Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[foresterab]

My take on the Griffon is it is the heliborne version of the MilCOTS vs SMP truck debate.

The Griffon will continue to serve well enough domestically where "440+" perforations are unlikely (unless hail or 7.62mm ball point). The fleet can be upgraded/replaced over time in Squadron size sets. With Hook additions. And I do see a place for the Valor. Just like I see a place for Challengers in the jet transport fleet. Sometimes you need to move a small crew fast.

But as GR66 points out it is a lot of capability to be used just humping a dozen infantry around Southern Alberta, or Nunavut.
On the other hand maybe it is just the thing when dodging bullets in Afghanistan. But 440 mph Mosquitoes were being brought down with machine guns and 20mm cannons and F100s were downed by Golden BBs.

Like FJAG I see no reason to chuck perfectly useable kit just because something better comes along. I would still keep the Griffon as domestic utility bird even as the fleet was upgraded to the marinized UH-1Y, AH-1Z pair. Aircraft that can operate over salt water as well as dust, snow and fresh water. Aircraft that can operate from an AOPS, a CSC or an AOR or a Multi-Role Support Ship. And that can self-deploy. Not intercontinentally but certainly over long distances.

With respect to the helicopter vs LAV debate. Domestically I see a lot more utility in helicopters than in LAVs. With 250 or so small battalions of a village, or large company every 100 km or so (30 to 40,000 km2) with no roads or rail connecting them, floods and fires, fuel and food shortages, lost souls, medical emergencies, I see lots of opportunities for utility helicopters to make themselves useful when not carting Anti-Tank teams around some distant theatre.

Equally I see lots of places for helicopters to add to logistical support overseas in peace and war. And heliborne troops making a difference in all types of combat. Especially when operating with national combat air support.

....

In the RCAF we have 85 Griffons and 15 Chinooks. And that is augmentable with SARs 4 Twin Otters and 15 CH-149s as well as 17 J-series Hercs and 5 CC-177s to enhance tactical air movement domestically. And internationally.

Edit: Actually with all the hard strips around Canada the troops could fly in relative luxury in the CC-150s and join up with flown-in kit.

I will stipulate the Griffon is not a Blackhawk. Even the Venom and Viper are not Blackhawks. But they would improve the capabilities of the force over time. And maybe you aren't allowed to buy Zulus because they look wrong but you could, perhaps, buy Yankees and use them as better gunship escorts. And if you get a friendly government maybe they will let you buy some proper gunships.

Support vehicles that can be delivered by Griffons and Chinooks, designed to accompany and support foot-borne troops over broken, soft and wet terrain should also be acquired for local, short-range manoeuver on the ground. Long range movement (50 km or more) would be by air.

In the meantime work can be done with the kit available.

Now if only the infantry were properly equipped with the right suite of man portable support weapons they could carry with them in the helicopters that were available.

In the meantime, with the LAVs/Leos and ACSVs that are on hand or in production - FJAG could get a full Swedish model Combined Arms Brigade of 3 Pansar Units and a Cavalry Unit, preposition one battle group set in Poland, keep another set in the warehouse in Canada, and still have vehicles left over for training regs and reserves at home. Vehicles enough, that, if required a light battalion could be re-roled to supply LAV companies.

And then we can start concentrating on the Arty.

It's an interesting take on the air mobile assets as this is something that I often mentally toss around as an opportunity Canada could take that would be of major interests to our international partners and domestic ops.

85 Griffon Bell 412 helicopters can be augmented by the fairly significant civilian medium fleet that is currently mostly used for domestic operations (i.e. wildfire) and/or tourism (heliskiing). These are primarily Bell model 204/204/212 and while some go back to early Vietnam the older airframes have slowly been getting retired as "newer" frames become available. The nice thing is that there are some common parts and more importantly similar capacities at least amongst the civilian frames that could be a big surge capacity. Unfortunately there is a big utilization delta between RCAF machines and civilian models in that almost all civilian pilots are limited to full visibility flight operations only - hence the ask for Griffons to assist on wildfires to operate under zero vis conditions in intelligence roles due to their advanced training and instruments. For context the 2016 Horse River fire in Fort MacMurray, AB had 170 helicopters (all types) on wildfire mostly of Medium (Bell 212) or intermediate (A-star 350's) types.

There are a much smaller number of heavy lift helicopters out there but they do exist, primiarily in BC due to heli-logging, that also could be surged. The issue with these is that they require much more robust operating sites due to fuel needs/weight vs. a medium that can operate via drum fuel in the middle of the woods. They also tend to be a much wider range of models - Russian and American - which has significant issues on pilot training and parts. The Chinook is a great airframe in this niche and again should be maintained, if not expanded, by the RCAF.

