CH-146 Griffon

[CBH99]

Zero chopper experience on my part - why is the air force looking for a light attack chopper? Haven't attack helicopters been severely limited offensively since the proliferation of drones?

Zero chopper experience here either...

I think attack helicopters still have a place on the modern battlefield - the threat profile facing those platforms is just significantly larger than it was even a decade ago


Drones and loitering munitions are here to stay, there's no doubt about that. And MANPADS are prevalent to the point where flying over even slightly contested areas has become a lot more dangerous.

But having a platform that can travel faster than any ground vehicle & not be hindered by terrain or IED's, provide fire support for ground units, offer ISR, offer possible show of force, etc etc still has a place in modern war.


Can drones do a lot of those same things without risking their human pilots, and for MUCH cheaper replacement & operating costs? Absolutely

Cheaper and faster to train UAV operators vs training a competent rotary wing combat pilot? I imagine so



I think we (the west) need to probably rethink how we employ attack helicopters in a variety of ways, and equip them with some sort of loyal wingman capability of some sort.

Maybe it's place on the modern battlefield is coming to an end. But I don't think it's gone the way of the battleship just yet... (You are right though, it's offensive capabilities face a lot more considerations than say a decade ago flying over Afghanistan)

(We've also been extremely lucky in the sense that none of our main recent adversaries have bothered to pursue a MANPAD capability)
 
 



(Hey Loachman, you still peeking in from time to time? Anybody else from the TACHEL world kicking around? Would love to hear your insight into this)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because it will be harder to have AFV in the area near the front, AH will likley to be there as a quick response force, but using guns far less and more of a missile carrier. They will need EW protection to make it harder for drones to target them.

 

[CBH99]

So what’s going to be used from 2031 to 2033?

A Seaking is gonna knock on your door soon...Just wants to remind you of....well...Seakings...

Platforms can have their expiry dates 'adjusted' as a result of poor planning or political fuckery, and we've seen before.

So what will we use betweem 2031 and 2033, once the Griffon has been retired? Probably the Griffon...

 

[GR66]

Canada spins up Griffon replacement plan in move towards ‘balanced fleet concept’

Canada is likely to replace its ageing Bell CH-146 Griffons with multiple new rotorcraft types as it seeks a more "balanced fleet" to address its tactical transport needs.

www.flightglobal.com

Brining this post forward with some new context from South of the border...

U.S. Army considers halting new helicopter purchases

The Department of War is evaluating a reform concept that would sharply reduce or halt the purchase of new piloted helicopters for the U.S. Army beginning in the second half of the decade, according to individuals familiar with internal discussions.

defence-blog.com

The Department of War is evaluating a reform concept that would sharply reduce or halt the purchase of new piloted helicopters for the U.S. Army beginning in the second half of the decade, according to individuals familiar with internal discussions.

The concept under review focuses on maintaining and upgrading the current helicopter fleet while transitioning funding and force structure toward uncrewed strike, reconnaissance, and logistics platforms.

According to the individuals, the proposal centers on ending new helicopter acquisition as early as late 2026. Instead of investing in new production lines of piloted aircraft, the Army would consolidate spending on sustaining existing UH-60, AH-64 and CH-47 fleets while expanding programs that convert or supplement aviation units with uncrewed aerial systems. The concept is being presented as a way to reduce long-term personnel requirements, lower training and sustainment costs, and limit the exposure of aircrews during high-intensity operations.

Is the CAF again behind the curve and "modernizing" to fight the last war?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Brining this post forward with some new context from South of the border...

U.S. Army considers halting new helicopter purchases

The Department of War is evaluating a reform concept that would sharply reduce or halt the purchase of new piloted helicopters for the U.S. Army beginning in the second half of the decade, according to individuals familiar with internal discussions.

defence-blog.com

Is the CAF again behind the curve and "modernizing" to fight the last war?

Well, we're upgrading the Griffons - does that count as modernizing?

"In the meantime, Canada is modernising the CH-146 through the Griffon Limited Life Extension programme, extending the helicopter’s service life until 2031."

