army troups are shouting at you with rifles at the ready.  They did a great job.

This bring the whole Recce aspect of our job into play.  It really isn't something we do enough of but, once again, the community is trying to change this with keeping Recce quals up to date.  There once was a project called ERSTA (before my time in the Griffon) which focused on kitting the aircraft with the latest in recce equipment.  With the added bonus that these helos can quite successfully hide with the appropriate back-drop or cover, this would have been a great addition.  There's nothing better than playing 1 vs 1 (our version of hide and seek) and never being found -- even when you give the other a/c the grid where you are hiding.  Maybe Gen Hillier will revive it (or some form of it).

WRT armour, well, never had the chance to fly with it.  There are special armoured seats which are installed and are protected under, on the sides, and on the rear.  Armour is also placed in the chin bubble which is an annoyance for those who like to use the bubble when in a high hover or going into a confined area.

My personal thoughts on the Griffon?  I compare it to an SUV.  It's certainly not the beater pick-up like the Twin may have been -- works hard no matter what you do to it.  Of course, if you treat it with a bit of finess (which I am still learning; still no overtorques for me though :)) you can do some great stuff.  Nothing beats zipping over the trees at 15 feet and 100 knots!
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Bograt on March 04, 2005, 20:35:13
Having spent the last two weeks in Beautiful Farnum, the only thing that kept me sane was watching the Griffons doing their low level stuff.

It kept a smile on this baby pilot as I was humping through the sticks with a ruck. -32 and the wind. I love Quebec in the winter. ;P

Cheers,
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: InterestedParty on March 04, 2005, 23:07:42
The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry

Strike,

Is this similar to the problem most aircraft have operating in hot and humid climates? Or is the Griffon especially vulnerable? I remember being paranoid (getting my PPL) flying shortfield practice in a C150 when it was very hot/humid (30C plus) in southwestern Ontario. (Not to mention roasting to death in the cockpit on the ground, but I digress).

Are there occasions when the Griffon was just not operational under those conditions - or is there just extreme vigilance on the weight and balance?

Cheers, mdh
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Strike on March 05, 2005, 00:18:36
The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry

Is this similar to the problem most aircraft have operating in hot and humid climates? Or is the Griffon especially vulnerable? I remember being paranoid (getting my PPL) flying shortfield practice in a C150 when it was very hot/humid (30C plus) in southwestern Ontario. (Not to mention roasting to death in the cockpit on the ground, but I digress).

Are there occasions when the Griffon was just not operational under those conditions - or is there just extreme vigilance on the weight and balance?


It's exactly the same.  If the density altitude (density of the air at ground level when taking into account pressure and humidity) is too high more power is required to get in the air.  DA is basically an equivalent Alt reading using ICAO standards (15 degrees, 29.92) at ground level.  That's why right now if you were to take that 150 up it would feel like a little rocket.  The DA is probably somewhere around  minus 1000 feet right now out here in Pet -- the air is nice and dense.  Service ceiling of the Griffon is 14 000 feet (Not taking into account the whole oxygen thing).

Jeez, those hours of Met and IF are really starting to pay off.
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: InterestedParty on March 05, 2005, 02:24:13
That's why right now if you were to take that 150 up it would feel like a little rocket.

That's for sure! - the rate of climb would be anemic in the 150 on hot days (II RC 150 feet per minute)   - and then on cold days almost 300 or more. (a stunning 100 HP don't ya know! not really much of a rocket at all - but I do miss that old trainer.)

Then again the real challenge was landing at the Island Airport in TO - some of the weirdest cross winds and wind shear around because of the city scape. (nothing like being on short final and the IAS drops by 10 knots).   :P

Thanks for the info Strike,

cheers, mdh

Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Good2Golf on March 05, 2005, 11:58:38
Gents, Garry gave a good back ground on the three helos that were removed from service and portions of their separate capabilities were provided by the Griffon.   Garry and I were quite involved in the implementation of the Griffon (its entry into service) in the mid-to-later 90's, then he went on to fly them while I kept flying my desk.   There were a number of challenges including determining how the Griffon really was going to be operated by the Tactical Aviation community once it was fully entered into operational service.   There was much discussion of how much of the Kiowa's and Twin Huey's roles would the Griffon be used to provide.   In the end, the direction was principally to provide roles that the Twin Huey had provided earlier and to save until later the employment of the Griffon in the kind of recce and surveillance missions that Garry noted earlier for the Kiowa.

I'll start off by saying that the Griffon is what it is...a single main-rotor, utility helicopter that can perform a variety of tasks, either as a basic aircraft or with the addition of several mission kits (FLIR, Nitesun searchlight, C6 MG, cabin armour, skis, hoist, etc....)   Folks love to make comparisons, but a direct comparison is not always a fair thing to do.   The closest comparision to the Griffon is obviously the Twin Huey, but there are noticable iddferences between the two helicopters...both in their characteristics and in the way that they were/are employed.   Some folks (myself included) like to compare the Griffon and Twin as a Ford F-150 Lariat-trim, Super Cab with a/c, cruise, p/w, p/s, p/b and a short-bed (Griffon) with an older regular cab, long-bed, vinyl seating, no a/c, no cruise, base-model F-100 (Twin Huey).   You could put a bit more in the F-100 but the F-150 was much nicer to drive for extended periods.

As noted earlier in the thread, the Griffon is a little heavier than the Twin and even with the four-bladed rotor (vs. the Twin's two blades), leads to a noticably heavier rotor loading.   Guys may tell you that the Griffon is not quite as solid hovering on its column of air as the Twin was, until you get down into "ground effect" (by definition 1/2 the distance of the main rotor, in practive around 4-5' above the ground).   The Griffon's avionics are far more integrated than the other previous helicopters in the CF...the first of the "electric aircraft" if you will.   The Avionics Management System (AMS) uses a dual digital databus (MIL-STD-1553-B) and has Cockpit Display Units (CDUs) that the pilots uses to program the avionics, communications and some of other mission systems.   Ironically, though, it was a hybrid system that took much of the digital information running through the data-buses and reconverted it back to analog signals and (aside from the two CDUs) presented the information in a traditional "steam-driven" instrument panel.   We are missing a few flat-screen MFD (multi-function displays) that would have kept the modernization theme throughout the aircraft.

Operationally, the Griffon is not without its challenges...mind you, nor is any other helicopter.   Depending on the mission kits installed, the Griffon is limited to how much paylod it can carry.   The Griffon also has some performance limitations based on how it manages torque...which tends to oscillate more than the Twin.   This means guys will usually add a bit of a "buffer" to how much power they pull, so that they don't overtorque the aircraft inadvertantly.   Interestingly, many of the missions, like those that Spike referred to in Haiti, don't use the aircraft at its AUW (all up weight) and the capability the Griffon then provides (surveillance, overwatch, illumination, small reation team insertion, etc... vs. large fore mobility) it quite useful to the Task Force commander.   I think it's more an issue of finding what and where the Griffon can be best leveraged...moving large numbers of troops in an airmobile is perhaps not the best employment of the asset.

Where it's future leads (as with just about everybody else in the CF, right about now, eh?) remains to be seen.   Time will tell how the Griffon can be developed in the future to contribute to the CF.

p.s.   Just to caveat my words, I only have two hours in the Griffon...my op time was all on the CH147 and CH135 (including the infamous trip of 29 April 1992 to transport Marcel Masse to Bell in Mirabel to anounce the 100 Griffons to be purchased :o ).   Much of my words above were based on dealing with supporting the Griffon from a number of different positions (EW, systems, life support, engineering, employment, ops management, torque-sensitivity solutions, etc...) now for almost a decade.   I feel I know the beastie pretty well and have worked with others to make it as much as it is today (which to be honest, could have been a lot worse were it not for the contributions of lots of motivated folks).   That said, I'm still holding out for a little "something else" before I get back in the cockpit... *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*   ;D

Cheers,
Duey

*edit* - Got my Garry/Gary's mixed up...I worked for Gary, not Garry although both flew on Kiowas...mea culpa....P.S. Garry's summary of the helos was still very good, though!
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: TR23 on March 05, 2005, 22:15:50
Duey, that truck comparison was exactly what I needed!  I think I understand better what the Griffon is all about now, thanks to all you guys taking the time to educate a layman.  So much of what I've read bashes the Griffon, but from some of these comments I can see that it has it's role, and can be quite useful in it.

So if Duey get's his dream machine, which seems to be a new Chinook fleet to fly around, would that take some of the load of the Griffons for logistics/troop movement, perhaps allowing them to be used more in the surveillance, overwatch, illumination, small reation team insertion, etc... role that Duey and Strike brought out?  Or would the Chinooks do their thing, and the Griffons remain tasked pretty much as they are now?
Title: Re: Griffin
Post by: Good2Golf on March 06, 2005, 09:36:50
TR23, you're pretty much bang on! :)

"Hypothetically"  ;)  I think you'd see the focus of air mobility and air logistical sustainment responsibilities move to the Chinook...or whatever the medium lifter is.  Note:  I have many guys ask me why a Chinook is 'only' a 'medium' helicopter...it's a NATO designation (which is different from designations of the ICAO - Int'l Civil Avn Org)...IIRC medium is from 10,000kg to 30,000kgs. Heavy is anything over 30,000kgs max gross weight - currently only two helicopters are "heavy" that I can think of off the top of my head...MH-53E Super Sea Stallion and the Mi-26 Halo.

It would be reasonable to assume that the Griffon would take on more of a "sense" role...recce, surveillance, tactical security, observation, etc... and retain some of the lighter utility transport tasks where a medium or heavy lifter might not be best employed.

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: Griffon
Post by: PatrickO on March 10, 2005, 18:34:11
Just adding on here... do you TacHel guys think that there's a need for a light recon / close support helo? It seems obvious from what you guys have posted that the Griffon isn't exactly cut out for that line of work  :P  And if we're not going to use Kiowas, what else is out there? MD-500 defenders perhaps? the israeli versions can carry quite a bit of firepower from what i've seen. add a mast-mounted sight and you get a tidy (probably overloaded) little machine.. what do you think?
Title: Re: Griffon
Post by: Good2Golf on March 12, 2005, 10:27:44
LordOsborne, personally, I do believe that there is a place for a recon and close support helo in todays battlespace, even if Tac Hel were to get heavy lift and the Army gets UAVs.  There is a niche in the midle where helos can still contribute (if properly equipped) to the combine-arms recce team.  Interestingly, the US Army ARH (armed recconaissance hel) project looks like it will be advancing with a militarized variant of the Bell 407 helicopter.  Also interesting is that the ARH is supposed to have a nose-mounted EO/IR pos, not mast mounted.  It seems that the mast-mounted benefit (which manufacturers always capitalize on in promo videos) no longer outweighs the benefit of being able to drag a few helos onto a C17 or C130 for a quick deployment around the world in support of expeditionary forces.   The US Army also has an LUH (light utility helo) project which is rumoured to look pretty much like a Bell 212/412 type helo...no final word yet on whether it's a 2 or 4-bladed maint rotor.

So, it you loook at the functionality that the US Army is looking for in the near future, both ARH and LUH, and you look at what the candidate aircraft for those projects are, and you also look at what the Griffon is today, with some power and performance modifications, there's no reason why the Griffon could not conceivably perforam a reasonable amount of those types of missions in the future.  Before we "throw the baby out with the bath water" we should make sure what aviation tasks would remain aside from medium/heavy lift and UAV functionality and see what the CH146 could do for us there.  I don't doubt that "tomorrow's" Griffon fleet might be smaller than it is today, but I do believe there is still some capability left there that would be pretty useful for the future CF.

My 2  ¢,

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: Griffon
Post by: PatrickO on March 12, 2005, 16:30:25
thanks for your 2 cents, Duey. It's interesting why someone hasn't managed to find a compromise to the Mast mounted sensor problem.. i wonder why industry hasn't developed a quick-detatch/re-attatch mount so that the pod can be removed and replaced prior to and following transport...  :-\
Title: Re: Griffon
Post by: Good2Golf on March 12, 2005, 17:51:35
Good question, LO.  I suppose it's because the US Generally move Kiowa Warriors around in C-5's and C-17's.  Given the move to more tactical deployment, I think the good 'ole Herky bird is still the "gotta fit this" standard.  Engineering-wise, I suppose you could make an electrical connector and some way to detach the MMS, but I'm thinking that it would be removing lock-wired bolts vice some "quick-disconnect" type of mechanism...it sure would hurt having that baby undo in flight!  :o

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: Griffon
Post by: Strike on March 12, 2005, 19:03:57
The fact that the mast mounted system seems to be attached to a control component, maybe there are also maintenance issues when it is reattached -- i.e. they may require a test flight after reattachment.  Of course, I am no test pilot, but given our own regs wrt any changes regarding main control systems and quals required to ground run/fly after such changes, this may also be a factor in the nose placement of any visual sensors for the US.

Like I said, I am no TP.  Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Griffon
Post by: Good2Golf on March 12, 2005, 19:19:39
The fact that the mast mounted system seems to be attached to a control component, maybe there are also maintenance issues when it is reattached -- i.e. they may require a test flight after reattachment.   Of course, I am no test pilot, but given our own regs wrt any changes regarding main control systems and quals required to ground run/fly after such changes, this may also be a factor in the nose placement of any visual sensors for the US.

Like I said, I am no TP.   Any thoughts?

Strike,

Intersting point.  I'm not sure if it would need a T/F to certify airworthiness.  I was a CH135 Maintenance Test Pilot and we would do a T/F everytime we pulled a Twin apart to fly it on a Herc.  I belief the Griffon now needs what is called a "flight functional check", baby brother to the Test Flight, and only requires a qualified AC to fly, not an MTP.  That's pulling the head off and the tranny mast...pretty big stuff. 

My hunch is that re&re of the mast sight would only require C-level sign off by the maint auth. then a functional to ensure it performed correctly.  As the pilot accepting the aircraft though, you'd definitely see me up top checking the lock-wiring!  ;D

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: Griffon
Post by: Strike on March 12, 2005, 19:30:32
Quote
I belief the Griffon now needs what is called a "flight functional check", baby brother to the Test Flight, and only requires a qualified AC to fly, not an MTP.  That's pulling the head off and the tranny mast...pretty big stuff. 