Lights and intermediates are much more varied. 20 years ago the Bell 206/Kiowa was the standard frame but they have largely been replaced the A-star 350 frame (and many sub-models) as a larger, faster, more comfortable machine of similar costs. Great for moving technically 5 adults but you're not hauling gear and it's a tight fit to fit that many on board. 4 lighter troops and webbing plus limited support gear is an option but you're either hauling gear or people. Go down to a tiny Robson R-22 and it's 2 people and a coffee mug only....so the question is under what roles would such a fleet be of use beyond domestics and/or limited UN missions. These are not airframes that the RCAF should be focused upon beyond initial training machines. .

In regards to fixed wing operations I know air tankers/water bombers but wonder how much freight can be transported in say, Northern Ontario or Quebec via the small armada of float planes used for local transport/fishing guides/communities. That being said it's small individual packages and a CC-130 would be a far superior option if sufficient frames occurred.

Looking forward...if we can not afford to support say a Heavy Tank Brigade then we should be looking at other key needs of our international obligations. Transport, especially heavy transport, in both helicopter and fixed wing is constantly coming up in both NATO/UN/Domestic asks and is one skill set I think Canada should be looking at more. This means expanding at minimum the C-130 fleet and possibly longer term looking at additional heavy lifters like the A-400 other NATO partners are using in the absence of the C-17 line.

Tradeoffs for consideration - cost of new purchase of airframes vs. eventual replacement cost of the Leopards? Manpower needs for a battalion of armor vs. squadron of transports? Training costs? Deployment rate and impact upon the greater Canadian Armed Forces? Is this acceptable to our partners? It's a purely political decision but also aligns the current political funding support of the Armed Forces maybe better with the mission profile that support would received for?

Sorry for the ramble over morning coffee but made me think about it more again,
foresterab

 

[FJAG]

Thought I'd throw in a sentence or two on the helo issue.

Back to the theme here for Force 2025 being one for stabilizing force structure into something "better" and "sustainable" while we ponder Force 2030. (and while recognizing that RCAF assets aren't part of the Force 2025 initiative anyway)

We have enough tactical lift helicopters to suit our purposes. While there are ten squadrons flying Griffons, one is oriented SOF, four are base support and search and rescue and one is a training squadron. That basically leaves four squadrons (one of which has the role of providing armed escorts when necessary) for tactical lift. Add to that the Chinook squadron and you probably have enough lift capacity for one battalion plus a supporting artillery battery.

What I see as a problem (aside from the obvious lack of attack helicopters and that I'm not a fan of the Griffon) is that 1 Wing is not a CAB and that the aviation resources are not concentrated enough and it's not properly equipped for it to be a real CAB. The spreading around of squadrons is part of Canada's fetish for ensuring that everyone gets a little bit of everything and not enough of anything.

So, again, if I were king, and if I carry through to shuffle the Army into the one heavy, one mech and one light brigade (because that's what we have gear for) then I'd do the following:

1) make 1 Wing a real CAB - not in name but in equipment and capability to deploy as an entity and provide all of its squadrons with the necessary operational and maintenance support (and training) to operate as a unified formation.

2) move 408 squadron from Edmonton to Petawawa. In my kingdom, 1 CMBG is an armoured brigade and 2 CMBG becomes a light brigade. 1 Wing's primary focus is to support the light brigade. Moving 408 would give Pet it's own (non SOF) squadron as well as the Chinooks. On top of that, 400 Sqn in Borden, 430 Sqn in Quebec and 438 Sqn at St Hubert, are close enough to Kingston (1 Wings HQ) and Pet that they can easily combine for training. In time I would consider moving 1 Wing HQ to Pet as well but it's not pressing.

I realize that by removing a squadron from 1 CABG would deprive it of helicopter support but essentially I can live with that. 1 CABG focuses on armoured mech ops with little scope for tactical lift. What they lose during training is experience with recce and medivac. That can be remedied by sending a flight to work with them annually and concentrating much more on UAV supported operations.

By leaving 430 Sqn in Quebec and 438 in Montreal, 5 CMBG can practice all aspects of aviation skills regularly as they have a higher probability of having some of their troops operate light on occasion than 1 CABG.

