Canadian Attack Helicopters

[The_Falcon]

RCAF attack blimp? say it ain't so 

Well we do have surveillance blimps/balloons.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What do we really want/need with an attack/armed helo?

The big, heavyweight ones like the Apache are built for high intensity conventional war and to deal with heavily protected targets like AFVs. Is that a possibility on the horizon or do we need many smaller, lighter and cheaper helos to cover large areas (COIN, stability ops, humanitarian relief etc.) and deal with lesser target sets?

How big of a footprint can we afford? Do we want to be tied to airbases or do we want to be able to operate out of FOBs and FARPs?

What sort of operational concept are we going with? Do we want to deploy large numbers of troops and equipment at once or do we want to make pinpoint insertions of small numbers of specialists (SoF operators, Recce dets, weapons teams to form cutoffs)?

Once we answer those questions then the nature of the equipment needed becomes much clearer.

We don't need Transport helicopters, the Griffons will never be deployed in a shooting war, the Griffon will never be armed......I;m seeing a trend here, if we get an attack helicopter I suggest one that is the exact copy of a close ally who we can share, parts, simulators and even exchange crews.

 

[a_majoor]

Make it the smallest, cheapest one around so we dont tempt people with a great deal of political pork.....

 

[thunderchild]

why not just upgrade The Griffons to the same standard as the Zulu cobra? That is what the marines did, it should be cheaper and make work here in Canada.

 

[Shrek1985]

why not just upgrade The Griffons to the same standard as the Zulu cobra? That is what the marines did, it should be cheaper and make work here in Canada.

Not economically doable. The griffon looks a lot like the Bell 201/207 Huey series, but it is really a very different and less capable bird. You'd be replacing everything and ending up with something similar to the UH-1Y, but heavier, less capable and more expensive.

*rant begins

I just want to know when and what it will take for us to get our collective Canadian heads out of our asses and either get serious about wanting to have an effective, versatile military we can do things with that make us happy, or just give up pretending to be a relevant nation (from which the concept of an available, useful military is inseperable) and turn the bloody show over to countries that haven't yet totally lost the will to have a civilization.

*rant ends

Remember where the AH comes from; the concept came of age in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yes, it does derive from having a cold-war tak killer or flying BMP from the western or eastern perspective, but the AH has proved a versatile package, which is just what we need, rather than 1-use wonders, which I will not reference to avoid thread jacking.

I think the AH-1Z/UH-1Y solution is a good one. Much cheaper and more versatile than Apaches and Blackhawks. I'd want a few tweaks IMO, but basically good platforms for us, especially in terms of cost/longevity and a level of parts commonality you won't find outside of an MI-17/MI-35 paradigm.

At heart though; the whole procurement system as it stands needs not revision, but replacement to be effective and useful to the CF. Right now it is very useful as a political tool, but little else.

 

[dimsum]

*rant begins

I just want to know when and what it will take for us to get our collective Canadian heads out of our asses and either get serious about wanting to have an effective, versatile military we can do things with that make us happy, or just give up pretending to be a relevant nation (from which the concept of an available, useful military is inseperable) and turn the bloody show over to countries that haven't yet totally lost the will to have a civilization.

*rant ends

About the same time the US decides to implode on itself and we lose the "top cover" provided by their military.  Canada has always been "covered" by someone else (France, UK, US) and has never had any large internal wars, so unless we're somehow forced into our own (not likely with our geographical proximity to the US), the politicians and public will never consider national defence a top priority.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well with the way various allies defense budget having been going, there may be some very good deals on barely used attack helicopters.

 

[a_majoor]

Once again. this is a "Fantasy Island" sort of debate without some serious grounding. Our doctrine (and I use the term loosely) is flexible enough to encompass anything from swarms of "Little Bird" helicopters landing 4 man teams on critical portions of the battlefield, with armed "Little Birds" providing top cover with miniguns to ATGM's, to AH-64D "Apache Longbows" leading and shooting in medium and heavy lift transport helicopters.

For now, the economic environment suggests we will do without for years to come, and if there is a need for some sort of aerial support platform the quick and dirty solution may actually be armed UAV's.