...provided there have not been any adjustments to the blades.  Same for the tail rotor.  Given the config of the Griffon head it would be impossible for such a mast mounted system and therefore a moot point.  Depending on the head system fo these helos (specifically the 412) the US is talking about, this may also be the reason they are going for a nose mounted system.  I remember Smytty sending the flight an article wrt their move towards this sytem and the reasoning behind it.  Of course, with my 90 emails that I had to go through that day, I think it ended up getting tossed in the shuffle -- or lost in my "personal" folder.  ::)
Title: Re: Griffon
Post by: Good2Golf on March 12, 2005, 19:43:46
...provided there have not been any adjustments to the blades.   Same for the tail rotor.   Given the config of the Griffon head it would be impossible for such a mast mounted system and therefore a moot point.   Depending on the head system fo these helos (specifically the 412) the US is talking about, this may also be the reason they are going for a nose mounted system.   I remember Smytty sending the flight an article wrt their move towards this sytem and the reasoning behind it.   Of course, with my 90 emails that I had to go through that day, I think it ended up getting tossed in the shuffle -- or lost in my "personal" folder.   ::)

Strike, you mean one of these?

Bell Helicopter Responds to Army's RFP for Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter with the Bell ARH (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=52907&session=dae.10369270.1110670644.QjN9NMOa9dUAAF2yg9o&modele=jdc_1)

Aviation Today article on US Army ARH and LUH programs (http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0205&file=military.htm)


Cheers
Duey

Title: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: Rammy on May 01, 2005, 10:37:28
Hey Guys,

Since I was young, a Helicopter pilot has been a dream for me and I'd like to tryout to be a griffon pilot.

I just have a few questions for pilots here(if any) or people with a good knowledge,

As far as physicaly fit, what would be a good training and what exacly do I need? I'm not that fit right now, but I plan on working out starting this summer and watching everything I eat etc...I'm almost 16, so I have a long way to go.

Also, in how many stages and how long does it take to be a Pilot? Where does the training take place ? I'm in Montreal at the moment.

I've read that I need a university degree to apply, would a Technique in piloting(forgot the exact name) at Chicoutimi count as that ?

Thanks in advance

-Rammy
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: Inch on May 01, 2005, 11:38:26
Good to see someone with a desire to fly helicopters, most guys complain about having to go, but then end up loving it when they get there.

You don't need to be Olympic athlete fit, but you still have to meet the minimum fitness standard for the CF. 2.4km run in 12 min, 30 pushups, and 30 situps is a good place to start.

Pilot training in particular (not including basic training, aircrew selection and second language school), is done in 3 major parts, with a bunch of other 1-2 week courses in between. The first part is primary flying training in Portage la Prairie, followed by basic flying training in Moose Jaw, then basic helicopter school back in Portage la Prairie. After BHS you'll get your wings and posted to a sqn, the 3 realistic choices are 408 Sqn in Edmonton, 427 Sqn in Petawawa and 430 Sqn in Valcartier. After that there's the operational training unit (OTU) at 403 Sqn in Gagetown where you learn to fly the Griffon in it's tactical helicopter role.

Depending on the demand, the Chicoutimi diploma may be sufficient, I have a diploma in Aviation Technology from Sault College and I got in, though for a while they stopped taking people with college diplomas. They still prefer the university degree though since the CF wants a degreed officer. You would probably end up having to get one later just like I'm supposed to.
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: SF2 on May 01, 2005, 18:08:24
don't forget you can go CSS (combat support) at Cold Lake, Bagotville, or Goose Bay in a search and rescue role - in which case you'd only have to do the Basic First Officer course in Gagetown, about 2months, and skip the TFO, Tactical First Officer course, which is another month.
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: ArmyAviator on May 17, 2005, 14:41:53
Short Final: I think this young lad was talking about becoming a real Griffon Pilots  ;D  (Shields up Mr Sulu)

Rammy

   Inch laid it out pretty good for you.  You are old enough now to talk to a recruiter.  They can answer some of the specifics for what type of education you need.  CEGEP by itself will not be satisfactory but I believe there are follow on programmes in Chicoutammi (Spelling?) that will meet the requirements.  After that it is hard work, determination and a little bit of luck that will carry you through. 

   As for exercise.  The minimum is just the basic fitness and you must pass the Aircrew medical (The medical itself is more comprehensive and discriminating than the general CF medical).  If you want to reduce the risks for long term back a neck problems I suggest you add exercises that strengthen those muscles to a general fitness programme.  Helicopters and particularly Griffon pilots using NVGs all the time are hell on your back and neck.
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: SF2 on May 17, 2005, 15:04:20
REAL griffon pilot huh?   ;D
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: Rammy on May 19, 2005, 18:41:03
Thanks guys for all the info, I think my next step will be to talk to a recruiter....Oh and ArmyAviator, telling me that Griffon pilots often use NVG, just makes me want to be a pilot way more  ;D (I'm that kid that simulates everything in real life to helicopters)

 :cdn:
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: SF2 on May 19, 2005, 20:43:29
good luck!

And you think the NVG's are heavy - have you felt 2 G while fiddling for that damn GPS AUTO advisory with a HUD on yet?
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: Rammy on May 20, 2005, 10:21:21
good luck!

And you think the NVG's are heavy - have you felt 2 G while fiddling for that darn GPS AUTO advisory with a HUD on yet?

Saddly no, but I did intend on trying the orbite at laronde this year  ;D

No Heads Up Display there though
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: ArmyAviator on May 24, 2005, 13:23:47
Quote
Oh and ArmyAviator, telling me that Griffon pilots often use NVG, just makes me want to be a pilot way more   (I'm that kid that simulates everything in real life to helicopters)

Rammy

Excellent attitude.  I wish you all the best.  keep up the hard work, stay healthy and be persistant with the recruiter (respectively so).  Looking forward to seeing you bashing about the battlefield at 15 ft.
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: Good2Golf on May 31, 2005, 14:13:01
Rammy, if you read page 30 of the recently released Defence Policy Statement (DOWNLOAD HERE (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/pdf/dps_e.pdf)), you'll note that there are some interesting capabilities coming down the road for tactical helicopters, in particular medium/heavy-lift for Special Operations and the Standing Contingecy Task Force.   Let me just say that by the time you've trainined through to Wings' Standard, you will have some very cool kit to aviate!   Used to be years back that helos were considered beneath many "true pilots" in the CF...never true, but especially true in today and in the years to come.   Keep a very close eye on the media in the near future...you will see the glimmer of some very, very interesting projects to come...folks will be kicking down the doors to be part of the Tac Aviator team"!   Hu-ah!

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: Preparation and Requirements for Griffon Pilot ?
Post by: pipstah on June 10, 2005, 09:32:48
Yup, I think its the perfect timing to get in and by the time you get qualified you get all the new toys  8)

Nothing beats flying at 15 ft and make the troopers going down  ::)
Title: Griffon SAR
Post by: Code5 on December 22, 2005, 13:00:52
Hey how's it going?  Anyway I was just walking to my library this morning when I saw what looked a lot like a griffon painted in SAR colours. 

Are the Griffons being used because of the lack of availbility of the cormorant or have there always been griffon's used as backup for SAR helicopters?

Thanks

Oh and i'm sorry if there is already a thread on this - did a quick search and came up with a lot of threads about both aircraft but didn't see anything about griffon for SAR.
Title: Re: Griffon SAR
Post by: AmmoTech90 on December 22, 2005, 13:05:39
There are Griffons in the SAR role, in Goose Bay and elsewhere.  After the crash in Goose Bay a couple of years ago the Griffons were repainted in SAR colours so that they are more visible.
Title: Re: Griffon SAR
Post by: Code5 on December 22, 2005, 13:08:56
Thanks... was just kinda surprised to see a SAR griffon flying over Peterorough this morning....
Title: Re: Griffon SAR
Post by: SF2 on December 22, 2005, 13:10:36
CS Griffons (Combat Support) are painted yellow, and are based in Goose Bay, Bagotville, and Cold Lake.  They are also being used in Trenton right now to augment the Cormorant.
Title: Re: Griffon SAR
Post by: Ditch on December 22, 2005, 22:58:15
...augment the Cormorants...

Trenton no longer has any CH-149 Cormorants in its fleet.  The CH-146 Griffon is carrying the entire Helo SAR response for 8 Wing.  424 lost their Shags to 413 and Gander - their tail rotor assemblies were in short demand.
Title: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: rhfc_pte on December 04, 2006, 00:14:45
I am currently going to Canadore College for Aviation Maintenance Technician program. I am thinking about joining the Airforce as an AVN Tech. I have two questions, First how hard is it to get to work on your aircraft of choice, and second I would like a comparison of the Griffon Squadrons.





Thank You for your time,

PTE. Plantz, G.A.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Good2Golf on December 04, 2006, 02:16:33
Pte Plantz,

Firstly, like many things in the military, your selection on a particular aircraft type after the many months of basic technical training may have only a small portion of your personal wishes taken into account.  There is often more variance in which postings to particular fleets are plentiful at the time you would commence your training and apprenticeship on a particular aircraft type.  Some of the folks in CFSATE might be in a better position to comment on the selection process of a MOC-500 tradesman to a particular aircraft.

Secondly, there are nine Griffon squadrons, one operational training unit (Gagetown), three combat support squadrons (Goose Bay, Bagotville and Cold Lake), two reserve-heavy tactical helicopter squadrons (St-Hubert and Borden), two regular force-heavy tactical helicopter squadrons (Valcartier and Edmonton) and a special operations squadron (Petawawa).  There is also a Cormorant SAR squadron in Trenton that is currently operating Griffons as a temporary measure while engineering issues are being addressed with the CH149 Cormorant's tail rotor assembly.  The CSS units support operations at fighter bases and provide a secondary SAR response to augment the primary rotary-wing National SAR capability.  The Tac Hel units generally support the Army and other CF elements as may be required from time to time.  There are quite a range of differences amongst all the squadrons, so you might narrow down your Q's to something a bit more specific.

Cheers

G2G
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: aesop081 on December 04, 2006, 02:59:31
Your poll is equaly vague......

What do you mean "best" ?

Are you refering to amount of work ? ease of maintenance? Most changes for deployed operations ?  gucci trips ? 
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: rhfc_pte on December 04, 2006, 18:21:01
With respect to being an AVN Tech.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Astrodog on December 04, 2006, 18:57:19
What is the difference between Combat Support and Tac Hel?
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: aesop081 on December 04, 2006, 19:10:03
With respect to being an AVN Tech.

Thats what i meant........as to what ?

working hours ?

Amount of work ?

oportunities for trips....

Be specific...... ::)
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Good2Golf on December 04, 2006, 19:45:28
Well, for a 514 AVN tech, the CSS squadron has yellow Griffons, the Tac Hel Griffons are green...all units are AF9000 (maint standard) compliant.  More time on field exercises and support during land ops for tac hel squadrons, more support to SAR ops for the CSS folks.  Technically, there is probably more impact on lifestyle to the actual physical location of the squadron than to the actual employment, but I'm on the edge of my lane here.

G2G 
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Trunk Monkey on December 04, 2006, 22:45:58
I'll step in, being a former fitter/AVN tech and have worked in all 3 enviroments. First, what's better? Depends on what turns your crank. You like to travel? I've worked on tutors, t-birds, cosmos, dash-8's, hercs, seakings and griffons and the one I spent the longest on was the one I never wanted to work on at first, the herc. My fav was seakings (more reliable than many think), and not a hard bird to learn. Sailing around the ocean blue is not that bad, the fish heads tend to leave you alone for the most part and you can get bored of going to Hawaii...well, maybe not.

The herc is a good plane but quite hands on, travel is good and no tents.

Griffin world, well, tachel anyways....welcome to the army life.  I cannot speak for fighter types (been deployed with the tankers with them though) but from what I've seen, they have it pretty good. Many of the techs I know love the plane but hate the location.

As for the Griffin Sqns, well, it's been said already. It's the same helo, only thing that makes a sqn good is the people running it and those in it. And that applies to any unit. You may love the hornet but if you have cannon fodder for bosses or bitter techs who don't care, you'll be miserable. Wherever you end up, be happy, do your job and then some.....and in the long run, you just might get rewarded, or the shaft :P Kind of short but anything else, ask away.....and do try to be more specific with your question, if possible.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: rhfc_pte on December 05, 2006, 01:12:43
Thats what i meant........as to what ?

working hours ?

Amount of work ?

oportunities for trips....

Overall!
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: aesop081 on December 05, 2006, 02:11:40
Thats what i meant........as to what ?

working hours ?

Amount of work ?

oportunities for trips....

Overall!

i give up........
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: rhfc_pte on December 05, 2006, 18:11:36
I am just trying to find out the opportunities in the trade as a whole.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Trunk Monkey on December 06, 2006, 02:04:08
Working hours........a day worker will do the 37.5 to 40 hr work week but the techs hours will depend where they work and the type of shift. Then toss in sports, admin, leave, etc........but shifts vary. I've done shifts where it was a 35 hr week........a 30 hr week one week then 40 the next.........50+ in a week and then you can toss in staying late during nights to get a bird ready for the next day (esp in a SAR Sqn), but then also, when nights are slow, the crews will split down "occasionally". And if you deploy, expect long days/nights.

Workload....geez. Some days are insane, going from one plane to another....then other days, you are doing nothing. But that depends on where you work. Day workers usually have a steady job where as shift workers (the techs on the plane vice the techs in the day) don't have a set job to work on. When you get to work is when you find out what you maybe doing. Maybe an engine change, fuel tank entry, landing geart change, etc....And joe jobs are a staple of military life. Nothing flying and guess what? Hangar clean-up, moving crud around, etc..........

Trips........guess I wasn't CLEAR enough........depends on the type of aircraft your on. Always some oppurtunity for a trip or 2 or 3 or 4 and so on. Herc world is good for trips, Dash-8 world is not. Griffin world, not really........SeaKings, well you get to go with the ship when an AirDet is on board......Auroras, some trips........CF-18s, some........Tutors, only the Snowbirds use them now, so lots of travel. Then there are MRP's (mobile repair parties) to exotic locations if a plane breaks down away from base and cannot fly back. Working on a herc up north, outdoors at -45 is a hoot ;)  But usually only the experienced techs go. Courses...there's more travel for you.