 

[GR66]

Well, we're upgrading the Griffons - does that count as modernizing?

"In the meantime, Canada is modernising the CH-146 through the Griffon Limited Life Extension programme, extending the helicopter’s service life until 2031."

Maybe that modernization should include turning them into uncrewed platforms something like the MQ-8C Fire Scout. Keep them relevant and useful in a modern war and in the meantime consolidate our manned rotary wing fleet into the AW101 platform. Standardizes training and logistics, eliminates the problematic orphan Cyclone fleet issue and replaces the Griffons with a more capable helicopter.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am wondering how much of a future there is in human crewed helicopters- and I say this as a person who has spent the better part of two decades in Maritime Rotary Wing Aviation.

There are obvious use cases for crewed helicopters- missions where machines don’t yet have the creativity to solve complex and dynamic problems. But other, traditional roles are either just too dangerous for crewed helicopters to attempt (given recent advancements in defensive technology) or can be done cheaper with drones.

Canada tends to lag these developments because we are hostage to sunk cost fallacy and loathe dumping systems without wringing a full 50 years usage out of them.

 

[GR66]

I am wondering how much of a future there is in human crewed helicopters- and I say this as a person who has spent the better part of two decades in Maritime Rotary Wing Aviation.

There are obvious use cases for crewed helicopters- missions where machines don’t yet have the creativity to solve complex and dynamic problems. But other, traditional roles are either just too dangerous for crewed helicopters to attempt (given recent advancements in defensive technology) or can be done cheaper with drones.

Canada tends to lag these developments because we are hostage to sunk cost fallacy and loathe dumping systems without wringing a full 50 years usage out of them.

Fully agree. I do think there is still a place for crewed Maritime Helicopters as part of a crewed-uncrewed system. There are lots of non-wartime roles they play in addition to their ASW role and some things like anti-piracy missions for example require human judgement to avoid serious mistakes. I don't trust AI or even remote operators watching a screen miles away to be able to make some decisions. Same with SAR and even with TacHel transport roles. Are we ready to trust human passengers to AI or remote pilots when something unexpected happens?

 

[Baz]

Maybe that modernization should include turning them into uncrewed platforms something like the MQ-8C Fire Scout. Keep them relevant and useful in a modern war and in the meantime consolidate our manned rotary wing fleet into the AW101 platform. Standardizes training and logistics, eliminates the problematic orphan Cyclone fleet issue and replaces the Griffons with a more capable helicopter.

US Navy’s MQ-8C Fire Scouts fly into retirement just two years after entering operational service

US Navy (USN) budget documents reveal that the service plans to retire the newest variant of an unmanned helicopter it spent more than a decade and nearly $1.5 billion developing.

...

... “Operational employment of the MQ-8C will end in Q4 FY2024 and sundown will be completed by Q4 FY2026"

I'm not sure that until they figure it out we should try to figure it out. I'm also not sure we can wait long enough for them to figure out the optionally manned UH-60 replacement.

The Ukrainian drone lessons are still being learned. Even though the pendulum has swung in favour of drones right now, the technology to counter it is developing quickly. Witness the Kreuger 100. Given how cheap close in radar systems and other supporting tech and sensors, and the fact you can exploit doppler to detect a drone approaching within the clutter, I think there is going to be an affordable active defence system for AFVs very soon (if the major players don't have one the testing behind the scenes). Note: a drone is much easier to counter with something like that than a missile coming in at Mach 2.

Unmanned is here to stay, and there will be a lot of development and counterdevelopment for the foreseeable future. I'm skeptical that we enough yet to declare any other weapon system dead.

There's also lots of unexplored areas. One of the problems with putting missiles farther back is assured access in an RF denied environment. However, the ongoing drone war has demonstrated that one solution is to trail fiber. Why does that have to be a drone, or an armed drone? Can the "looker" and the "shooter" be two separate platforms? Can better connectivity enable an "over the horizon" missile? Much like the Navy, can the missile be package in a gun round?

Canada cannot answer all these questions itself, and certainly shouldn't be making future force decisions on the knowledge it carruntly has. However, is there some piece we can become the world experts at?