2 CLBG needs the bulk of helicopter resources and in addition to doing year round training with 408 and 450 squadrons (and on occasion 427 Sqn) it should have at least one exercise annually in Ontario where 408, 427, 400, 430, 438 and 450 Sqns all concentrate under 1 Wing to support a full light brigade's combined arms formation level operation.

As a Force 2030 (or 2035) objective I would focus on creating a real attack helicopter squadron in Pet. I thought of moving 438 Sqn from Montreal to Pet and redistributing its Griffons to the other Griffon squadrons but think that I'd rather make it a largely reserve force squadron instead. Ideally I'd like to brigade all the Griffons in one place to simplify the maintenance establishment for them but they are already spread all over hell and back as support and search and rescue capabilities so that's not optimal. I think the only practical ways to create robust Res F flights is by having squadrons close to the major cities, Toronto, Montreal and Quebec - and maybe Ottawa and Kingston to work with the Pet folks.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK.

If we are going to continue stretching the envelope then 2 CBG, and 1 Wing, need to move to the centre of the domestic area of operations.

Yellowknife.

Valcartier is close enough to Ottawa, Kingston and Gagetown to be the central element in Eastern Canada. Valcartier can work a little harder. And it and Edmonton can make use of their LAVs on the Highways.

Edmonton is already expected to cover Yellowknife, Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay.

Yellowknife at 62N is still further south than Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright and Eielson Air Base at 64N. And by the time you moved 2 CBG and 1 Wing into town its population would be the same as Fairbanks.

Assuming you can get southerners from Ottawa to express their true, patriot love for the true north strong and free by standing on guard.

Edit: I would be willing to accept the retention of 2 CBG and the collocation of 1 Wing at Petawawa if there were a permanently detached, rotating light battle group with a mixed Griffon/Chinook/UAS squadron located in Churchill - with a new rail line, an upgraded air field and an AOPS/AOR capable harbour.

Edit: The airport, railway and the harbour already exist.

 

[daftandbarmy]

OK.

If we are going to continue stretching the envelope then 2 CBG, and 1 Wing, need to move to the centre of the domestic area of operations.

Yellowknife.

Valcartier is close enough to Ottawa, Kingston and Gagetown to be the central element in Eastern Canada. Valcartier can work a little harder. And it and Edmonton can make use of their LAVs on the Highways.

Edmonton is already expected to cover Yellowknife, Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay.

Yellowknife at 62N is still further south than Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright and Eielson Air Base at 64N. And by the time you moved 2 CBG and 1 Wing into town its population would be the same as Fairbanks.

Assuming you can get southerners from Ottawa to express their true, patriot love for the true north strong and free by standing on guard.

Edit: I would be willing to accept the retention of 2 CBG and the collocation of 1 Wing at Petawawa if there were a permanently detached, rotating light battle group with a mixed Griffon/Chinook/UAS squadron located in Churchill - with a new rail line, an upgraded air field and an AOPS/AOR capable harbour.

Edit: The airport, railway and the harbour already exist.

Because Cold Lake isn't remote enough, right?

 

[Kirkhill]

Because Cold Lake isn't remote enough, right?

Because Cold Lake isn't Jointy enough. You can't get the Navy there.

And it ain't in the centre of the country. A flight of Chinooks in Churchill can ferry themselves anywhere in Canada, East Coast to West Coast and North of Resolute in something like 8 hours. I believe? As long as there is local airfield they can touch done on once they get to the area of operations they can gas up and get to work.

Edit: And Churchill needs development, as does the Hudson Bay Route - Add two Polar Icebreakers to the Port and start shipping lumber, furs, grain, gas and oil.

 

[McG]

With the great distances and and few runways across Canada’s north, tilt-rotor aircraft would give options even for operations at home.

 

[KevinB]

Because Cold Lake isn't Jointy enough. You can't get the Navy there.

And it ain't in the centre of the country. A flight of Chinooks in Churchill can ferry themselves anywhere in Canada, East Coast to West Coast and North of Resolute in something like 8 hours. I believe? As long as there is local airfield they can touch done on once they get to the area of operations they can gas up and get to work.

A Hook doesn't need a field - it just needs prepositioned fuel - which can be kicked out the back of a Herc if need be.
But I don't think that it best to have all the Helo's based up North
I would rather rotate Light units north on a seasonal aspect - like Alert postings.

Thought I'd throw in a sentence or two on the helo issue.