Overall........Not that much travelling or too much, hours are not set in stone (no union here) ,the workload is hit or miss (usually busy)and the conditions can be great or lousy. But one thing, being an AVN tech is not like an AME in the sense that as a AVN, you may end up working a job that takes you off the plane for years, go to some bleep hole place for a deployment or somewhere nice, get a hotel w/o a pool or with one that's closed...grrr :P, and then toss in all the military stuff.  AME's go to work, fix planes and go home.

Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: mr peabody on December 06, 2006, 16:29:56
 They seem to be fairly accomodating with regards to initial postings out of Borden.  If there is a particular type you'd like to work on, be certain to ask for more than one base that houses it.  Traditionally, it seems like Tac Hel is a difficult place to be posted as an apprentice.  We were told that Griffons were not an option for initial posting, but it does happen for some people. 
  I can't offer you any insight into the different Griffon squadrons, or their work environment... I've only been employed on the CP 140/A.  Bison33's posts have been right on the money, he paints a very accurate picture.


I am currently going to Canadore College for Aviation Maintenance Technician program. I am thinking about joining the Airforce as an AVN Tech. I have two questions, First how hard is it to get to work on your aircraft of choice, and second I would like a comparison of the Griffon Squadrons.





Thank You for your time,

PTE. Plantz, G.A.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: rhfc_pte on December 06, 2006, 18:33:08
Thank You for the info. I was wondering what kind of advantages i could get for going to college.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Trunk Monkey on December 07, 2006, 22:29:53
Thank You for the info. I was wondering what kind of advantages i could get for going to college.

Only time towards a promotion to Corporal.........You'd get 12 months credit (I'm 90% sure but I'll e-mail a buddy of mine who had his AME then joined, Bit I know he got at least a year). Otherwise, your AME means jack squat. There are many guys who have their AME. Just means they make more money if working part time with some company across the tarmac or to fall back on when they pull the pin.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Scoobs on December 09, 2006, 01:35:26
As a former D/SAMEO of a Tac Hel Sqn, I will tell the new Pte that there is a chance that you can go to a Tac Hel unit, but it is more likely that you will go to another fleet.  Also, are you in the Air Force or not?  You say that you are "thinking" about joining and then you sign off as a Private???????????????

The reality is that we tended to prefer to have non-apprentices since they are more employable, i.e. deployments and time to get authorized to at least "A" level.  We did have apprentices and most of them were very hard workers.  However, each had to be supervised and that equaled taking a journeyman or above off the a/c in order to supervise the apprentice.  Thus, another reason why Tac Hel prefers already trained personnel.  Most newbies found the Griffon a good a/c to learn.

Here's a little on the locations, starting from West to East:

1. Edmonton, never physically been there.  The base is close to a major city and thus is a good place (I assume) for a young guy.  Lots of flying in support of LFWA;
2. Cold Lake, 417 CS Sqn.  Last time I knew they only had 3 Griffons.  I've heard that Cold Lake is a good place to live if you like hunting, fishing, outdoors.  I'm not so sure of the night life for a young guy. 
3. Borden.  Very busy at the moment.  Total force Sqn.  Borden is where you will do some training since CFSATE is here.  Location is okay.  Borden is close to Toronto (1 hour drive), but bring a car if you want to go anywhere.
4. Petawawa.  427 SOA Sqn.  Now only support Special Ops.  Busy and will only get busier.  Pet is a great place for hunting, fishing, outdoors, etc.  Not a good place for a single and young guy.  Most young guys in Pet head out onto Highway 17 on Fridays and race down to Ottawa.  Pet is a great place to raise a young family as the support from the mil community is tremendous.
5. St. Hubert.  Total force Sqn, plus Tac Hel School for AVN and AVS techs.  If you are lucky to get Tac Hel and are AVN, you will spend some time here.  St. Hubert is just south of Montreal and easily within driving distance.  Accomodations at the school are less than good, unless you love the smell of marijuana!  The school is within an aviation technology college and the accomodations are shared with the civys.  If you don't get in the civy dorm, you may end up in St. Jean.  What fun I had there, not!
6. Valcartier.  Just north of Quebec City.  I highly recommend that you are able to speak French if you want to go here.  Busy Sqn as well.  Base is nice looking.  My wife wanted me to be posted here after she saw it.  Quebec City is easily within driving distance.
7. Gagetown.  403 HOTS or otherwise known as the training Sqn for pilots and FEs (some trg is done at the other units such as 400 Sqn in Borden).  Nice base and very close to Fredericton.  Freddy has a good night life.  Sqn is very busy and the serviceability must be high due to the need to get the pilots and FEs trained.  My neighbour was posted there and he loved it.  403 also houses LATEF, but you won't go there as a new AVN.
8. Bagotville, 439 CS Sqn.  Similar to 417 Sqn in Cold Lake.  Also, I highly recommend that you can speak French if you wish to be posted here.  I've heard that Bagotville is a good place to be posted, but I'm not sure how good it is for a young guy.
9. Goose Bay, 444 Sqn.  This is an isolated posting and I'm pretty sure that newbies don't get posted there.

I hope this helps.  Tac Hel is fun and isn't so Army as most Air Force pers think.  Yes, we are more "Army" than the rest of the Air Force, but some people like this.  I love it!
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: aesop081 on December 09, 2006, 01:47:02


The reality is that we tended to prefer to have non-apprentices since they are more employable, i.e. deployments and time to get authorized to at least "A" level.  We did have apprentices and most of them were very hard workers.  However, each had to be supervised and that equaled taking a journeyman or above off the a/c in order to supervise the apprentice.  Thus, another reason why Tac Hel prefers already trained personnel. 

Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: rhfc_pte on December 09, 2006, 14:40:39
I am a PTE in the Army Reserves (Infantry). That is why i am interested in the Griffon. Because I like Helicopters and the Army aspect.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: eurowing on December 09, 2006, 14:56:47
Actually, Tac Hell is somewhat special.  Aside from maintaining fling wings with a utterly goofy supply setup which encourages rob actions at a dizzying rate, Tac Hell techs must hit the ranges twice a year, must maintain all the LSVW's ML's etc and maintain skills in driving them.  For example an HL driver must drive the dang thing on a regular basis to stay qualified.  No Techs do this normally. Wing transport takes care of the civilian pattern trucks on a normal AF Base.  In addition, field ex's require that a Tac hell Tech hold all kinds of kit that is not seen by most other techs.  For example, snowshoes and rucks!  Not to mention, training in the most basic of fieldcraft.  You would be amazed at the amount of people that have never lit a Coleman stove.  Practice setting up arctic tents, Modular tentage. Training in sentry duties, Stand To, defensive fire perimeters, arcs of fire,  unknown to most air force unless they are remustered from the Combat Arms.  All this is time away from doing the primary task of getting those rotors spinning has a tremendous toll in manhours available to fix airplanes.
Tac Hell units are remote from support, they stand alone unsupported by a large wing infrastructure and unsupported by on-site engineering assistance (large AMS's with Labs and workshops).
I have had employment in my 32 years in a wide spectrum of elements, aircraft, bases, units and even a staff job :crybaby:.  Tac Hell is most certainly the most demanding environment I have seen.  Fighters/Maritime Patrol/Transport have the life of Riley compared to Tac Hell and I will say it with the voice of experience.  I can't speak for Maritime Helicopters though, but they do get hot meals and dry beds at least.

I know there is a move afoot to train all service members with a basic soldiers knowledge, but I wonder how much will be retained after 10 years, and I have not heard how effective this training is.  It may make a difference, but not for a few long years.

Anyhow, for all the extra work involved in Tac hell, an apprentice requiring direct supervision all ALL tasks has a bigger impact in a Tac hell unit than it does in elsewhere. 

Edited to say  Hi "Alice"! ;D
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Trunk Monkey on December 09, 2006, 21:41:46
Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.

Your wrong cdnaviator, TacHel is "special"  :rofl:.........cannot wait to the day I get posted back to the real Air Force
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: rhfc_pte on December 09, 2006, 23:47:05
They seem to be fairly accomodating with regards to initial postings out of Borden.  If there is a particular type you'd like to work on, be certain to ask for more than one base that houses it.  Traditionally, it seems like Tac Hel is a difficult place to be posted as an apprentice.  We were told that Griffons were not an option for initial posting, but it does happen for some people. 
  I can't offer you any insight into the different Griffon squadrons, or their work environment... I've only been employed on the CP 140/A.  Bison33's posts have been right on the money, he paints a very accurate picture.




What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: aesop081 on December 09, 2006, 23:50:24


What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.

all of them !!!

except the ones maintained by civvies
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: mr peabody on December 10, 2006, 04:42:29


What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.

   Pretty much anything, except for the Twin Otter....  I'm guessing here, but I expect that is an impossibility for an apprentice.  There aren't many positions for techs on them, and there is no shortage of people who would like to get onto that type.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: eurowing on December 10, 2006, 14:51:53
cdnaviator and cp140tech are correct.  The only exclusions are Scarebus, Challenger, Hawk, Harvard, Jet Ranger, Grob 90, C9 King Air,Comorant and the Twotter.  Hmmm, the list of civvie maintained ac is almost tied. 8 to 9  I count the two 140 versions as one (unless we divvie up Herc models) and the Cyclone is still a dream.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1_e.asp will give you a list of ac and a write up of capabilities and locations.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Scoobs on December 11, 2006, 21:41:43
Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.

cdnaviator, I'm not talking about "ready-made" techs.  I was talking about apprentices.  Even though the young Pte may be taking a course at an aviation college, he will still need to be an apprentice once he comes into the Air Force.  Therefore, he will need some trg, just like other apprentices.  As was said in other responses, Tac Hel is a unique environment that has additional burdens placed on its personnel, in addition to fixing a/c.  I was only stating that at Tac Hel units, it is prefered to have already trained techs, such as journeymen and above.  Tac Hel does not send apprentices on deployment overseas.  Of course, every fleet will have to take on some apprentices or that fleet will eventually have no one to work on the a/c.  Also, all fleets do not just want journeymen.  You want a mix of some apprentices, journeymen, "A" level, and "C" level techs.  "A" level techs can sign off on a maintenance action, while "C" level techs can release an a/c for flight.  Therefore, you need to have some "A" and some "C".  Without them, no a/c would be able to get fixed.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: CTD on December 12, 2006, 01:04:21
I think that Tac Hel is shooting itself in the foot by not taking on many apprentices. Most guys who are new want to go Tac Hel in their younger years. This way they can have the snot run out of them early on in their carrer. Then look forward to a more relaxed job after 10 years or so on the 18's or others.

I would think that the new apprentices after their quick OJT period and type course should be able to be receiving POM's with in 8 months, Depending on the length of the type course. This is what is happening on the F18 fleet right now.

I would have gone Tac Hel and done 10 years or more.

To receive a fresh new Apprentice means that they are not tainted yet, they have the drive to complete the job and do not have that union mentality that we see all to often with some of the older breed of Air Force technicians. You can also shape and mold the new guys into what you need.

That is just my opinion.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Loachman on December 13, 2006, 21:09:16
The problem with apprentice-level techs, as mentioned previously, is that they are not deployable. Because of that, 1 Wing built up to over twice the number of apprentice techs during the Bosnia years - they couldn't go, so those who should have been training and supervising them did instead.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Inch on January 01, 2007, 19:30:58
Actually, Tac Hell is somewhat special.  Aside from maintaining fling wings with a utterly goofy supply setup which encourages rob actions at a dizzying rate, Tac Hell techs must hit the ranges twice a year, must maintain all the LSVW's ML's etc and maintain skills in driving them.  For example an HL driver must drive the dang thing on a regular basis to stay qualified.  No Techs do this normally. Wing transport takes care of the civilian pattern trucks on a normal AF Base.  In addition, field ex's require that a Tac hell Tech hold all kinds of kit that is not seen by most other techs.  For example, snowshoes and rucks!  Not to mention, training in the most basic of fieldcraft.  You would be amazed at the amount of people that have never lit a Coleman stove.  Practice setting up arctic tents, Modular tentage. Training in sentry duties, Stand To, defensive fire perimeters, arcs of fire,  unknown to most air force unless they are remustered from the Combat Arms.  All this is time away from doing the primary task of getting those rotors spinning has a tremendous toll in manhours available to fix airplanes.
Tac Hell units are remote from support, they stand alone unsupported by a large wing infrastructure and unsupported by on-site engineering assistance (large AMS's with Labs and workshops).
I have had employment in my 32 years in a wide spectrum of elements, aircraft, bases, units and even a staff job :crybaby:.  Tac Hell is most certainly the most demanding environment I have seen.  Fighters/Maritime Patrol/Transport have the life of Riley compared to Tac Hell and I will say it with the voice of experience.  I can't speak for Maritime Helicopters though, but they do get hot meals and dry beds at least.

I know there is a move afoot to train all service members with a basic soldiers knowledge, but I wonder how much will be retained after 10 years, and I have not heard how effective this training is.  It may make a difference, but not for a few long years.

Anyhow, for all the extra work involved in Tac hell, an apprentice requiring direct supervision all ALL tasks has a bigger impact in a Tac hell unit than it does in elsewhere. 

Edited to say  Hi "Alice"! ;D

You think all that is unique to TACHEL?

MH techs need to learn all about firefighting, both the ship and the helo, ship's damage control, all the deck director/hand stuff like hooking up the hauldown wire and straightening the helo in sea state up to 5 degrees of pitch and 20 degrees of roll, HIFR, hoists, and slinging in sea states of 3 degrees pitch and 10 degrees roll. And when the helo is put to bed, there's cleaning stations and other related ship's tasks.

This is why we only send qualified techs to sea, no apprentices. I don't see why TACHEL couldn't do the same for exercises, I have a hard time believing that there's no room for apprentices in the TACHEL world, especially when you're on the ground and not limited by bunk space.

Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Loachman on January 02, 2007, 13:07:08
We send everybody on exercises, unless there's a good and valid reason not to. We can't send apprentices on operations, though, and that's where the Bosnia mission was killing us. We were established for eighty-odd apprentices in 1 Wing then, and this bloated up to over 180 actual ones stagnating and clogging up the system. They could not go, and more of the ones who should have been training and supervising them had to, so they were not learning at the rate that they should have, and the cycle continued. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is like right now, but I'll become reconnected with that as I start my latest attempt ot get recurrent (if G2G would only stop bogging down our tiny operational training flight).
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: GAP on January 02, 2007, 13:09:42
We send everybody on exercises, unless there's a good and valid reason not to. We can't send apprentices on operations, though, and that's where the Bosnia mission was killing us. We were established for eighty-odd apprentices in 1 Wing then, and this bloated up to over 180 actual ones stagnating and clogging up the system. They could not go, and more of the ones who should have been training and supervising them had to, so they were not learning at the rate that they should have, and the cycle continued. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is like right now, but I'll become reconnected with that as I start my latest attempt ot get recurrent (if G2G would only stop bogging down our tiny operational training flight).

