• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Apaches

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
43
Points
280
Good2Golf said:
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

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
421
Points
980
Ostrozac said:
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.  :nod:

Regards
G2G
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
52
Points
530
The AH1 cost is around 11m each which might be a good alternative,the Marines like them.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
394
Points
880
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

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
162
Points
730
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
84
Points
530
An "urgent" gap that has been closed by the Trudeau government by now - more than two years after its discovery - right!  ...  Oh! Wait!  :facepalm:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
394
Points
880
Loachman said:
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
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
277
Points
880
tomahawk6 said:
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

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
663
Points
860
Loachman said:
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
52
Points
530
Retired personnel that return to duty should draw full pay in lieu of retired pay.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
169
Points
680
tomahawk6 said:
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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
87
Points
530
Eagle Eye View said:
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

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NavyShooter said:
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
84
Points
530
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

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oldgateboatdriver said:
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
84
Points
530
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
169
Points
680
Oldgateboatdriver said:
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
480
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.
 
Top