If it is written, then it's true. Toronto Star says new attack helicopters.
- Thread starter mover1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I did not think being a gunship was in the roles originally envisioned for the Griffon...
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Although engaging in speculation is one of my hobbies, looking at the source is enough to trow cold water over the entire idea.
In the back of my mind I am seeing an attempt to recreate the "my God, they want to buy aircraft carriers!" myth to damage the current government in the event of an election, rather than a serious analysis of what the Department is going to do. While I am sure there is a cubical somewhere in NDHQ devoted to looking into armed/attack helicopters, the size and scale of the other projects (combined with the budget crunch pointed out by our friends in the Ruxted Group) means there will not be enough resources or hands to manage that project in the near future.
If I was pressed to provide a solution that is near term, affordable and meets most of the needs I'd go for armed Predator UAV's and add Hellfire or BRIMESTONE ATGM's to our inventory. Sorry guys................
In the back of my mind I am seeing an attempt to recreate the "my God, they want to buy aircraft carriers!" myth to damage the current government in the event of an election, rather than a serious analysis of what the Department is going to do. While I am sure there is a cubical somewhere in NDHQ devoted to looking into armed/attack helicopters, the size and scale of the other projects (combined with the budget crunch pointed out by our friends in the Ruxted Group) means there will not be enough resources or hands to manage that project in the near future.
If I was pressed to provide a solution that is near term, affordable and meets most of the needs I'd go for armed Predator UAV's and add Hellfire or BRIMESTONE ATGM's to our inventory. Sorry guys................
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
a_majoor said:
Is this option cheaper than choppers?
C
CrazyCanuck
Guest
A bit off topic here, but looking at that Lakota it's both smaller and slower than the Blackhawk, why are they replacing the Blackhawk with this?
UH72 is primarily replacing old UH1Hs, which can no longer be supported, and older OH58s. The principle issue for the UH1 is engine parts. The A/C model OH58s are no longer suitable for the recce role and cannot carry enough passengers to be useful in a utility role.
"Black Hawk" not "Blackhawk".
UAVs have their place, but will not replace a manned aircraft for a long time to come and are certainly no substitute for a recce or attack/armed helicopter.
Proposing helicopters that use old technology and/or are no longer in production (BO-105/Lynx) is a non-starter.
"Black Hawk" not "Blackhawk".
UAVs have their place, but will not replace a manned aircraft for a long time to come and are certainly no substitute for a recce or attack/armed helicopter.
Proposing helicopters that use old technology and/or are no longer in production (BO-105/Lynx) is a non-starter.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GAP said:
Or better yet, don't rely on wikipedia ...
http://www.army.mil/-news/2006/12/11/923-army-unveils-light-utility-helicopter-uh-72a-lakota/
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Loachman said:
I just wanted to qualify one issue as I've been an advocate of armed UAV's as priority in procurement for a while now.
My issue is the tactical application of UAV's vs armed escort helicopters.
Specifically, I can envision UAV's such as Predator B being used as medium altitude route provers flying in advance of the Chinooks and looking downward from an eagle eye's view to try to identify any thermal signatures. With that view, commanders can choose to reroute the trailing Chinooks while either the Predator or another local air asset commences an attack on the ground threat.
On the other hand, especially at altitudes such are present in Afghanistan I would envision attack helicopters being very limited in their ability to gain sufficient altitude to give them much more than a forward looking view which still guarantees significant cover for an enemy MANPADS ambush. It is only after the MANPADS has been launched that a helicopter escort can provide return fire which frankly seems equivalent to the old analogy of dedicating assets to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Bluntly if a Chinook is in flames, whether or not the counterattack killed the Taliban who fired the missile is completely irrelevant.
Matthew.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,304
- Points
- 1,160
What about the ability to protect the downed aircraft & any still living occupants? What about killing the attackers if they miss the first shot? Overwatch while the Chinook is on the ground loading/unloading? What about those few times that the ambush is spotted before it is sprung, or when they are using RPG and HMG instead of manpads?Cdn Blackshirt said:
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
What about the ability to protect the downed aircraft & any still living occupants? - Combination of additional missiles on Predator, loitering fixed wing assets and perhaps the addition of mini-guns (like GAU 2) door-mounted on Chinooks?
What about killing the attackers if they miss the first shot? - Again, I still think this scenario favours the UAV. If there's a miss, the helicopters scram and UAV keeps eyes-on and then vectors in fixed wing aircraft to conduct the attack. If you have escort helicopters I would never want them to stick around to continue a battle with MANPADS armed infantry as I think they'd lose.