Was there a good reason why a higher level apprentice could not go on operation and continue to learn in the field?
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Loachman on January 02, 2007, 13:20:02
Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: GAP on January 02, 2007, 13:26:55
Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.

There is no better training than actually doing it under real time conditions and getting it right.

Room for error....can't afford that here either

I think there is a good argument to made for reassessing the minimum standard.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: aesop081 on January 02, 2007, 13:43:04
Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.

Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).  Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Inch on January 02, 2007, 14:09:32
Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).  Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.

Not in MH it can't, not enough bunk space on the boats since the navy fills them up with their trainees.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: mr peabody on January 02, 2007, 22:41:26

  Sending apprentices away isn't a great idea for us.  The people that get deployed are usually chosen to fill spots requiring certain skill sets.  An apprentice wlll not be able to sign for his or her own work, let alone an 'A' level signature to certify maintenance action.  Pound for pound we need people who can carry the most weight and who are very comfortable on their respective systems. 

  Not to mention, small errors can take days to fix... it's surprisingly easy to u/s a plane with some pretty rudimentary jobs. 

  If nothing goes wrong and simple servicing is all that's required, anybody can do it.... when things go to crap, you really need good people. 

 
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Loachman on January 03, 2007, 00:38:08
There is no better training than actually doing it under real time conditions and getting it right.

That does not translate to learning a technical skill, and it requires more people in-theatre to both do the job and teach/supervise/correct errors made.

Room for error....can't afford that here either.

Not for an aircraft about to fly, but an error by an apprentice that delays a training flight in Canada does not have the same effect as one that delays an operational flight overseas.

I think there is a good argument to made for reassessing the minimum standard.

Which exists to ensure that the tech is capable of doing the required jobs effectively, safely, completely, and in time.


Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Loachman on January 03, 2007, 00:46:00
Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).

Well, that's all relative - I have far less experience in my little niche than you do in yours.

Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.

But this was about "Comparing GRIFFON Squadrons", not Aurora Squadrons.

Each flying community has its own unique circumstances.

The apprentice problem is a recent one. There was no such thing in the good old days when we (10 TAG) had three aircraft types and more aircraft, more Squadrons, more people, and green uniforms. "Peace dividends", FRP, and such disastrous policies set the stage for the shortages that we have now, and Bosnia fertilized them.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Loachman on January 03, 2007, 00:48:35
Sending apprentices away isn't a great idea for us ..... when things go to crap, you really need good people.

And all of the stuff in between - most definitely.
Title: Griffon run down
Post by: PMars on March 09, 2007, 18:30:06
Speculation exists that the Griffon fleet will be reduced 20-25%.

Now, the AF site says 75 Griffs are in service; media reports generally say 85. The count should be 98 including stored machines (there were 100 purchased for the CF and two were lost.) So one argument is that the CF has already reduced the fleet by 25%.

However, if we take the 75 figure and subtract 20%, we end up with 60 machines.

Base support and SAR require 12 (four for Cold Lake [including one on det at Moose Jaw], three for Goose, three for 424 vice Cormorants and two for AETE) and that leaves 48.

Add nine to 439 for its new deployment role and there are 36 (three existing machines plus nine).

Reduce the two air res squadrons to five each and there are now 26. Assign ten to 403 for training and there are 16 left to divide between 408, 427 and 430.

That does not seem to leave enough machines unless each of the reg force squadrons get five each. That would leave one over for a spare. It would allow for a lot of folks to be detached for Chinook training in advance of the machines arriving, but that is at least three years out.

Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: geo on March 09, 2007, 18:38:59
part of the argument for the reduction goes with the addition of the CH47 fleet.
do we need as many griffons if we have chinooks

Once we get the CH47s, will we need gunships Cobras or A10ish kinda vehicle to ride shotgun?

Does that mean the griffons will be sold off or does it mean that the Griffs will be transfered to such organisations as the CCG, the RCMP, OPP/QPF.....?
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: SF2 on March 09, 2007, 19:18:28
439 new deployment role?

What does that mean?
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: ArmyVern on March 09, 2007, 19:27:39
Moderator warning:

Lanes...stay in your lanes.

The Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Welshy on March 09, 2007, 19:32:20
Your estimates seem a little extreme. Right now there are 67 aircraft under 1 wing doing tac hel. I really couldn't see them getting rid of any of those aircraft any time soon, because they are heavily used as it is. There will be a need for griffins as they perform as different role than the Chinooks, not to mention, it will be a quite a few years until the Chinooks squadrons will be fully operational
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Mortar guy on March 09, 2007, 19:37:03
WARNING - Following comments are not in my lane by G2G can correct me if I'm Ray Oliver

The Griffon fleet will stay steady at about 64 airframes in 1 Wing although there is talk of configuring the remaining a/c as I-BRUH or Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter (IIRC). They are to get sensors and weapons to enable them to act as armed escorts to the CH-147s.

The reserve squadrons will be reduced/eliminated as well.

Sound right G2G?

MG
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Welshy on March 09, 2007, 20:06:59
I forgot to mention that 17 Chinooks will hardly be enough to replace or severely reduce the Griffin fleet
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Strike on March 09, 2007, 23:42:27
PMars,

Keep in mind that some of the aircraft that were "in storage" have been (are being?) sent to Portage for the wings course and I don't believe they are being considered in the reduction.

dan, why would we want aircraft that are no longer being used?  There is a reason they are getting rid of them -- they are OLD!  Take away the cool factor for a bit, which I suspect is the only reason you want to see them in Canadian airspace.  There is absolutely no reason why the Griffon could not be used as an escort, provided it was fitted with the right equipment and tactics put in place for such.

Edited to add:  BTW, if you want to discuss Canada purchasing attack helicopters, suggest you contribute to that thread, and not this one.  As for the spelling, consider every forum being written in the english language an english forum.

And to everyone else...it's spelled "Griffon."
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: pipstah on March 09, 2007, 23:56:19
A little question for you guys (strike, G2G, Inch, Zoomie and whoever can answer ), I'm just wondering about the speed of the griffons fleet compared to the chinooks. Wouldn't it be too slow for the chinooks? I'm trying to compare those two aircrafts but I do lack the expertise of helicopters world I would like that if anyone can light my lantern it would be greatly appreciated
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: SF2 on March 09, 2007, 23:58:26
Griffon top speed - 140 kts
Chinook - 170 kts (according to a quick google)
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: dan_282 on March 09, 2007, 23:58:57
arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: KevinB on March 10, 2007, 00:01:14
arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?

NO - the hooks are new off the assemly line

Secondly the CH146 Griffon buy was for 200 airframe -- what happened to the others -- or did the other 100 never happen?
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: pipstah on March 10, 2007, 00:02:40
Thanks SF2.... have any idea about the manouevering speed of those two ?
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: SF2 on March 10, 2007, 00:04:46
There's no manouevering speed per se.....especially with a helo - you can do whatever you want between 0 and 140 kts in a griffon!!
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: pipstah on March 10, 2007, 00:08:13
DOH! I will have to go read somes documents about helicopter aviation because I know nothing on rotary wing  ;D as you can see  :P   
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Aden_Gatling on March 10, 2007, 00:08:41
Everything you ever wanted to know, but were afraid to ask:

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/index.html (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/index.html)
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: ArmyVern on March 10, 2007, 03:29:54
arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?

Dan,

Here's how it is at Army.ca (http://Army.ca)...and many of the users here have given you nice hints and advice already. Listen to it.

Use your spellchecker, no MSN speak, use proper grammar/punctuation/capitals etc.

You would have received the "Must Read" notification upon joining the forum, I suggest that you go back and read it again.

Try this:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24937.0.html (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24937.0.html)
Consider this your freebie, you've had a few in this thread already.

The Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Globesmasher on March 10, 2007, 03:37:44

Do you think our forces have the option of buying state of the art?


Yes - we just purchased the C-17, brand new block 17 models fresh off the assembly line.
ACP-T will see the acquisition of the C-130 J.  They don't come much newer than that.
FWSAR will be modern.
The avionics in the Cormorant is pretty impressive.
The proposed Sea King replacement, S-92 is about to roll off the drawing board.

There's very modern equipment in the pipe coming down to us.

Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Good2Golf on March 10, 2007, 17:15:14
WARNING - Following comments are not in my lane by G2G can correct me if I'm Ray Oliver

The Griffon fleet will stay steady at about 64 airframes in 1 Wing although there is talk of configuring the remaining a/c as I-BRUH or Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter (IIRC). They are to get sensors and weapons to enable them to act as armed escorts to the CH-147s.

The reserve squadrons will be reduced/eliminated as well.

Sound right G2G?

MG

MG, you da joint-integrated-interoperational-combat operations understanding man!  I-BRUH leading to BRUH as MHLH comes on line with an MHLH/BRUH/SOA package of operators, yup....sounds about right.  8)   Don't know what's going to happen with the non-tactical folks, though....  ???

PMars, do you mind if I ask why you started your mission analysis with the CSS squadrons having priority?  To end your analysis with 16 Griffon left over for the combat operators seems a bit strange.  That's a COA that is not at the head of the pack for presentation to CAS or the CDS methinks.

G2G
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Good2Golf on March 10, 2007, 17:22:47
A little question for you guys (strike, G2G, Inch, Zoomie and whoever can answer ), I'm just wondering about the speed of the griffons fleet compared to the chinooks. Wouldn't it be too slow for the chinooks? I'm trying to compare those two aircrafts but I do lack the expertise of helicopters world I would like that if anyone can light my lantern it would be greatly appreciated

Pipstah, without getting into specifics, the limiting factor in aviation packages is almost always the shooter.   Hook is fast when it's not slinging.  Utility is middle of the pack (Griff, Hawk, Puma, etc...) and the guns usually have so much stuff hanging off them that everyone else slows down when element integrity is required.  Clean, you'll see 130-150 out of a 'hook and they'll pull G along with the best of them. The Griff isn't bad, as you know...element form speeds are not "significantly" less than Vne anyway.

G2G
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: PMars on March 10, 2007, 17:49:10
439 new deployment role?

What does that mean?

. The 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team.

From a news story on new defence posture. The interesting question to me was why 439 and not 430? I suppose it is because of 439's national rescue role? It does suggest, however, that Griffons will go on interesting deployments in the future.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: PMars on March 10, 2007, 17:58:43
MG, you da joint-integrated-interoperational-combat operations understanding man!  I-BRUH leading to BRUH as MHLH comes on line with an MHLH/BRUH/SOA package of operators, yup....sounds about right.  8)   Don't know what's going to happen with the non-tactical folks, though....  ???

PMars, do you mind if I ask why you started your mission analysis with the CSS squadrons having priority?  To end your analysis with 16 Griffon left over for the combat operators seems a bit strange.  That's a COA that is not at the head of the pack for presentation to CAS or the CDS methinks.
G2G

I started with the CSS and AF requirements as they will probably remain relatively static as part of the national rescue role. The end result, 16, is what struck me as well and is why I posed the question.

Someone posted that 200 Griffons were acquired and this is not so. There were 100, two were lost with 444, leaving 98.

Someone else posted that the "missing" Griffons were going to the Wings course at Portage. Interesting. I posted that possibility last year and was corrected that would not happen. I wonder if the SAR training will be carried out by the contractor, as it is with the RAF, leaving 403 to concentrate on tac helo. It would seem to make sense to transfer the sim to the Wings course as well but I was also told the sim would stay where it is. If the contractor is doing conversion to type training, which 403 used to do, then maybe Portage is the right place for the sim.

Finally, someone else posted elimination of the air res squadrons. I am not sure if that would become a political issue or not. And finally, there is the SERT requirement for up to two Griffons which 427 used to be responsible for. Could that role be taken on by the air res (438) with a flight at Ottawa?


I will look to others to comment and correct the above.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: KevinB on March 10, 2007, 18:06:46
The only reason I posted 200 is in the intial "hype" when the CH135 was being replaced the number 199 popped up in several areas  as the number of airframes being acquired -- the only reason the number stuck with me was it was identical the the intial Bison buy.
   I never expected the CF to get 200 (ish) airframes - and I must admit I may have misses a comment about the other airframes going elsewhere non CF related.





 
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: SF2 on March 10, 2007, 18:28:36
Quote
The 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team.

That's the first time i've ever heard of that, although I'm not one to really pay attention to what CSS squadrons are doing.  Should they deploy, who would perform base rescue?

Quote
there is the SERT requirement for up to two Griffons which 427 used to be responsible for.
Incorrect.  427 doesn't, and never has, supported SERT.

Quote
Could that role be taken on by the air res (438) with a flight at Ottawa
Absolutely not

Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: eurowing on March 11, 2007, 00:00:39
Wow, I was worried someone ran over a small brown dog.  Whew.   ;D

Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: hollywood13 on March 12, 2007, 10:34:42
The only reason I posted 200 is in the intial "hype" when the CH135 was being replaced the number 199 popped up in several areas  as the number of airframes being acquired -- the only reason the number stuck with me was it was identical the the intial Bison buy.
   I never expected the CF to get 200 (ish) airframes - and I must admit I may have misses a comment about the other airframes going elsewhere non CF related.


http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/ch-146/intro_e.asp#top

States the quantity in the CF being 85, and total number of Griffons: 64 in 1 Wing, and 11 in the rest of Canada. Two have been destroyed in crashes in Labrador (1996 and 2002).



 
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: magnumcharger on March 18, 2007, 21:56:29
Lets see...As an AVN I've been posted to two TacHel Squadrons, 403 in Gagetown, and 408 in Edmonton.
I much preferred 403, as it was a good Squadron to work in, home every night, and regular hours regardless of working servicing or maintenance.
408 was a much more difficult Squadron to be at, what with the deployments, releases, divorces and generally negative attitude. So much so, that I remustered out of AVN just to get out of the Squadron.
Suffice to say, I'd return to 403 in a heartbeat (but can't, none of my trade there!)
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: SF2 on March 18, 2007, 22:37:35
Quote
Lets see...As an AVN I've been posted to two TacHel Squadrons, 403 in Gagetown, and 408 in Edmonton.
I much preferred 403, as it was a good Squadron to work in, home every night, and regular hours regardless of working servicing or maintenance.
408 was a much more difficult Squadron to be at, what with the deployments, releases, divorces and generally negative attitude. So much so, that I remustered out of AVN just to get out of the Squadron.
Suffice to say, I'd return to 403 in a heartbeat (but can't, none of my trade there!)

