Topic: Apaches

[Loachman]

Eighty percent serviceability is optimistic at best. Yes, one could reasonably expect that during a deployment, but it will drop dramatically in garrison for a variety of reasons. Major inspections on Griffons take a couple of months. If a deployed aircraft requires a major inspection, it goes home in the C17 that brought its replacement in.

We had eight Griffons in KAF, to provide up to three sections of two. Four back in Canada were prepped to go at short notice, partially to cover aircraft due for inspection and partially as replacements in the event of loss, and they did not fly.

So, if, out of ten machines total, one or two are sidelined for major inspections, six are deployed to provide two sections of two, at least one is set aside as a hasty replacement, how many are left for training aircrew and techs (conversion to type) and currency for those qualified (given that over two-thirds of qualified pers will not be deployed in order to provide continuous rotation)?

This is silly.

[daftandbarmy]

What's the point of 10 Apaches?  Not enough capacity to make any difference in a major conflict with China or Russia (or Iran or North Korea for that matter) and a major drain on resources for an orphan fleet for that negligible return.

Adding 10 more MPAs, Cyclones, Hercs or fighters would be less of a drain with greater return if you want to add aircraft.  Alternately,  you could add mortars, ATGMs or more tanks MLRS to our inventory and get better overall capability increases for the Army for the same cost as a tiny Apache fleet in my opinion.

There, FTFY

[tomahawk6]

A jog down memory lane.

http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-canada-doesnt-have-attack.html

[Good2Golf]

A jog down memory lane.

http://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-canada-doesnt-have-attack.html

Not a bad piece, T6. A few details need tweaking (ex. original Chinooks retired in ‘91, not ‘74), but overall, the loss of attack aviation proponency post-unification describes a large factor. Arguably (or not?), that is the basis of the issue inside the military, but many would say the more important factor was the lack of will to pursue, or in fact explicit desire by Government to eschew any discussion of  attack helicopters — attack is such an un-Canadian concept, and one to be actively avoided.  It’s why we declined the U.S. Army offer of all the excess AH-1s in Germany that the US needed to divest to comply with SALT II in the early-80s.  The Dutch offered us some of their Apaches in the mid/late-2000’s, that...as with the American Cobras, we quickly declined.  AH in Canada never, I’d say.



Cheers
G2G

[alexanderpeterson]

It’s why we declined the U.S. Army offer of all the excess AH-1s in Germany that the US needed to divest to comply with SALT II in the early-80s.  The Dutch offered us some of their Apaches in the mid/late-2000’s, that...

Thanks for sharing...do we have a way to know how many AH Dutch were offering, any News link or Government Announcement from Holland or Canada?

[Ostrozac]

It’s why we declined the U.S. Army offer of all the excess AH-1s in Germany that the US needed to divest to comply with SALT II in the early-80s.

It wasn't SALT II, that was CFE. The SALT talks were only ever about missiles. The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty limited NATO to only ever having 2,000 attack helicopters in Europe -- 1550 American, 450 non-American, so there was an incentive for the US to encourage other NATO partners to develop their own attack helicopter capabilities. Canada, as you noted, declined. Surplus AH-1 instead went to Turkey, and the UK, Netherlands and Greece bought new AH-64.

[Good2Golf]

It wasn't SALT II, that was CFE. The SALT talks were only ever about missiles. The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty limited NATO to only ever having 2,000 attack helicopters in Europe -- 1550 American, 450 non-American, so there was an incentive for the US to encourage other NATO partners to develop their own attack helicopter capabilities. Canada, as you noted, declined. Surplus AH-1 instead went to Turkey, and the UK, Netherlands and Greece bought new AH-64.

Ostrozac, thanks for the pick-up on the CFE/SALT issue. 

Regards
G2G

[tomahawk6]

The AH1 cost is around 11m each which might be a good alternative,the Marines like them.

[Colin P]

Fully agree they are still very good and likely we could pick up some airframes from the US reserve fleets and lease them. that would be the cheapest way to go to create the asset if we needed them. Mind you I would do the same for SPG's as well.