Overwatch while the Chinook is on the ground loading/unloading? - UAV with Hellfire? (if we're talking about allied forces too, then AC-130 would be a nice dedicated escort too - just on this note, perhaps its time that the allied forces began using the equivalent of a helicopter convoy system similar the allied shipping model used in WW1 and improved in WWII).
What about those few times that the ambush is spotted before it is sprung, or when they are using RPG and HMG instead of manpads? - If spotted early then I'd reroute and allow loitering fixed wing to take-out target. I should add, I would never base a procurement strategy on older technology when the bad guys are already using MANPADS in theatre. That should be the threat both procurement and tactics are constructed to counter.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Attack/Escort Helicopters don't provide a valuable capability. What I am saying is the capability provided by the UAV could be better because it's likely to give you a greater ability to avoid the ambush altogether which I think should be the greatest priority.
Matthew.
What about killing the attackers if they miss the first shot? - Again, I still think this scenario favours the UAV. If there's a miss, the helicopters scram and UAV keeps eyes-on and then vectors in fixed wing aircraft to conduct the attack. If you have escort helicopters I would never want them to stick around to continue a battle with MANPADS armed infantry as I think they'd lose.
Overwatch while the Chinook is on the ground loading/unloading? - UAV with Hellfire? (if we're talking about allied forces too, then AC-130 would be a nice dedicated escort too - just on this note, perhaps its time that the allied forces began using the equivalent of a helicopter convoy system similar the allied shipping model used in WW1 and improved in WWII).
What about those few times that the ambush is spotted before it is sprung, or when they are using RPG and HMG instead of manpads? - If spotted early then I'd reroute and allow loitering fixed wing to take-out target. I should add, I would never base a procurement strategy on older technology when the bad guys are already using MANPADS in theatre. That should be the threat both procurement and tactics are constructed to counter.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Attack/Escort Helicopters don't provide a valuable capability. What I am saying is the capability provided by the UAV could be better because it's likely to give you a greater ability to avoid the ambush altogether which I think should be the greatest priority.
Matthew.
UAVs rely completely on sensors. Sensors have technical advantages over the human eye, but limitations too. One limitation is a narrow field of view. Whatever realm(s) they operate in limit them as well.
I spent a total of a year flying on two police helicopter trials (Peel Region and Toronto). In both cases, all self-generated contacts came from me, the pilot operating by naked eye, rather than the police observer generally using the IR. In many instances, these were things that I initially noticed in my peripheral vision.
If there's a sensor out there with good peripheral vision, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there that can carry a decent weapon mix and load, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there that can manoeuvre rapidly and react quickly to a changing situation, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there that could land, if necessary, and pick up survivors, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there with the employment flexibility of a helicopter, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there with the computer equivalent of two or more human brains - and that's on just one of the escort helicopters, of which there should be a minimum of two - please let me know. Do not underestimate the value of a trained and skilled human pilot or other crewman with the capability to spot something simply because it doesn't quite look right.
Whatever the manufacturer's slick brochure says, wide field of view", "decent weapon mix and load", "manoeuvre rapidly and react quickly to a changing situation", and "employment flexibility" are not the same as mine.
Truck, tank, armed helicopter, UAV - different vehicles, different characteristics, different strengths and weaknesses - all have their place, but no one can do all jobs.
Technology has a long way to go before a UAV can replace a manned battlefield helicopter. It's not going to happen until way after I hit CRA. Were I to find myself flying a big bulbous Chinook stuffed with troops and managed to survive the embarassment, I'd much rather have a pair of AHs buzzing around than a UAV. I'd put my money/life on the likelihood of the AHs detecting and responding much more quickly and effectively than a UAV anyday (of course, there's nothing wrong with having a UAV around as well - just the notion that it would be as useful).
MANPADS do not guarantee a hit - or even a successful launch, given the Taliban's maintenance and servicing capabilities. So far there is no wide-spread use. Hellfire can engage from beyond MANPADs range, and cannon can engage from beyond HMG and RPG range.
What's the difference between a "helicopter convoy system" and an airmobile operation as we currently conduct?
Current doctrine includes alternate routes and contact drills.
I spent a total of a year flying on two police helicopter trials (Peel Region and Toronto). In both cases, all self-generated contacts came from me, the pilot operating by naked eye, rather than the police observer generally using the IR. In many instances, these were things that I initially noticed in my peripheral vision.
If there's a sensor out there with good peripheral vision, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there that can carry a decent weapon mix and load, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there that can manoeuvre rapidly and react quickly to a changing situation, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there that could land, if necessary, and pick up survivors, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there with the employment flexibility of a helicopter, please let me know.
