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

CH-146 Griffon

fighter puke

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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...... :eek:
 

fighter puke

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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..........
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,071
Points
1,360
fighter puke said:
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
 
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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
 

Kalatzi

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.





 

HeavyHooker

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
450
Points
980
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.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Reaction score
27
Points
280
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.
 

Scoobs

Full Member
Reaction score
21
Points
230
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.
 

Leeworthy

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
953
Points
1,090
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?
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
150
Points
680
Some airframes were transferred/sold to KFC/AW (Southport) and renamed the B-412CF
 

winnipegoo7

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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/
 

Scoobs

Full Member
Reaction score
21
Points
230
CBH99 said:
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.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,485
Points
1,040
What happened to the aircraft that killed the power to Yellowknife?  I have heard it was quite the mess after the fact.
 

Strike

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
winnipegoo7 said:
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.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,071
Points
1,360
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
 

Scoobs

Full Member
Reaction score
21
Points
230
Yes, I remember now seeing that very grainy video.  I had forgotten about that.
 
Top