Its pretty difficult to compare a training squadron to an operational squadron.  Of course there's going to be different working hours, varying deployment levels etc....
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: magnumcharger on March 19, 2007, 13:43:36
Its pretty difficult to compare a training squadron to an operational squadron.  Of course there's going to be different working hours, varying deployment levels etc....

Quite true.
It all depends on what you want from your job.
Title: Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
Post by: Good2Golf on March 19, 2007, 20:36:19
Nobody should be under the mistaken impression that life at an operational tac hel sqn is a 8-4 job...

G2G
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: No Hel Like Tac Hel on April 13, 2007, 03:16:26
Kelowna Flightcraft has been awarded a contract to train pilots at Portage la Prairie in Manitoba.  Nine CF-412's are being used for advanced helicopter training.  These a/c are formerly known as Griffons as they have had some conversions back to civilian configurations (such as the cyclic) and are getting glass cockpits.  They will be used as lead-in trainers for the CH-149 Commorant and the CH-148 Cyclone, which have glass cockpits.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17wing/squadron/3cffts_e.asp

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17wing/news/releases_e.asp?cat=170&id=764
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Aden_Gatling on April 13, 2007, 12:40:54
Anyone know what "routine access" means?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060914/canada_dutch_060914?s_name=&no_ads= (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060914/canada_dutch_060914?s_name=&no_ads=)
Quote
Canada loans Dutch comrades armoured vehiclesUpdated Thu. Sep. 14 2006 11:29 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Canada has loaned its Dutch comrades five heavily-armoured Nyala patrol vehicles for use in southern Afghanistan.
And in an exchange steeped in irony, our European ally has offered up flight time on helicopters -- some of which more than likely belonged to Canada and were sold to the Netherlands by the Mulroney government in 1991. ...

While there is no specific exchange outlined in the memorandum between the two countries, the Dutch Defence ministry noted Canadian troops need help getting around the far-flung desert battlefield and have put forward routine access to CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

Gaudet was asked whether it was a formal exchange.

"Yes and no," he replied. ...
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 13, 2007, 14:10:16
Anyone know what "routine access" means?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060914/canada_dutch_060914?s_name=&no_ads= (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060914/canada_dutch_060914?s_name=&no_ads=)

Maybe it means when we call for a Chinook we will get one  ???
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Scoobs on May 02, 2007, 00:21:57
NO - the hooks are new off the assemly line

Secondly the CH146 Griffon buy was for 200 airframe -- what happened to the others -- or did the other 100 never happen?

This is my lane as I'm a former D/SAMEO of a Tac Hel Unit.  We never bought 200 Griffons.  We only bought 100.  Two crashed and were unrecoverable.  We reduced our overall fleet (including Tac Hel and CSS) to 85.  The a/c that were reduced were put into storage in Edmonton for a while.  I'm not sure if all were sold to the company doing helo trg, but I know that some were.  The a/c being used in Trenton for backfill for the Cormorant were drawn from this 85 and I believe that most units operating the Griffon had to lend at least one a/c.  The 85 a/c are currently distributed among all Griffon operators in Canada and I will not post numbers per unit so as to not compromise op security.

I'm not sure if anything has been finalized, but a reduction in the number of Griffons will occur when the Chinooks come online as we simply do not have enough pilots or maintainers to absorb 17 Chinooks and maintain status quo for the Griffon.  I know this as I heard this when I was physically in 1 Wing HQ.

What will happen with our Griffons I do not know as I'm currently out of 1 Wg (hope to get back in in couple of years).  Please note that the max velocities spoken of in this thread are exactly that, max velocities.  Aircraft rarely, if ever, fly at their max velocity.  Whether or not the Griffon can effectively "cruise" with the Chinook is up to the operators (pilots) and I'll leave that to them as they're the experts on that one.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: peaches on May 02, 2007, 21:33:34
Why are we wasting military pers and equip to conduct base rescue, should this not be the sort of thing we ASD.  They do not deply outside or within Canada, why not ASD this out.

As for Tachel, this should be an easy solution.  We have assault helos, the Grifs, we are getting heavy lift helos, the Chinooks, lets buy some attack helos and we're done. 

Each brigade gets a Tachel squadron with an atttack flight with 8 helos, an assault flight with 8 helos and a heavy lift platoon with 4 Chinooks.  The Spec Ops squadron gets 8 assault helos and 4 heavy lifters also.  Tarining, establish join tarining squadrons/units with teh RAF, RAAF, Dutch and Singapore militaries that train in the USA.  Or we could set up a Canadian tarining unit in Ft Rucker to train our folks.

Example:

1 CMBG Edmonton, 408 Sqn
2 CMBG Petawawa, 403 Sqn
CSOR Petawawa, 427 Sqn
5 CMBG Valcatier, 430 Sqn

Attack Helos 24+4 spares= 28
Assault Helos 32 +4 spares= 36 (Grifs or perhaps purchase more H92's, do training with 406 Sqn)
Chinooks = 17
Total = 72 + spares for Tachel, doable...  Add the 14 SAR helos and 28 maritime birds is only 123 aircraft, we can do that.

Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Strike on May 03, 2007, 22:18:29
peaches,

The guys in Trenton using the Griffon are not doing base rescue.  They are using them for SAR.

As for your example, what about Gagetown?  Each Army base should ideally have access to a tac hel unit.  Although Pet might have a little less acces with 427 now being under the CANSOFCOM umbrella, 400 Sqn is only a quick jaunt away.

Your numbers wrt helos required certainly make sense.  But as cool as it would be to have attack helos, we simply don't have the people (forget the money) to pull it off.  Getting attack helos would mean a reduction in all the other Army aviation support to man this.  The current plan (as I understand it) is to work on getting the Griffon to act as escort for the Chinook when it comes in.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: GAP on May 03, 2007, 22:39:14
Way out of my lane here, but is the Griffon armed, or just supplying an alternate target?
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Strike on May 03, 2007, 22:42:46
Way out of my lane here, but is the Griffon armed, or just supplying an alternate target?

 ;D

On a serious note, you can put door guns on the thing, and it is a smaller target than a Chinook!
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: uncle-midget-Oddball on May 03, 2007, 22:45:47
The Griffons are able to support MGs as door guns for protection at all times. Back when this "article" was written the Griffons were being considered for updating arms to include laser target designators... etc. I'm not sure if they are armed ATM, but this might be able to shed some light.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_03/iss_4/CAJ_vol3.4_10_e.pdf

Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: peaches on May 12, 2007, 01:03:48
peaches,

The guys in Trenton using the Griffon are not doing base rescue.  They are using them for SAR.

As for your example, what about Gagetown?  Each Army base should ideally have access to a tac hel unit.  Although Pet might have a little less acces with 427 now being under the CANSOFCOM umbrella, 400 Sqn is only a quick jaunt away.

Your numbers wrt helos required certainly make sense.  But as cool as it would be to have attack helos, we simply don't have the people (forget the money) to pull it off.  Getting attack helos would mean a reduction in all the other Army aviation support to man this.  The current plan (as I understand it) is to work on getting the Griffon to act as escort for the Chinook when it comes in.

Forgot about YTR, sorry.  With ref to Gagetown, it is a training unit, if we establish co-training with the US Army we would no longer need it, that is why I said 403 Sqn to support 2 CMBG.

Here's another idea, how about consolidating 1Wg on a single base, perhaps Borden or North Bay (NB is under used).  At Borden/NB, with perhaps 28 attack helos, set up an attack helo squadron of 20 a/c, an assault squadron with 20-24 Grifs, and a Chinook squadron of 12.  These three squadrons would support 2 & 5 CMBGs and CSOR, and also conduct type training.  Then stand up a fourth TACHEL sqadron, with the last 8 attack helos and 4 Chinooks out west in Cold Lake to support 1CMBG. By closing down the TCHEL squadrons at the brigade bases and consolidating them on existing airbases we could reduce their need for support services such as fire, ATC, medical, log etc... as these services already exist on these bases.  It is a radical idea I know, and I understand the manning issue, just throwing out some new ideas......
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: George Wallace on May 12, 2007, 10:25:50
Forgot about YTR, sorry.  With ref to Gagetown, it is a training unit, if we establish co-training with the US Army we would no longer need it, that is why I said 403 Sqn to support 2 CMBG.

Here's another idea, how about consolidating 1Wg on a single base, perhaps Borden or North Bay (NB is under used).  At Borden/NB, with perhaps 28 attack helos, set up an attack helo squadron of 20 a/c, an assault squadron with 20-24 Grifs, and a Chinook squadron of 12.  These three squadrons would support 2 & 5 CMBGs and CSOR, and also conduct type training.  Then stand up a fourth TACHEL sqadron, with the last 8 attack helos and 4 Chinooks out west in Cold Lake to support 1CMBG. By closing down the TCHEL squadrons at the brigade bases and consolidating them on existing airbases we could reduce their need for support services such as fire, ATC, medical, log etc... as these services already exist on these bases.  It is a radical idea I know, and I understand the manning issue, just throwing out some new ideas......


The above post just shows how little you really know about the CF and how it functions.  I have noticed your lack of knowledge in other posts also, ie. your comments on Shearwater, Greenwood and Bagotville.  You are making comments on matters that you really know nothing about, and as a result drawing totally out to lunch conclusions.  Please STOP!
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Rowshambow on May 12, 2007, 13:02:53
Ya peaches, I am with George on this one! If the 408 (Edmonton) was moved to Cold lake, how could it support the 1 CMBG units. We now can walk over and work with them, if they were at Cold lake, you would need way in advance bookings, the logistics would be a nightmare, just think about how much fuel and training would be lost with units or helos moving to and fro! just one example!
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Loachman on May 12, 2007, 16:02:32
Tac Hel (not TACHEL) exists to support the Army. If you remove it from the troops that it serves, you remove that support and also reduce its ability to train for its prime function.

There are good practical and historical reasons why each brigade group has/had an associated Tac Hel Sqn, just as they have artillery, armoured, and engineer regiments and infantry battalions. Tac Hel is, in reality, another combat arm - its present asinine link to the a** f**ce not withstanding.

Tac Hel is truly an Army function. Look at the US Army Aviation Branch as the best example of that. It began as such in the CF too, but unification set things up to go wrong. The formation of Air Command in 1975 was the first real step in the wrong direction. It was billed as "giving airmen a common identity" among other things - not that too many proud Army and Navy guys felt that they had much in common with either each other or those in light blue. The "common identity" should instead have remained between Army pilots and their ground-bound brethren and Naval aviators and those on the briney ocean toss'd. Separate dress uniforms in the late eighties was another wedge driven between Tac Hel and the Army - when I was flying Kiowas in Pet and working closely with Recce Sqn and the Guns we used to socialize with them in their Mess more than we went to our own, but soon we were no longer part of the same group and became "you a** f**ce guys" instead. Various developments since have continued to pound the wedge deeper.

Travelling from Borden to Wainwright (as we are about to do in August to support LFCA's Ex Maple Defender 07/MILCON) represents a three-day trip each way for hels self-deploying and commercial air for spare aircrew, groundcrew, and other support types plus requires borrowing major equipment from 408 Squadron as deploying it is impractical. This is acceptable for a one-time-only thing (this being the first time in twenty-two years that this Sqn has done this), but would be excessively expensive, place tremendous wear and tear on equipment, and major stress on personnel and families on a regular basis. I spent nine months away from home on various exercises and deployments and courses in my first year at 427 Squadron alone, and such a move as you are suggesting would push that to over twelve months per year. Even for shorter distances, you'd be burning up more hours in transit to Army training areas than you would in actual support.

What would be the advantage of locating in Cold Lake rather than Edmonton anyway?

And then there's the matter of local tactical low flying training areas...

We'd have the less-patient local citizenry gathering at the main gate to ambush us on the way out if we plonked everything in one place, and claims against the Crown would be astronomical.

Savings would be illusory, if they occurred at all after all of the construction of necessary facilities. All Tac Hel Sqns are on major bases, with medical and fire services etcetera, as it is.

As for eliminating our training capability: _if_ we had _exactly_ the same equipment as the US, had _exactly_ the same unit and formation structures, followed _exactly_ the same doctrine _to the letter_, and operated in _exactly_ the same manner then maybe (maybe) it would work - but then why not go all the way and just contract everything out to the US Armed Forces as most provinces contract policing out to the RCMP?

There are enough official bad ideas being bandied about out of stupidity or desparation as it is.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: peaches on May 13, 2007, 00:53:35
GW,  I am fully in tune to how the CF works, thanks...

All I am hearing these days from every corner in the CF is "we have no $$, we need more $$".  If the CF is not going to get more $$ then we have to find other ways to get it, better ways to do business.  Is consolidation of bases the answer, I don't know, just asking??  The whole idea of this website is for military people to openly discuss ideas, not to bash each other, we get enough of that from the NDP.

Perhaps a good hard look at our basing system could free up some badly needed money.  $170 million to upgrade Shearwater, could that money be put to better use somewhere else??  That's a legitimate question.  Is there a better way to do business? 
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Michael O'Leary on May 13, 2007, 01:04:26
Haven't we already trimmed Shearwater to basically the minimum to support shipborne flight ops? (I don't know, so I am asking.)  Even if we moved the last flight support functions out of Shearwater, doesn't the Navy have other elements there that would preclude shutting down the property?  A similar assumption was made with respect to London in moving 1RCR in 1992.  I have been told that in one of the last planning meetings regarding the 'closure' of Wolseley Barracks, someone said "and that puts the end to CFB London."  That comment was quickly followed by the question "what about the third-line maintenance facility in London?", a comment which was met by stunned silence, because it wasn't an Army asset, they didn't think of it at all.

Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Good2Golf on May 13, 2007, 12:54:37
Michael, yes, there are remaining functions required at Shearwater that make any more "divestment" at the base a negative effort.  The worst part of the early-mid 90's "peace dividend" gutting of capability and off-loading of many functions through alternate service delivery (the dreaded ASD) was that it simply redirected where the money was flowing from CF to contractors and once the bit of "excess" capability remaining with the CF assets (while the ASD was fully taking hold) was gone, we were pretty much hooped to do anything other than what the bean-counters saw as "making things work"...short-term gain on somebody's balance sheet with long-term pain losing the military depth that we once had.  Shearwater is but one example.

Peaches, Tac Hel units sitting in the location of their prime user (the Army, as Loachman correctly points out) is already the most economical AND effective expenditure of resources for capability that the Air Force has.  It is a fallacy to think that massing all army aviation assets in a single geographical location, especially in a country the size of Canada, would be effective.  Apply your argument to the Army and Navy and even other elements of the Air Force...all Army in Petawawa (I picked that as the closest single location to Army center-of-mass), all Navy in Halifax, and all Air Force in Winnipeg.....it just doesn't work.  1 Wing HQ in Kingston very nicely effects "centralized control, decentralized execution"...I can tell you, there are a lot more units in all three services that are more "broken" than 1 Wing.

G2G
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: peaches on May 14, 2007, 18:13:46
I know 1 Wg is not broken, they do a great job.  My whole point is/was, if we trimmed a few bases/Wings, could we free up $$ for other things??  Consolidate/Reduce infurstucture, more $$ for ops.  Perhaps if we looked at how we do business we could come up with some more money....  that's all......

I was in Halifax on a course in Feb, a Seaking Nav Maj spoke to us about the problems between the helo communities and the Airforce.  He mention that there is and idea out there about creating another Air Div, 2 CAD to handle helo issues.  One CF helo force.  I thought it odd.  He also went on about the new "joint ops" world order, on how the maritime helo and tachel units would be required to work more closely together.  An example he gave was along the loines that, "an army BG deploys to some world hot spot, and not only does it take a few Griffons along, some H92 are attached as well".  It sort of was that way in Somalia in 1992, Seakings doing some limited air support to the army......
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Rowshambow on May 14, 2007, 22:21:14
So how would consolidating them away from the army units help?
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: geo on May 15, 2007, 09:05:01
So how would consolidating them away from the army units help?

Uhhh... think he was talking about separating the Helos from the fixed wing flyers...
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Loachman on May 15, 2007, 13:39:37
The PRIME employer of Tac Hel is the Army. The PRIME employer of Sea King/Cyclone is the Navy.

Moving them AWAY from their rpime employers achieves nothing useful, and a lot bad.

The current locations make sense.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Rowshambow on May 15, 2007, 16:05:13
uhhh actually geo
 if you read all of peaches prior posts, you would see that they were suggesting moving (for instance) 408 from Ed to cold lake, so thanks!
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: geo on May 15, 2007, 17:11:18
Doh!
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Welshy on May 15, 2007, 18:53:49
I know 1 Wg is not broken, they do a great job.  My whole point is/was, if we trimmed a few bases/Wings, could we free up $$ for other things??  Consolidate/Reduce infurstucture, more $$ for ops.  Perhaps if we looked at how we do business we could come up with some more money....  that's all......

I was in Halifax on a course in Feb, a Seaking Nav Maj spoke to us about the problems between the helo communities and the Airforce.  He mention that there is and idea out there about creating another Air Div, 2 CAD to handle helo issues.  One CF helo force.  I thought it odd.  He also went on about the new "joint ops" world order, on how the maritime helo and tachel units would be required to work more closely together.  An example he gave was along the loines that, "an army BG deploys to some world hot spot, and not only does it take a few Griffons along, some H92 are attached as well".  It sort of was that way in Somalia in 1992, Seakings doing some limited air support to the army......
Bringing all the Sqn to one location would not save money nor be practical. Think of all the new infrastructure that would have to be built to house all the additional aircraft and personnel. In no way would this save money.

The people who have been commenting here know what they are talking about. Working were I do I have one of the best pictures of what the 1 Wg aircraft are doing and ss it is right now the aircraft are always in demand in their respective areas. Consolidation would destroy much of the capability to be anywhere in the country within 24 hrs (minus the north).

Additionally with supporting the army in Pet we do use 427 when they have excess capacity and as mentioned 400 and 438 are not far at all, and therefore we would not need another Sqn in Pet.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: skyd1vr on June 12, 2007, 12:50:26
Would someone with knowledge on the topic care to expand on the thought that the reserve squadrons, ie 400 Sqn, would be eliminated or lose their rides?

Is this fact or is it speculation and if it is fact, what is the time frame? I thought 400 Sqn was a 'total force' sqn? Would that concept have impact on the future of the reserve THS's.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: SF2 on June 12, 2007, 19:47:12
i dont see it happening in the near future....with 427 no longer supporting 2CMBG, someone close needs to backfill.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Loachman on June 12, 2007, 22:51:25
Would someone with knowledge on the topic care to expand on the thought that the reserve squadrons, ie 400 Sqn, would be eliminated or lose their rides?

Is this fact or is it speculation and if it is fact, what is the time frame? I thought 400 Sqn was a 'total force' sqn? Would that concept have impact on the future of the reserve THS's.

I've seen nothing concrete, but a few concepts and rumours are floating around.

400 and 438 Sqns are "reserve-heavy" squadrons.

As far as I am concerned, shutting down these two units would be a huge mistake.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 14, 2007, 09:43:55
Two relevant stories:

Air force to beef up its helicopters  TheStar.com - News - Air force to beef up its helicopters
Existing Griffons will be refitted with machine guns, rockets until gunships arrive
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/225291

Quote
Canada's air force wants to buy a fleet of gunship helicopters to protect its new transport choppers as they haul troops and equipment in enemy zones [emphasis added].

But until these new attack choppers arrive, the air force plans to outfit its existing Griffon helicopters with machine guns and rockets to do the job.

The danger facing the big transport helicopters was driven home last month when insurgents downed a U.S. Chinook chopper in Afghanistan, killing all seven people onboard, including a Canadian military photographer.

"We have officially recognized that there is a requirement to have a helicopter that would accompany the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter ... in a battlefield type environment," said air force spokesperson Capt. Jim Hutcheson.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor last summer unveiled the Conservatives' $4.7 billion plan to buy 16 medium-to-heavy lift helicopters, likely the Boeing Chinook.

While the twin-rotor Chinooks will have their own anti-missile gear and other defensive aids, air force officials say they're still too valuable an asset to fly around a battlefield unguarded...

As a result, the air force has launched a program to outfit some of its Griffon choppers to serve as flying bodyguards to the Chinooks when they arrive in the air force fleet in 2011.

Under the program, it's expected the Griffons, already able to carry machine guns, will be outfitted with extra armament as well as infrared and optical sensors to spot enemy forces on the ground .

In the long-term, the air force hopes to buy helicopters designed as flying gunships.

"Further down the line, they would be looking at a helicopter that was more specifically dedicated and designed for that role," Hutcheson said.

The air force was making plans for this new capability before the downing of the Chinook last month. But Hutcheson said the crash drives home the need to give the Chinooks some protection.

"Certainly we can learn lessons from the experience in Afghanistan," he said.

Troops still waiting on helicopters
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070614/CASWELL14/

Quote
No relief is in sight for Canadian troops in Afghanistan who are hankering for more helicopters to fly them over the country's deadly roads.

As it stands, soldiers in Afghanistan rely on U.S. and Dutch helicopters to travel to forward operating bases, but officials acknowledged yesterday that there is a "high demand and a limited supply" of coalition aircraft in the country.

The next possible option for Canadian troops would have been the delivery of 28 Sikorsky maritime patrol helicopters. Federal documents show that in late 2005, the federal government changed its contract with Sikorsky to ensure that the new Cyclones - replacements for the aging Sea Kings - could be transformed into troop carriers with 22 seats.

However, a Sikorsky official said yesterday that the fleet of Cyclones will not be suited to transport troops in hot and high-altitude regions such as Afghanistan, where dozens of Canadian soldiers have died on the roads.

"If you really want to employ it in that environment predominantly, you probably want to look at giving it more capability," said Lloyd Noseworthy of Sikorsky.

"You could upgrade the engine, more powerful engines, and you could upgrade the rotor system, through a more lift-capable rotor system."..

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Loachman on June 14, 2007, 16:11:31
The Griffon IBRUH (Interim Battlefield Reconnaissance and Utility Helicopter) is still just a pipedream, and is forecast to be a small fraction of the current fleet.

A lot of this will indubitably be driven (or, more likely, reigned in) by funding as well as manpower. Crewing and maintaining the incoming Chinook fleet will suck up Griffon crews and maintainers.

That's another reason why, in my opinion, cutting the two res-heavy Squadrons to redirect a few PYs is an error as it would result in the loss of the reservists from those Squadrons and that would be a stupid loss.

I have seen a concept calling for beefing up the base rescue squadrons, however they are not necessarily located anywhere near ground troops plus that would eat up about as many PYs that cutting the res-heavy Squadrons would free up. I see no gain in that, and it entails the loss of reserve crews, maintainers, and support pers as well.

Plus, would half of each squadron have yellow helicopters and half green? Given the serviceability issues, a mixed bag would show up for an airmobile. Robin Williams/Good Morning Vietnam comes to mind: "You're going into combat - CLASH!". Training would also be a problem with dual roles.
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: fighter puke on June 14, 2007, 22:19:23
Straight out of the AEO's mouth.........that will be the F***** day..........! There are no plans for the Griffon except for the SPS mod (ongoing), this is something cranked up in someones imagination!!
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Mortar guy on June 15, 2007, 08:16:58
Straight out of the AEO's mouth.........that will be the F***** day..........! There are no plans for the Griffon except for the SPS mod (ongoing), this is something cranked up in someones imagination!!

Wow. 23 years of experience according to your profile and yet you seem unaware of the "plans for the Griffon". I suggest you get on the DIN, visit the new CFAWC web pages and look at the plans for the Griffin. Or there's always DAR's website which has some info on Griffon plans. Or better yet, go to the CID web page and look up the IBRUH project.

Enjoy!

MG
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: fighter puke on June 15, 2007, 18:57:52
Don't believe everything you read on someone elses webpage.........perhaps if you are really interested in what is going on with the Griffon, contact the AEO of the fleet at DGAEPM (TH6).....I am sure he would enjoy a good laugh.......just like the one we had yesterday and again today! It is amazing how folks will fill in the blanks of an ATI request to spin a great fairy tale! Waht amazes me more is the people who actually buy into stories like this...... :o
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: fighter puke on June 15, 2007, 19:02:44
Oh I forgot to mention......feasibilty studies about IBRUH..........not practical at this time...........major modification work needed......big bucks........That is from those in the know..........
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Good2Golf on June 18, 2007, 19:51:16
Oh I forgot to mention......feasibilty studies about IBRUH..........not practical at this time...........major modification work needed......big bucks........That is from those in the know..........

..so say the engineers...

G2G
Title: Re: Griffon run down
Post by: Strike on June 20, 2007, 13:01:50
 ;D
Title: Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship
Post by: Dan Fielding on September 06, 2011, 21:52:46
I have a few questions regarding the Griffon:

Now that Griffons are being armed with M-134d's, how suitable/effective would they be in a gunship role? How would they compare to a Huey in this role, given that the Huey has been effectively employed as a gunship for ages now. Does the Griffon have any limitations or advantages that would impact it being an effective gunship? Does the Griffon itself allow for modifications that would improve its ability to deliver ground support (e.g. rocket pods) or would it be best for the CF to consider a dedicated heli for ground support?

Oh, just one thing, here's an EPIC vid of US close air support with MH-60L DAPs and Little Birds. I'm SO jealous that our Allies to the south get to play around with these wicked pieces of kit ;) !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcWFsXkdl4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcWFsXkdl4E)
Title: Re: Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship
Post by: Kalatzi on September 06, 2011, 22:07:03
I have no idea where I heard or read this, so treat it a a rumour. As follows. One reason that it usually didnt even carry C6 door guns is that that airframe was not strong enough. to absorb the recoilon a long term basis.

If that's the case they would have required a lot of mods - since the minigun puts out a LOT more recoil.

Too much stress on an airframe is not a good thing.

If we want gunships - I feel that we should get the real deal.  Don't hold your breath.

I expect other on here no better than I.





Title: Re: Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship
Post by: HeavyHooker on September 07, 2011, 16:25:18
The Griffon did serve as a gunship up until our very recent pull out from Afghanistan (air assets only, not including the training cadre up north).  The Griffon is an adequate weapons platform to carry M134D and the GAU-21 .50 cal weapons.  Although there are limitations due to the extreme temperature ranges and relatively higher elevations they were quite effective in their role.  Although their primary role was CH 47 escort, the Griffons flew several convoy escorts, reconnaissance missions for the Army guys, as well as interrogating targets for JTAC ground controllers. 

In comparison to a "Huey" (I am thinking that you are referencing the UH-1 airframe), the CH 146 compares quite well although it does carry a considerably higher weight considering all of its avionics, radios, etc and this limits performance.  It does not stand up quite so well to the UH-1Y model of Huey as it is newer, more powerful, with better components with more redundancy built in for a fighting machine.  Same goes for the UH-60.  Those machines were built to carry weapons and troops in a war zone and we simply modified a Bell 412 to suit our needs.

That being said, the Griffon is a capable UH and considering what our budget is projected to do in the next little while, don't hold your breath for Yankees or BHs.  Especially considering that our new CH147s will start coming in the door next year.

HH
Title: Re: Suitability of the Griffon as a gunship
Post by: Loachman on September 07, 2011, 17:08:31
Define "gunship".

If you mean attack helicopter, it does not come close.

If you mean armed helicopter, yes, it qualifies.

In a low-threat environment it has its uses - high-threat (real war) not so much.

For Kalatzi: The reason why neither Twin Huey nor Griffon didn't/don't "usually" carry door guns is because there is no need for most missions, more weapon maintenance would be required for no reason, and crews would frighten civvies at civ airports when they carry machineguns into terminal restaurants when they stop in for lunch. They are mounted for operations that require them, range practices, and some (but not all) exercises.
Title: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Messerschmitt on September 30, 2015, 22:39:59
Anyone happen to know the numbers at each squadron for Griffons?

The website says 88 total, and the locations, but I can't find anywhere the amount each squadron has.