If there's a UAV out there with the computer equivalent of two or more human brains - and that's on just one of the escort helicopters, of which there should be a minimum of two - please let me know. Do not underestimate the value of a trained and skilled human pilot or other crewman with the capability to spot something simply because it doesn't quite look right.
Whatever the manufacturer's slick brochure says, wide field of view", "decent weapon mix and load", "manoeuvre rapidly and react quickly to a changing situation", and "employment flexibility" are not the same as mine.
Truck, tank, armed helicopter, UAV - different vehicles, different characteristics, different strengths and weaknesses - all have their place, but no one can do all jobs.
Technology has a long way to go before a UAV can replace a manned battlefield helicopter. It's not going to happen until way after I hit CRA. Were I to find myself flying a big bulbous Chinook stuffed with troops and managed to survive the embarassment, I'd much rather have a pair of AHs buzzing around than a UAV. I'd put my money/life on the likelihood of the AHs detecting and responding much more quickly and effectively than a UAV anyday (of course, there's nothing wrong with having a UAV around as well - just the notion that it would be as useful).
MANPADS do not guarantee a hit - or even a successful launch, given the Taliban's maintenance and servicing capabilities. So far there is no wide-spread use. Hellfire can engage from beyond MANPADs range, and cannon can engage from beyond HMG and RPG range.
What's the difference between a "helicopter convoy system" and an airmobile operation as we currently conduct?
Current doctrine includes alternate routes and contact drills.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,392
- Points
- 1,160
We had a FLIR on our hovercraft, we only used if we had an extra person as we felt the lookout with a searchlight and gyro-stablized binos was worth more. I know of several instances personally where we found people based on a glimpse that did not look right, something that would have been lost to a camera. Same reason why we held onto our analog radars for so long, the digital based radars had a bad habit of glossing over (sometimes very hard) small targets.
FLIR sucks in fog
FLIR sucks in fog
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
I'm sorry Loachman, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're throwing a series of strawmen arguments. Weapons load was addressed with an admission that follow-up munitions would likely require the intervention of other loitering fixed wing aircraft. Rapid Maneuvre if at altitude shouldn't be necessary because if done right, the enemy would never know you were there. To land and pick-up survivors is exactly why I suggested arming the Chinooks.
My point is that from altitude using thermal sensors you should be able to prove the route prior to overflight with the Chinooks better than a low level helicopter, thus dramatically reducing the number of times you'd need to react and do some of the things you list....not to mention the fact, I continue to believe that the technology balance has shifted and with MANPADS, attack helicopters are at a distinct disadvantage in a one-on-one confrontation at low levels once you're already inside the enemy's effective range.
Candidly, I think the following are evidence that thermal sensors from medium altitude looking directly down do provide a better angle of view than a low level helicopter and because of that altitude, you don't need peripheral vision. All you need to see is what is below you.
Link to AC-130 MPEG's: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=AC-130
Link to Predator UAV MPEG's: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Predator+UAV
RE: Air Mobile Operations vs Convoy System - I'm completely out of my lane as to what your current tactics are in-theatre, so I'd 100% defer to you on that....
Cheers, Matthew.
P.S. Am I hallucinating, or isn't it true that the Chinook is actually faster than either AH-64 or AH-1 and as such the Chinook would have to slow down to allow the escort to keep up? Many thanks in advance....
My point is that from altitude using thermal sensors you should be able to prove the route prior to overflight with the Chinooks better than a low level helicopter, thus dramatically reducing the number of times you'd need to react and do some of the things you list....not to mention the fact, I continue to believe that the technology balance has shifted and with MANPADS, attack helicopters are at a distinct disadvantage in a one-on-one confrontation at low levels once you're already inside the enemy's effective range.
Candidly, I think the following are evidence that thermal sensors from medium altitude looking directly down do provide a better angle of view than a low level helicopter and because of that altitude, you don't need peripheral vision. All you need to see is what is below you.
Link to AC-130 MPEG's: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=AC-130
Link to Predator UAV MPEG's: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Predator+UAV
RE: Air Mobile Operations vs Convoy System - I'm completely out of my lane as to what your current tactics are in-theatre, so I'd 100% defer to you on that....
Cheers, Matthew.
P.S. Am I hallucinating, or isn't it true that the Chinook is actually faster than either AH-64 or AH-1 and as such the Chinook would have to slow down to allow the escort to keep up? Many thanks in advance....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I'll take the Apache ...
- Reaction score
- 22,822
- Points
- 1,360
A Griffon with a balance between payload, fuel, up scaled armament and crew could allow a number of operational employment scenarios to be supported in many theatres. No weapon system is able to load up with maximum quantities of all munitions/supplies/consumables...there is always a trade off somewhere -- more gas, less ammunition, fewer troops, etc... The Griffon is no exception.
