Author Topic: Griffon run down  (Read 28761 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PMars

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14
Griffon run down
« on: March 09, 2007, 17:30:06 »
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.


Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2007, 17:38:59 »
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.....?
Chimo!

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2007, 18:18:28 »
439 new deployment role?

What does that mean?

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,156
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2007, 18:27:39 »
Moderator warning:

Lanes...stay in your lanes.

The Army.ca Staff
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Welshy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 12,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2007, 18:32:20 »
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

Offline Mortar guy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 478
  • Eating and drinking for peace.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2007, 18:37:03 »
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
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

Offline Welshy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 12,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2007, 19:06:59 »
I forgot to mention that 17 Chinooks will hardly be enough to replace or severely reduce the Griffin fleet

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,356
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2007, 22:42:27 »
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."
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 22:45:21 by Strike »
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline pipstah

  • Member
  • ****
  • 700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 228
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2007, 22:56:19 »
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
Fangs of death
RESCUE!

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2007, 22:58:26 »
Griffon top speed - 140 kts
Chinook - 170 kts (according to a quick google)

Offline dan_282

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2007, 22:58:57 »
arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2007, 23:01:14 »
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?
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline pipstah

  • Member
  • ****
  • 700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 228
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2007, 23:02:40 »
Thanks SF2.... have any idea about the manouevering speed of those two ?
Fangs of death
RESCUE!

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2007, 23:04:46 »
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!!

Offline pipstah

  • Member
  • ****
  • 700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 228
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2007, 23:08:13 »
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   
Fangs of death
RESCUE!

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2007, 23:08:41 »
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,156
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2007, 02:29:54 »
arnt the chinooks gunna be second hand?

Dan,

Here's how it is at 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

Consider this your freebie, you've had a few in this thread already.

The Army.ca Staff
« Last Edit: March 10, 2007, 02:33:33 by The Librarian »
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Globesmasher

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2007, 02:37:44 »

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.


Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 168,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,876
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2007, 16:15:14 »
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

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 168,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,876
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2007, 16:22:47 »
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

Offline PMars

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2007, 16:49:10 »
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.

Offline PMars

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2007, 16:58:43 »
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.

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2007, 17:06:46 »
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.





 
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2007, 17:28:36 »
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


Offline eurowing

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 24,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 310
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2007, 23:00:39 »
Wow, I was worried someone ran over a small brown dog.  Whew.   ;D

Played with RC Airplanes in sandboxes

Offline hollywood13

  • New Member
  • **
  • 20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 32
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2007, 09:34:42 »
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).



 

Offline No Hel Like Tac Hel

  • Guest
  • *
  • 260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2007, 02:16:26 »
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

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #27 on: April 13, 2007, 11:40:54 »
Anyone know what "routine access" means?

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. ...
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 267,441
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,902
  • Regimental Headquarter Staff
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #28 on: April 13, 2007, 13:10:16 »
Anyone know what "routine access" means?

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  ???
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline Scoobs

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 241
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2007, 23:21:57 »
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.
Variety is the spice of life...

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2007, 20:33:34 »
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.

Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,356
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2007, 21:18:29 »
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.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 205,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,884
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #32 on: May 03, 2007, 21:39:14 »
Way out of my lane here, but is the Griffon armed, or just supplying an alternate target?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,356
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #33 on: May 03, 2007, 21:42:46 »
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!
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline uncle-midget-Oddball

    Back to work in one week... Finally.

  • I dance on street corners for money.
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 7,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 687
  • Why dont you knock it off with them negative waves
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #34 on: May 03, 2007, 21:45:47 »
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

What are you doing?

I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know.

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2007, 00:03:48 »
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......
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,443
  • Crewman
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2007, 09:25:50 »
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!
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Rowshambow

  • Member
  • ****
  • 455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 191
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2007, 12:02:53 »
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!
Let's play hide and go f^*k yourself...I'll go hide!

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 188,667
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,790
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2007, 15:02:32 »
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.

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2007, 23:53:35 »
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? 
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 305,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,640
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2007, 00:04:26 »
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.


Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 168,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,876
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2007, 11:54:37 »
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
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 11:57:15 by Good2Golf »

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2007, 17:13:46 »
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......
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline Rowshambow

  • Member
  • ****
  • 455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 191
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2007, 21:21:14 »
So how would consolidating them away from the army units help?
Let's play hide and go f^*k yourself...I'll go hide!

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2007, 08:05:01 »
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...
Chimo!

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 188,667
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,790
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2007, 12:39:37 »
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.

Offline Rowshambow

  • Member
  • ****
  • 455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 191
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2007, 15:05:13 »
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!
Let's play hide and go f^*k yourself...I'll go hide!

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2007, 16:11:18 »
Doh!
Chimo!

Offline Welshy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 12,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2007, 17:53:49 »
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.

Offline skyd1vr

  • Member
  • ****
  • 870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 192
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2007, 11:50:26 »
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.

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2007, 18:47:12 »
i dont see it happening in the near future....with 427 no longer supporting 2CMBG, someone close needs to backfill.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 188,667
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,790
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2007, 21:51:25 »
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.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 56,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,664
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #52 on: June 14, 2007, 08:43:55 »
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

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 188,667
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,790
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #53 on: June 14, 2007, 15:11:31 »
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.

Offline fighter puke

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #54 on: June 14, 2007, 21:19:23 »
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!!

Offline Mortar guy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 478
  • Eating and drinking for peace.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2007, 07:16:58 »
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
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

Offline fighter puke

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2007, 17:57:52 »
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

Offline fighter puke

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2007, 18:02:44 »
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..........

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 168,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,876
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #58 on: June 18, 2007, 18:51:16 »
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

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,356
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Griffon run down
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2007, 12:01:50 »
 ;D
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...