Also, are Borden and St-Hubert full time postings or part-time only for Griffons?

Cheers.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Scoobs on October 01, 2015, 01:10:13
I think that your question about the numbers of how many helos are at each unit is bordering on operational security issues (thus the reason why you can't find this info), especially with a former unit of mine that does not discuss these sorts of things.  Others may feel comfortable answering with specific numbers, but I don't and quite frankly I'm not sure why you need to know.  However, I will speak in generalities.  Larger units are 403, 408, 427, and 430 Sqns.  Smaller, but not less important, are the Combat Support Sqns in Cold Lake, Bagotville, and Goose Bay and of course 400 and 438 Sqns.  Plus, there are some Griffons at other locations, but not in large numbers.

400 Sqn (Borden) is now an Air Maintenance Sqn for the Griffons and 438 Sqn (St. Hubert) is a Total Force unit.  Both have mixtures of Regular and Reserve force members.  So, to answer your somewhat confusing question, yes, there are Regular force members at both units and yes, they only operate Griffons at those units.  Also, some Reserve force mbrs are "full time", i.e. Class C.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Leeworthy on October 01, 2015, 17:05:00
I agree with the above, providing numbers and locations for military operational aircraft borderlines on OPSEC issues, and you will be hard-pressed with someone providing you the numbers on a public forum, especially with all the going's on lately.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: CBH99 on October 01, 2015, 18:45:09
I'm curious...

The initial purchase was for 100 airframes.  88 are still in service.

I understand we lost a few (curious as to how many?) due to accidents.   Where did the other airframes go?
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Ditch on October 01, 2015, 20:46:51
Some airframes were transferred/sold to KFC/AW (Southport) and renamed the B-412CF
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: winnipegoo7 on October 01, 2015, 22:08:17
I'm not sure that these sites are up to date, but if you are bored and willing to compare the three sites and do the 'math' you can probably get a good estimate on numbers by squadron.

http://rwrwalker.ca/CH146_detailed_1.html
http://www.canadianwings.com/Aircraft/Database/listpage.php?page=921
http://www.helis.com/database/model/571/
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Scoobs on October 02, 2015, 00:31:05
I'm curious...

The initial purchase was for 100 airframes.  88 are still in service.

I understand we lost a few (curious as to how many?) due to accidents.   Where did the other airframes go?

One Griffon from Goose Bay crashed with the loss of two pilots and another crashed while taking off at a FOB in Afghanistan with the loss of the Flight Engineer, Door Gunner, and a British Officer.  RIP my friends.

Of course there have been some hard landings, but the helos were repaired.  As per the other posts, some were transferred/sold for next to nothing to a civilian entity for pilot training.  These were modified with glass cockpits and some other things and renamed the Bell 412CF.  They are no longer possessed by the military and thus I didn't include this location in my initial response.

Edit: forgot about another one that crashed in Labrador (issue was whiteouts with inexperience using NVGs) and was totally lost.  No loss of life here, but some frostbite issues.  I think that I've covered all that were totally lost (x3).  Anyone with additional info/corrections, please let me know.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: MCG on October 02, 2015, 02:04:34
What happened to the aircraft that killed the power to Yellowknife?  I have heard it was quite the mess after the fact.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Loachman on October 02, 2015, 08:18:53
Repaired.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Strike on October 02, 2015, 09:41:09
I'm not sure that these sites are up to date, but if you are bored and willing to compare the three sites and do the 'math' you can probably get a good estimate on numbers by squadron.

http://rwrwalker.ca/CH146_detailed_1.html
http://www.canadianwings.com/Aircraft/Database/listpage.php?page=921
http://www.helis.com/database/model/571/

Keep in mind that the numbers of aircraft held by each squadron will also change on any given day depending on a multitude of factors - training needs, operational needs, maintenance, etc.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Good2Golf on October 05, 2015, 19:33:36
Nomenclature for the Southport helos is CT-146 Outlaw.  Still based on the B412CF type certificate, as for the CH-146 Griffon, but with an upgraded Avionics Managent System (AMS) that more appropriately facilitates IFR training for rotary-wing students.

Scoops, did you ever see the video of 420 hitting the water a second te when the CHC S-61N dropped it from about 500' AGL...*ker-splash*

G2G
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Scoobs on October 05, 2015, 19:52:14
Yes, I remember now seeing that very grainy video.  I had forgotten about that.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Messerschmitt on October 08, 2015, 00:36:11
I'm not sure that these sites are up to date, but if you are bored and willing to compare the three sites and do the 'math' you can probably get a good estimate on numbers by squadron.

http://rwrwalker.ca/CH146_detailed_1.html
http://www.canadianwings.com/Aircraft/Database/listpage.php?page=921
http://www.helis.com/database/model/571/

Good database to build an idea. Some discrepancies.

Apparently there is only 1 SAR Griffon in Trenton? Also a significant number in Borden and St. Hubert, considering their suppose to be reserve air units. Are the pilots also reserve or reg force?
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Scoobs on October 08, 2015, 00:50:37
Good database to build an idea. Some discrepancies.

Apparently there is only 1 SAR Griffon in Trenton? Also a significant number in Borden and St. Hubert, considering their suppose to be reserve air units. Are the pilots also reserve or reg force?

I'm not sure of the exact number of Griffons in Trenton (I'll admit that I forgot about this location).

Again, why do you need to know the exact number?  OPSEC. OPSEC. OPSEC.  I remind all who post to this site that OPSEC is still your responsibility as a serving member even if you are posting under a nickname.  Period.  If you wish to discuss, PM me, I'll introduce myself, and we can discuss this in person.

Re-read the posts above.  Most of your questions are answered above.  Also, as per above, I did tell you that 400 Sqn is now an Air Maintenance Squadron.  It used to be called a "Total Force" unit, i.e. a combination of Regular and Reserve Force pers man it.  438 Sqn (St. Hubert) is still a Total Force unit, which once again answers your question about if the "pilots are reserve OR reg force".  TOTAL FORCE = combination of both.

Any more questions about numbers of aircraft at a unit on a public forum and I will ask the moderators to warn you.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Messerschmitt on October 08, 2015, 01:18:58
Fair enough, thanks for the info. For now wanted to play the game of probabilities where I might get assigned after/if I get my wings. Obviously more units at a squadron means more chances of getting assigned at one.

Regarding Gagetown, where is the squadron operating and stationed? I could not see any heliport/airbase inside the base. Is it Fredricton Intl Airport?
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Good2Golf on October 08, 2015, 01:34:19
Really? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gagetown+griffon+helicopter+squadron)
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Scoobs on October 08, 2015, 01:37:21
403 Sqn is physically located on CFB Gagetown.  If you are posted to a Tac Hel Sqn that flies Griffons, as a pilot you will spend time there as the Griffon type courses (for pilots and FEs) are conducted there.

Understood about the probabilities, but you could get the necessary info that you want from what has already been posted, i.e. the "larger units are ....".  Take a look above and you'll see that your odds increase with the larger units.  From my experience (two Tac Hel units), most junior pilots that are posted to Tac Hel get posted to one of 408, 427, or 430 Sqns.  Now throw in 450 Sqn that flies the Chinook and this only adds more probabilities. 403 Sqn typically takes more experienced pilots as they will be instructors.  However, you could still be posted to 438 Sqn or one of the other smaller units.

I'm sure the pilots on this site could give you better advice, but I think that you're over thinking this.  If you want Tac Hel and are offered Tac Hel, then you'll be posted to where you are needed.  At the end of the day, you'll come to learn that postings are first assigned based on "the needs of the service", not the needs of the member.

Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Scoobs on October 08, 2015, 01:39:27
Really? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gagetown+griffon+helicopter+squadron)

Wow, that was cool.  I didn't know that that could be done.  Cool link.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Good2Golf on October 08, 2015, 01:45:56
Wow, that was cool.  I didn't know that that could be done.  Cool link.

What, search Google?  ;)

I like to use this link when I hear people complain that they can't find information about X or Y....   :nod:
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: CBH99 on October 08, 2015, 01:48:04
Hey Scoobs,

Just curious.  You mentioned that junior pilots can be posted to 427 Sqn.  I always thought that 427 Sqn was the Special Operations Squadron, and supported CANSOF?

I'll admit it was just an assumption on my part, but I would have assumed that that level of flying would require a pretty substantial amount of skill/experience?
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Good2Golf on October 08, 2015, 01:51:00
Fair enough, thanks for the info. For now wanted to play the game of probabilities where I might get assigned after/if I get my wings. Obviously more units at a squadron means more chances of getting assigned at one.

Not necessarily.  Not all units have the same pilot to aircraft ratio, so you shouldn't believe that your 'probability' of being posted to a particular unit is related to how many airframes may, or may not be at a given unit.

If you get to that point, you can request certain locations as a preference, but understand that the military will send you where it believes it needs you.  If that aligns with where you'd like to go, win-win.  If it's a single-win situation, odds are, it will be the military winning the first round.

:2c:
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Messerschmitt on October 08, 2015, 01:51:59
Really? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gagetown+griffon+helicopter+squadron)

Was curious for where they physically keep the helicopters, but thanks.

@Scoobs. For Tachel I was looking at Borden, St. Hubert, Edmonton and maybe Gagetown. Would like to avoid Pet and especially Valcartier. Hence why my (probably repeated) questions regarding Borden and St. Hubert. Trenton would've been the best of them all but I guess I'm not going to make any hopes for that.

And ofc, the needs of the military always come first. But I did heard they do try their best to accommodate your preferences if possible. I still have a lil bit more time to decide against rotary and go fixed and then location will be easy, very high chance to stay in Trenton (almost) forever. But I personally find it awful to only push 1 button for 90% of the trip vs the hands on of a helicopter. But you do end up seeing the world.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Scoobs on October 08, 2015, 01:53:49
Hey Scoobs,

Just curious.  You mentioned that junior pilots can be posted to 427 Sqn.  I always thought that 427 Sqn was the Special Operations Squadron, and supported CANSOF?

I'll admit it was just an assumption on my part, but I would have assumed that that level of flying would require a pretty substantial amount of skill/experience?

Yes, 427 Sqn does perform that role.  I was posted there prior to the complete changeover to their new role.  Yes, the level of flying there is very high. Beyond that, I will say that every unit needs a mix of both experienced and new "blood".  How 427 operates could have changed, but especially with this unit I don't feel comfortable going any further in a public forum.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Good2Golf on October 08, 2015, 01:54:33
Hey Scoobs,

Just curious.  You mentioned that junior pilots can be posted to 427 Sqn.  I always thought that 427 Sqn was the Special Operations Squadron, and supported CANSOF?

I'll admit it was just an assumption on my part, but I would have assumed that that level of flying would require a pretty substantial amount of skill/experience?

...as does teaching the next generation of pilots, etc... i.e. training units, etc...  Everyone wants to have experienced crew on squadron.  You also need a progression, so taking first-tour pilots to most units is not unreasonable.  In fact, about the only 1 Wing unit NOT likely to receive first-tour pilots is the 146 training squadron, not 427.

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Scoobs on October 08, 2015, 01:57:39
Was curious for where they physically keep the helicopters, but thanks.

@Scoobs. For Tachel I was looking at Borden, St. Hubert, Edmonton and maybe Gagetown. Would like to avoid Pet and especially Valcartier. Hence why my (probably repeated) questions regarding Borden and St. Hubert. Trenton would've been the best of them all but I guess I'm not going to make any hopes for that.

And ofc, the needs of the military always come first. But I did heard they do try their best to accommodate your preferences if possible.

The post from Good2Golf right above yours answers this post the best.  I'll leave it to the operators now to give you advice on postings.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Loachman on October 08, 2015, 03:11:20
Tachel

Tac Hel.

Borden

Extremely unlikely, given the Squadron's role. Flying is limited, none of it is tactical, and the only requirement is for Maintenance Test Pilots.

Edmonton

Quite possible.

Gagetown

Not very likely, if at all, for a first tour.

Would like to avoid Pet and especially Valcartier.

Why?

I still have a lil bit more time to decide against rotary and go fixed and then location will be easy, very high chance to stay in Trenton (almost) forever.

Or get put on Auroras and end up in Greenwood or Comox.

Or Twin Otters in Yellowknife.
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Blackadder1916 on October 08, 2015, 14:29:53
Was curious for where they physically keep the helicopters, but thanks.


https://skyvector.com/airport/CYCX/Gagetown-Heliport

It took me 17 seconds (and that included drinking an espresso) to find that.

Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Dimsum on October 08, 2015, 18:39:38
I still have a lil bit more time to decide against rotary and go fixed and then location will be easy, very high chance to stay in Trenton (almost) forever. But I personally find it awful to only push 1 button for 90% of the trip vs the hands on of a helicopter. But you do end up seeing the world.

Or maritime helicopters in Victoria/Halifax, and also see the world (albeit a lot of it while at sea).
Title: Re: Griffon locations by numbers
Post by: Messerschmitt on October 08, 2015, 20:52:57
Or Twin Otters in Yellowknife.

They represent less than 10% of the multi fleet. I gather chances are extremely low unless you ask for it.

Or maritime helicopters in Victoria/Halifax, and also see the world (albeit a lot of it while at sea).

And living on a ship... for 6 months... although very tempting with the new cyclones.

In the end I keep trying to remind myself that location shouldn't matter as long as I end up flying. Unless of course you end up on an airframe that you can barely get a flight a week, like I heard is the case with the jets.
However I have not heard of any rotary/fixed wing airframe where they don't fly regularly yet.
Title: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Just_A_Guy on January 04, 2018, 18:01:16
what does it do recently? what missions does it go in?
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: dapaterson on January 04, 2018, 18:06:16
I understand they no longer recce the underside of the Confederation bridge...
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 04, 2018, 18:06:43
DND INFO Machine: CH-146 Griffon (http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/ch-146.page)
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 04, 2018, 18:07:18
I understand they no longer recce the underside of the Confederation bridge...

No but they buzz us at Swan Lake....
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 04, 2018, 23:07:41
I understand they no longer recce the underside of the Confederation bridge...