[Loachman]

Can we can lease Pilots and Techs as well? We're already far too short of those for the fleets that we already have.

Same limitation as Trudeau's stupid F18 "urgent capability gap" plan.

[Oldgateboatdriver]

An "urgent" gap that has been closed by the Trudeau government by now - more than two years after its discovery - right!  ...  Oh! Wait!   

[Colin P]

Can we can lease Pilots and Techs as well? We're already far too short of those for the fleets that we already have.

Same limitation as Trudeau's stupid F18 "urgent capability gap" plan.

We can adopt the aussie model and rob pilots and maintainers from other NATO countries

[tomahawk6]

We can adopt the aussie model and rob pilots and maintainers from other NATO countries

Or bring back retired personnel.

[Eagle Eye View]

Or bring back retired personnel.

The Navy is currently trying this, but I doubt it’ll be successful.

[Hamish Seggie]

Or bring back retired personnel.

Yes. Then tell them they are double dipping and in order to serve again they’ll have to forgo their pensions until they retire again.

[dapaterson]

Can we can lease Pilots and Techs as well? We're already far too short of those for the fleets that we already have.

Same limitation as Trudeau's stupid F18 "urgent capability gap" plan.

We are not short of pilots.

We are short of pilots in the squadrons.

There's a difference.

[tomahawk6]

Retired personnel that return to duty should draw full pay in lieu of retired pay.

[Blackadder1916]

Retired personnel that return to duty should draw full pay in lieu of retired pay.

But the difference between US military retirees and Canadians is that we don't receive "retired pay" but a pension that we contribute to over our period of service.

[NavyShooter]

The Navy is currently trying this, but I doubt it’ll be successful.

One of the civilians in my shop got the 'letter' about a month and a half ago.


It was received with peals of laughter...others I know have had similar responses when they got theirs.


I do not believe that this will be a very successful tool for drawing any of the specialists back that they are hoping to.  In fact, I think it may be having the opposite effect.


As for Apache crews - there's more to train than just a pilot and gunner - who is learning to fix these machines?


NS

[Baz]

One of the civilians in my shop got the 'letter' about a month and a half ago.


It was received with peals of laughter...others I know have had similar responses when they got theirs.


I do not believe that this will be a very successful tool for drawing any of the specialists back that they are hoping to.  In fact, I think it may be having the opposite effect.


As for Apache crews - there's more to train than just a pilot and gunner - who is learning to fix these machines?


NS

I'd put out there it is different with aircrew; as DAPaterson pointed out (and I was discussing just Thurs at work with some other retired aircrew) we aren't short aircrew, we are short aircrew on the squadrons; the HQs have ate a disproportionally large number, and telling people you have to go to an HQ and not fly is a demotivator at best for the very types of aircrew you want on the squadron.

You *might* find that offering retired aircrew attractive offers to *only* fly might give surprising results...

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Baz: Your last post just triggered a thought with me, when considered together with the thread on the need for a degree for officers, where numerous posters agreed that one is not needed to fly airplanes.

Considering that, would it make sense for Canada to institute some form of "Warrant" officers, US style - not commissioned officers, but above the "enlisted" personnel - who are technical experts in their field.

In this case, create a whole class of technical expert aircrew. They would not need to have a university degree, just flight training, but on the other hand, they would be limited (so to speak - in no way meant as a put down) to flying in squadrons their whole career, not having to go (or very, very, very seldom) into staff positions.

[Baz]

Baz: Your last post just triggered a thought with me, when considered together with the thread on the need for a degree for officers, where numerous posters agreed that one is not needed to fly airplanes.

Considering that, would it make sense for Canada to institute some form of "Warrant" officers, US style - not commissioned officers, but above the "enlisted" personnel - who are technical experts in their field.