Frankly, the only thing that would keep this from happening to the Griffon is lack of will at any number of levels. There are easily achievable solutions out there, many actually having been prototyped on numerous occasions. If folks don't want it to happen, though (perhaps because they want to spend the money on something else, for instance)...it won't. That's how it works.
This isn't the first time this has been floated and it won't be the last. The tactical aviation community has tried desperately to beef up the Griffon's overall capability, but the reality is, it is the runt of the Air Force litter and gets pushed out of the way at the money/feeding trough time and time again. Case in point, as CSA105 mentioned...ERSTA (electro-optical reconnaissance, surveillance and target-acquisition system). Senior staff were reviewing capital projects years ago...ERSTA comes up as the next item on the agenda, someone asks "who wants this project?" Air Force and Army reps sat staring at each other as crickets provide background music...result? ERSTA killed.
Notwithstanding that it is an absolute truism that heavy lift must be escorted (either mutually or via standoff) and we are supposed to be getting Chinooks somewhere down the road, I honestly see the CF brokering a deal with some other nation to provide escort, before there is any more money invested in the Griffon.
The sad part is, the Griffon is an awesome machine for what it was actually intended to do...be a light utility helicopter (LUH)...exactly what the Huey was in the US and what the UH-72 Lakota is going to do as its replacement. It was everyone placing absolutely unrealistic expectations on it, like replacing the Chinook, Twin Huey and Kiowa all-in-one, that gave it the bad rap it seems to have today.
There are some that say it's actually a pretty nice machine to fly, in a whole range of jobs. I'd listen to what the actual Griffon drivers have to say, they are actually the one crowd that doesn't badmouth the machine like everyone else does...although apparently some folks would like to see a bigger Nr indicator...
- M134 7.62mm minigun from Dillon? Doable.
- GAU-19A 0.50cal Vulcan from GDAS? Doable.
- 2.75" APKWS rockets from BAE Sys? Doable.
- AGM-114K/M from Lockheed Martin? Doable.
- Transmission upgrade from Bell? Doable.
- Upgraded PT-6-9 w/FADEC from P&WC? Doable.
- Enhanced controlability mods from BLR? Doable.
- Getting enough people (military and gov't alike) to agree that it's worth doing? Ummmmmmm..... :-\
G2G
Frankly, the only thing that would keep this from happening to the Griffon is lack of will at any number of levels. There are easily achievable solutions out there, many actually having been prototyped on numerous occasions. If folks don't want it to happen, though (perhaps because they want to spend the money on something else, for instance)...it won't. That's how it works.
This isn't the first time this has been floated and it won't be the last. The tactical aviation community has tried desperately to beef up the Griffon's overall capability, but the reality is, it is the runt of the Air Force litter and gets pushed out of the way at the money/feeding trough time and time again. Case in point, as CSA105 mentioned...ERSTA (electro-optical reconnaissance, surveillance and target-acquisition system). Senior staff were reviewing capital projects years ago...ERSTA comes up as the next item on the agenda, someone asks "who wants this project?" Air Force and Army reps sat staring at each other as crickets provide background music...result? ERSTA killed.
Notwithstanding that it is an absolute truism that heavy lift must be escorted (either mutually or via standoff) and we are supposed to be getting Chinooks somewhere down the road, I honestly see the CF brokering a deal with some other nation to provide escort, before there is any more money invested in the Griffon.
The sad part is, the Griffon is an awesome machine for what it was actually intended to do...be a light utility helicopter (LUH)...exactly what the Huey was in the US and what the UH-72 Lakota is going to do as its replacement. It was everyone placing absolutely unrealistic expectations on it, like replacing the Chinook, Twin Huey and Kiowa all-in-one, that gave it the bad rap it seems to have today.
There are some that say it's actually a pretty nice machine to fly, in a whole range of jobs. I'd listen to what the actual Griffon drivers have to say, they are actually the one crowd that doesn't badmouth the machine like everyone else does...although apparently some folks would like to see a bigger Nr indicator...
- M134 7.62mm minigun from Dillon? Doable.
- GAU-19A 0.50cal Vulcan from GDAS? Doable.
- 2.75" APKWS rockets from BAE Sys? Doable.
- AGM-114K/M from Lockheed Martin? Doable.
- Transmission upgrade from Bell? Doable.
- Upgraded PT-6-9 w/FADEC from P&WC? Doable.
- Enhanced controlability mods from BLR? Doable.
- Getting enough people (military and gov't alike) to agree that it's worth doing? Ummmmmmm..... :-\
G2G
Similar threads