Too bad really.  The navigation span is absolutely high enough for this type of flying.   ;D
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Good2Golf on February 25, 2018, 17:49:28
Too bad really.  The navigation span is absolutely high enough for this type of flying.   ;D

Heck, you could even fit the SGOD underneath that thing? ;D
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Eye In The Sky on February 25, 2018, 21:21:23
The navigation span is 60m or so...ya!  Doubt anyone would notice that itty bitty plane if it was tried... 8)
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Ashkan08 on August 24, 2018, 20:10:33
Shouldn't we be looking to purchase a gunship like the Viper or Apache to escort the Griffons and Chinooks when they are on operations such as the ones in Mali?
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: YZT580 on August 24, 2018, 20:31:40
The Griffon is the escort.  And yes, it would be nice to have proper rotor wing attack aircraft.  Now just consider that phrase 'attack aircraft'.  Can you imagine our current government actually agreeing to purchase a machine that is exclusively designed for killing?  Not a chance.  Be happy they allow the Griffon.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 24, 2018, 20:38:30
Be happy they allow don't know we have helicopters like the Griffon.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Ashkan08 on August 24, 2018, 20:48:02
The Griffon is the escort.  And yes, it would be nice to have proper rotor wing attack aircraft.  Now just consider that phrase 'attack aircraft'.  Can you imagine our current government actually agreeing to purchase a machine that is exclusively designed for killing?  Not a chance.  Be happy they allow the Griffon.
You have a point there.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 25, 2018, 06:12:58
The Griffon is the escort.  And yes, it would be nice to have proper rotor wing attack aircraft.  Now just consider that phrase 'attack aircraft'.  Can you imagine our current government actually agreeing to purchase a machine that is exclusively designed for killing?  Not a chance.  Be happy they allow the Griffon.

That's why instead of calling it an "attack helicopter" you call it an "armed reconnaissance helicopter"

Like the Tiger ARH:

(https://gallery.vtol.org/images/2017/08/22/Australian_Army_Eurocopter_EC-655_Tiger_ARH.jpg)
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Dimsum on August 25, 2018, 09:47:58
That's why instead of calling it an "attack helicopter" you call it an "armed reconnaissance helicopter"

Like the Tiger ARH:


You mean the (paraphrased from folks familiar with that airframe) "useless piece of crap"?   :nod:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-chooses-to-repair-rather-than-replace-grounded-helicopters/news-story/3e34e5f7d0a641b78db0806d69c01319
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Good2Golf on August 25, 2018, 13:53:59
Yeah, they never really wanted the Tiger...specs adjusted to fit the machine, vice the Apaches they were aiming for.  That said, the French seem to operate the Tiger quite effectively.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Ashkan08 on August 25, 2018, 14:02:04
You mean the (paraphrased from folks familiar with that airframe) "useless piece of crap"?   :nod:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-chooses-to-repair-rather-than-replace-grounded-helicopters/news-story/3e34e5f7d0a641b78db0806d69c01319

Although the Tiger isn't the best ( armed reconnaissance helicopter) helicopter available, it would still be adequate for the operations we are currently in. It has been tested in Mali by both Germany and France and seems to have been quite effective.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 25, 2018, 14:36:49
Do the Griffons in Mali have FN M3M GAU-21 .50 Cal machine guns in each door, or just in one with C-6 in other? Hope not dumb question, assume no M-134 Dillon miniguns:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mali-helicopters-un-mission-1.4627507

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjXG3UYWsAAfcqH.jpg)

Photo from this official RCAF tweet, sure seems to highlight firepower:
https://twitter.com/RCAF_ARC/status/1023944178764529665

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Good2Golf on August 25, 2018, 19:07:20
The load out can vary, but often when dissimilar weapons are used, the section aircraft will often mirror each other to ensure full azimuthal type coverage within the formation, ie. Lead GAU port, Dillon starboard, #2 Dillon port, GAU starboard.  If no Dillon, a C6 often complements the GAU.  Specific TTPs vary, and something not likely to be referred to in detail here.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Underway on August 25, 2018, 22:12:04
If a replacement utility helicopter was purchased, what's a good type to replace it with? A direct replacement for the utility role vice some other role.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: PuckChaser on August 25, 2018, 22:30:21
If a replacement utility helicopter was purchased, what's a good type to replace it with?  I'm looking at a direct replacement for the utility role.

Something that can carry an infantry section along with door guns? The Griffon seems to only be able to pick guns or troops, and at max weight its got awfully short legs, which is fine if we only plan on fighting an hour or so away from the airfield.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Ashkan08 on August 25, 2018, 22:45:24
If a replacement utility helicopter was purchased, what's a good type to replace it with?  I'm looking at a direct replacement for the utility role.
The Sikorsky Black Hawk would be nice. Can almost hold double the weight the Griffon can.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Colin P on August 25, 2018, 23:18:41
Even a USMC style "upgrade" would help.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Good2Golf on August 26, 2018, 11:39:06
As a NATO/Like-minded-nation doctrinally compliant "UTTH", the UH-60, UH-1Y or H725.

That said, in the "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" department, the Griffon isn't necessarily a bad machine for the most part, and it was a huge improvement over the Twin Huey.  You'll have a very hard time finding anyone who flew both the CH-135 and the CH-146, say they take the 135...unless of course they were supporting a small-scale airshow at a reunion of Viet Nam vets at the time, and seeing a few hundred vets come up and hug the chopper with tears of appreciation in their eyes...year, maybe then, as an exception.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: OceanBonfire on January 26, 2019, 21:02:43
Quote
The Griffon Limited Life-Extension (GLLE) project

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlpWXQOS.jpg&hash=9094dd81fda217b51e48f0eabf4c3a20)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fs3LzG8H.jpg&hash=33a73b24b235f70507e6e577ef0840b5)

January 26 2019 – Ottawa, Ontario – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces

As outlined in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government of Canada is making investments to re-capitalize and extend the life of equipment to ensure our women and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) have the equipment they need to fulfill the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) core missions.

In support of this, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Andy Fillmore, on behalf of Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan, announced today that Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited will be undertaking design work to extend the life of Canada’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters to at least 2031.

The first phase of this life extension is the definition phase, during which Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited – the original equipment manufacturer – will develop design changes to upgrade the helicopter’s avionics systems, engines, and cockpit displays, and integrate sensor systems.

This definition work, valued at up to $90 million (including taxes), will be performed under the existing support contract for the CH-146, which was awarded to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited in 2011. The overall scope of the Griffon Limited Life Extension project is estimated to be valued at approximately $800 million (taxes included).

The Griffon, Canada’s multi-purpose utility helicopter, is essential to CAF operations both at home and abroad. The helicopter fills a number of functions, including tactical troop transport, reconnaissance, escort and surveillance, casualty evacuation, disaster relief, special operations aviation support, and search and rescue.

Upgrading the CH-146 will ensure that it continues to make important contributions to the success of the full range of the CAF’s missions and operations.

https://www.facebook.com/NationalDefenceGC/posts/325599258065229

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/01/government-of-canada-invests-in-the-modernization-of-the-royal-canadian-air-forces-ch-146-griffon.html
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: YZT580 on January 26, 2019, 23:06:16
800 million dollars to upgrade 85 aircraft is absolutely insane. The newest airframe is 20 years old.   We could replace them with brand new Black Hawks for very little more or if you prefer, more airbuses and have a far superior aircraft that is good until at least 2040.     
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: PuckChaser on January 26, 2019, 23:26:52
Especially if they still cant make it be able to carry an infantry section of 8 with rucks when it's full of fuel...
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: HappyWithYourHacky on January 26, 2019, 23:49:13
Especially if they still cant make it be able to carry an infantry section of 8 with rucks when it's full of fuel...

Or more than one critically ill patient in SAR.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Colin P on January 27, 2019, 03:19:45
what is the engine upgrade?
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Retired AF Guy on January 27, 2019, 10:43:14
what is the engine upgrade?

From the above link; " Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited will be undertaking design work to extend the life of Canada’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters to at least 2031."

"The first phase of this life extension is the definition phase, during which Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited – the original equipment manufacturer – will develop design changes to upgrade the helicopter’s avionics systems, engines, and cockpit displays, and integrate sensor systems."

From the 10.01.2018 issue of the Canadian Defence Review (http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/93):

"GRIFFON LIMITED LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT

The GLLE project will extend the life of the CH-146 Griffon beyond the current Estimated Life Expectancy so that the aircraft can continue to be operationally relevant and remain a vital contributor to the readiness of the Canadian Army and the Canadian Special Operations Force Command units well into the future.

The extension will bridge the gap until a replacement capability is acquired through the Tactical Reconnaissance Utility Helicopter (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2016/aerospace-systems-913.page) project. GLLE aims to extend CH-146 operat­ing life to 2030+ through the replacement of obsolete avionics, instrumentation and displays with an integrated digital systems architecture. It may also include new digitally controlled engines as a package.

Flight simulators will also be modified to conform to the fleet. Finally, the project will ensure integrated logistic support, supply of initial spares and training. According to an April 2017 RCAF Director of Air Requirements (DAR) document, the preliminary estimate of the cost of GLLE ranges between $500 million to $1.5 billion."


Interesting, back in 2011, when the last contract for a CH-146 Griffon upgrade (https://web.archive.org/web/20150404013324/http://www.aiac.ca/uploadedFiles/News_and_Events/AIAC_News/AIAC%20PM%20Bell%20Helicopter_Jan%2014%202011.pdf) was awarded, the plan was to retire it in 2021.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 27, 2019, 14:11:51
800 million dollars to upgrade 85 aircraft is absolutely insane. The newest airframe is 20 years old.   We could replace them with brand new Black Hawks for very little more or if you prefer, more airbuses and have a far superior aircraft that is good until at least 2040.   

Still a baby! (https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/a.10150142814416237/10153218413576237/?type=3&theater)!   8)

Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Retired AF Guy on January 27, 2019, 15:59:59
800 million dollars to upgrade 85 aircraft is absolutely insane. The newest airframe is 20 years old.   We could replace them with brand new Black Hawks for very little more or if you prefer, more airbuses and have a far superior aircraft that is good until at least 2040.   

At $21.5(US) million ea., the Black Hawk is one of the most expensive helicopters out there. At that price the RCAF could afford about 32 helicopters, less than half what we have now.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 27, 2019, 19:45:43
At that price the RCAF could afford about 32 helicopters, less than half what we have now.

But each with three times the capability of a Griffon ... so it's a wash?    8)
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: YZT580 on January 27, 2019, 21:06:56
last order I saw was for approx 100 aircraft for just over a billion.  That works out to about 10 million each so 85 would be 850,000 u.s. And you get twice the aircraft for the money
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Retired AF Guy on January 27, 2019, 21:36:55
But each with three times the capability of a Griffon ... so it's a wash?    8)

The old dilemma about capabilities versus cost .. and we all know how the Canadian government would decide.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Colin P on January 27, 2019, 23:04:38
From the above link; " Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited will be undertaking design work to extend the life of Canada’s fleet of 85 CH-146 Griffon helicopters to at least 2031."

"The first phase of this life extension is the definition phase, during which Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited – the original equipment manufacturer – will develop design changes to upgrade the helicopter’s avionics systems, engines, and cockpit displays, and integrate sensor systems."

From the 10.01.2018 issue of the Canadian Defence Review (http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/93):

"GRIFFON LIMITED LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT

The GLLE project will extend the life of the CH-146 Griffon beyond the current Estimated Life Expectancy so that the aircraft can continue to be operationally relevant and remain a vital contributor to the readiness of the Canadian Army and the Canadian Special Operations Force Command units well into the future.

The extension will bridge the gap until a replacement capability is acquired through the Tactical Reconnaissance Utility Helicopter (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2016/aerospace-systems-913.page) project. GLLE aims to extend CH-146 operat­ing life to 2030+ through the replacement of obsolete avionics, instrumentation and displays with an integrated digital systems architecture. It may also include new digitally controlled engines as a package.

Flight simulators will also be modified to conform to the fleet. Finally, the project will ensure integrated logistic support, supply of initial spares and training. According to an April 2017 RCAF Director of Air Requirements (DAR) document, the preliminary estimate of the cost of GLLE ranges between $500 million to $1.5 billion."


Interesting, back in 2011, when the last contract for a CH-146 Griffon upgrade (https://web.archive.org/web/20150404013324/http://www.aiac.ca/uploadedFiles/News_and_Events/AIAC_News/AIAC%20PM%20Bell%20Helicopter_Jan%2014%202011.pdf) was awarded, the plan was to retire it in 2021.

So no new engines?
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: kev994 on January 27, 2019, 23:19:16
I thought the transmission was the limiting factor? I don’t see anything about that.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 28, 2019, 00:05:01
At $21.5(US) million ea., the Black Hawk is one of the most expensive helicopters out there. At that price the RCAF could afford about 32 helicopters, less than half what we have now.

I know it's a bigger air frame, and I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to aircraft, but I'm a big Super Puma fan...

$15.5m USD per unit (over 10 years ago) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_AS332_Super_Puma
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Loch Sloy! on January 28, 2019, 02:15:29
UH-1Y production for the USMC just finished... Might be a good time to get a deal on airframes that are everything the Griffon isn't! Buy about 20 Cobras while we're at it.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Journeyman on January 28, 2019, 09:34:10
.. and we all know how the Canadian government would decide.
Best photo ops (bonus points if costumes could be worn), 'supportive' political riding, with no less than 25% of airframes identifying as female?    :pop:
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 28, 2019, 10:39:14
Best photo ops (bonus points if costumes could be worn), 'supportive' political riding, with no less than 25% of airframes identifying as female?    :pop:

I think that is 100%. I have never heard of an aircraft referred to as anything other than the feminine gender.
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Journeyman on January 28, 2019, 11:33:57
I have never heard of an aircraft referred to as anything other than the feminine gender.
Ah, clearly an example of male oppression, obliging aircraft to adhere to outdated misogynistic standards, denying them the right to self-identify as any number  of other genders!   Subjugator!!

/sunny ways   


(OK, I'll stop wasting bandwidth here  ;)  )
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 28, 2019, 14:58:19
Ah, clearly an example of male oppression, obliging aircraft to adhere to outdated misogynistic standards, denying them the right to self-identify as any number  of other genders!   Subjugator!!

/sunny ways   


(OK, I'll stop wasting bandwidth here  ;)  )

You forgot 'Cultural Appropriator'.  ;D
Title: Re: Ch-146 Griffon
Post by: Old Sweat on January 28, 2019, 15:09:25
You forgot 'Cultural Appropriator'.  ;D


What would the aircrew qualification badge look like?