In this case, create a whole class of technical expert aircrew. They would not need to have a university degree, just flight training, but on the other hand, they would be limited (so to speak - in no way meant as a put down) to flying in squadrons their whole career, not having to go (or very, very, very seldom) into staff positions.

Seems like a good idea to me; as long as you remember that they would have to be compensated in a way that keeps them competitive with the civilian aircrew world.

I also think you need at least one officer to Command crew served aircraft, and at least one in the flight to Command a flight of aircraft.

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I agree you would still need a certain percentage, say 25 to 30 percent, of aircrew that would come from the officer corps. They would be the "career" driven ones actually seeking to go up the chain of command all the way to air generals.

For the "Flying Warrants", if you provide three grades, as the Americans do, and about 8 to 10 pay incentive levels in each grade, you should be able to compensate them properly and in a competitive manner.

[Blackadder1916]

I agree you would still need a certain percentage, say 25 to 30 percent, of aircrew that would come from the officer corps. They would be the "career" driven ones actually seeking to go up the chain of command all the way to air generals.

For the "Flying Warrants", if you provide three grades, as the Americans do, and about 8 to 10 pay incentive levels in each grade, you should be able to compensate them properly and in a competitive manner.

You could say the same thing for just about any "military centric" officer occupations.  Other than those that because of legal requirements to have a specific education and licensing (doctors, dentists, nurses, lawyers, etc . . . ), is there a "real" need for every position now filled by a university educated officer to be filled by a "commissioned" officer?  If the only reason for "25 to 30 percent of aircrew" to be commissioned officers is succession planning then why not apply the same reasoning to 25 to 30 percent of current officer positions in infantry battalions or service battalions or ships.

I find the usual automatic suggestion of adopting the US Army model of aviation WOs to be more knee jerk than thought out.  And I emphasize "US Army" because they are the only American service that follows that model (so should Canada adopt that model only for tac hel?).  Though, the US Navy did institute a flying Warrant Officer program (trial?) back a decade or so to address the very issue being discussed here but they shitcanned it after only a few years as not being successful.  One of the things to remember about the large number of CWOs flying US Army aircraft is that those numbers are not counted against the maximum number of commissioned officers as authorized by Congress; that was one of the considerations back in the late 1940s (when the Army first started getting a larger number of aviation assets) and the early 1960s (the next major expansion of US Army aviation).  Even with flying Warrant Officers being the cheap and cheerful way of keeping pilots in cockpit seats rather than having to go off and do other things in order to be promoted, the US Army are having some difficulty retaining them.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/09/07/the-army-is-bringing-back-pilot-retention-bonuses/

By the numbers, the Army has 110 percent of the certified aviators it needs. The issue is keeping the right experience levels in each formation.

To get at the problem, the service is eyeing a new set of retention bonuses to encourage seasoned pilots to stay in the Army.

A revival of the bonus program is due later this month, the director of aviation in the Army G-3/5/7 said Thursday at an Association of the United States Army aviation forum outside Washington, D.C.

“In terms of attracting aviators, that’s not a problem,” said Brig. Gen. Frank Tate. “Everybody wants to be an aviator. Just about.”

But not everyone wants to stay an aviator.

The Army particularly needs to retain pilots at the seven-year mark — when they finish their initial service obligations — and the 17- to 22-year mark, when many are weighing the benefits of retirement, Tate said.

He did not provide any additional details about when the bonuses will be available, how much they might be worth, or how someone might qualify for the payments.

Or should Canada look to our traditional fount of heritage, the British Army.  They have flying Sergeants in the Army Air Corps.  But that, again, is only for tac hel.

[YZT580]

We had sergeant pilots during WW2 and there was never a problem except with finding a place to eat as the British refused to allow the ranks into the officers mess.  From a capability standpoint there is no reason why pilots need to be officers except to enhance their ego, particularly if you are looking for aircrew for helicopters.  In fact, one of the chaps associated with training for American Airlines told us that the best pilots had superb reflexes, were in excellent physical shape with an IQ towards the bottom end of the normal scale.  They were the most trainable and the least likely to experiment.