</wet blanket>

 

[Sf2]

Remember where the AH comes from; the concept came of age in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yes, it does derive from having a cold-war tak killer or flying BMP from the western or eastern perspective, but the AH has proved a versatile package, which is just what we need, rather than 1-use wonders, which I will not reference to avoid thread jacking.

Never saw benefit of the dillon or gau overseas did you.....??

 

[Loachman]

swarms of "Little Bird" helicopters landing 4 man teams on critical portions of the battlefield, with armed "Little Birds" providing top cover with miniguns to ATGM's,

Not a cost-effective solution. The only advantage is the ability to deploy a bunch in Hercs with very little preparation at either end of the ride.

the quick and dirty solution may actually be armed UAV's.

Not with today's technology. Not cheaply. Not if one wants a rapid response or flexibility. Not if one wants to operate with any amount of cloud cover.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT the first point, if deployablity is the primary consideration then that might trump cost effectiveness. Having heavy hitters sitting in the hanger because there is no practical way to get them to theater kind of invalidates the reason for buying such things in the first place. This isn't to say that it is the solution I favour, rather that there are many considerations that are not being looked at by people who love the idea of AH's.

As for the second point, the key factor there is "quick and dirty"; I doubt that there would be any way to fast track attack helicopters in time to get into theater unless a very unlikely set of circumstances existed, such as an open production line or some nation leasing surplus equipment right when we needed it. Even armed UAV's might be a bit of a stretch in terms of rapid deployablity. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Are we talking NATO doctrine-compliant "AH" in the helo spectrum of OH, UH, AH and CH, or are we talking about a suitably armed aircraft that can support other helicopters and ground troops with an effective and supportable array of weapon systems?

Anectotally, when other nations are asking for Griffons as escorts, or for close combat attack support to ground troops, even when "nose shooters" (Apache, Cobra...) are available, one should consider that perhaps the Griffon properly equipped actually doesn't make such a bad aircraft after all, particularly given the reality of the resource pressures that DND/CF is experiencing for the foreseeable future.  Some in-service supportability refreshing and perhaps some minor obselescence technical solutions, certainly, but expectations between doctrinal wishes and practical realities need to be managed.

Regards
G2G

 

[Loachman]

WRT the first point, if deployablity is the primary consideration then that might trump cost effectiveness. Having heavy hitters sitting in the hanger because there is no practical way to get them to theater kind of invalidates the reason for buying such things in the first place.

How many times have we been so constrained? Where is the need?

And who actually does this, and why?

We can pack three Griffons into a C17.

there are many considerations that are not being looked at by people who love the idea of AH's.

Generally for good reasons.

As for the second point, the key factor there is "quick and dirty"; I doubt that there would be any way to fast track attack helicopters in time to get into theater unless a very unlikely set of circumstances existed, such as an open production line or some nation leasing surplus equipment right when we needed it. Even armed UAV's might be a bit of a stretch in terms of rapid deployablity.

And how does one get these armed UAVs into theatre any quicker than helicopters?

If the prime intent is to shoot at something, a UAV is not the best answer.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The great thing about getting the Griffons to Afghanistan is that it shows that it is possible, they are useful and they are wanted. Regardless of the constraints of the current airframe, we know we have done it and we can do it again. Hopefully we can take the lessons learned and retain the skill sets and improve the setup within the current design to address issues that were found.

The best thing to do now is take footage of the Griffins and Chinooks in action, and marry that to talks given by the people who flew, maintained, supported them and the people that were supported by them as to why and how things were done. With that knowledge we can always deploy again and hopefully reduce wheel reinvention to a minimum.

 

[medicineman]

The best thing to do now is take footage of the Griffins and Chinooks in action, and marry that to talks given by the people who flew, maintained, supported them and the people that were supported by them as to why and how things were done. With that knowledge we can always deploy again and hopefully reduce wheel reinvention to a minimum.

We're talking the CF here - figure the odds of that happening...you're making sense and we know what happens when we make sense now don't we ?  ;D

MM

 

[Loachman]

We're talking 1 Wing here - it's been/being done.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's good to hear, will make for a good documentary when it becomes unclassified.