Back to the theme here for Force 2025 being one for stabilizing force structure into something "better" and "sustainable" while we ponder Force 2030. (and while recognizing that RCAF assets aren't part of the Force 2025 initiative anyway)

We have enough tactical lift helicopters to suit our purposes. While there are ten squadrons flying Griffons, one is oriented SOF, four are base support and search and rescue and one is a training squadron. That basically leaves four squadrons (one of which has the role of providing armed escorts when necessary) for tactical lift. Add to that the Chinook squadron and you probably have enough lift capacity for one battalion plus a supporting artillery battery.

Doing Kevin math - that makes roughly 8.5 birds / squadron of Griffons, I will use 10 for the Operational Sqn for simplicities sake.
10 x 4 = 40 Griffons
1 of which is doing "Armed Escort" - so 30 for available for UH purposes.
and 15 Hooks - which I suspect some are fairly hard dedicated to CANSOF, I'll say 3 for the purposes of this exercise.

1 Hook / M777 - is that a 6 or 8 gun Bty?
Lets say 4 for argument sake. - that leaves 8 Hooks to move people, and 30 Griffons.
Being generous I will let the Griffon carry 6 combat loaded troops with rucks etc.
Thats 180 troops.
If you squeeze really tight in a Hook with a combat load you are looking at a max of 40 troops - but realistically going north - your at a 30 pax max with toboggans etc. - so with 8 you have another 240.

Best case scenario you get all 15 hooks - you still need to cut some to the guns - and if you leave the guns - that's 450 troops going North - plus the Griffons - so a BN Minus in one sortie

What I see as a problem (aside from the obvious lack of attack helicopters and that I'm not a fan of the Griffon) is that 1 Wing is not a CAB and that the aviation resources are not concentrated enough and it's not properly equipped for it to be a real CAB. The spreading around of squadrons is part of Canada's fetish for ensuring that everyone gets a little bit of everything and not enough of anything.

The fairness aspect simply ensure no one has enough of anything to do anything -- a very Canadian solution

So, again, if I were king, and if I carry through to shuffle the Army into the one heavy, one mech and one light brigade (because that's what we have gear for) then I'd do the following:

I would make 4 Bde, using the reserves to bring the #'s up.
2 Light 1 Med, and 1 Mech (I refuse to call anything with LAV's Heavy regardless of the Leo 2).

1) make 1 Wing a real CAB - not in name but in equipment and capability to deploy as an entity and provide all of its squadrons with the necessary operational and maintenance support (and training) to operate as a unified formation.

2) move 408 squadron from Edmonton to Petawawa. In my kingdom, 1 CMBG is an armoured brigade and 2 CMBG becomes a light brigade. 1 Wing's primary focus is to support the light brigade. Moving 408 would give Pet it's own (non SOF) squadron as well as the Chinooks. On top of that, 400 Sqn in Borden, 430 Sqn in Quebec and 438 Sqn at St Hubert, are close enough to Kingston (1 Wings HQ) and Pet that they can easily combine for training. In time I would consider moving 1 Wing HQ to Pet as well but it's not pressing.

I realize that by removing a squadron from 1 CABG would deprive it of helicopter support but essentially I can live with that. 1 CABG focuses on armoured mech ops with little scope for tactical lift. What they lose during training is experience with recce and medivac. That can be remedied by sending a flight to work with them annually and concentrating much more on UAV supported operations.

By leaving 430 Sqn in Quebec and 438 in Montreal, 5 CMBG can practice all aspects of aviation skills regularly as they have a higher probability of having some of their troops operate light on occasion than 1 CABG.

I was following you until that -- I would colocate in 1 spot -- Sqn's can do away trips to the other locations for training every few months.

2 CLBG needs the bulk of helicopter resources and in addition to doing year round training with 408 and 450 squadrons (and on occasion 427 Sqn) it should have at least one exercise annually in Ontario where 408, 427, 400, 430, 438 and 450 Sqns all concentrate under 1 Wing to support a full light brigade's combined arms formation level operation.

As I said above - I think 1 Wing needs to be colocated in Pet.

As a Force 2030 (or 2035) objective I would focus on creating a real attack helicopter squadron in Pet. I thought of moving 438 Sqn from Montreal to Pet and redistributing its Griffons to the other Griffon squadrons but think that I'd rather make it a largely reserve force squadron instead. Ideally I'd like to brigade all the Griffons in one place to simplify the maintenance establishment for them but they are already spread all over hell and back as support and search and rescue capabilities so that's not optimal. I think the only practical ways to create robust Res F flights is by having squadrons close to the major cities, Toronto, Montreal and Quebec - and maybe Ottawa and Kingston to work with the Pet folks.

For 2030 - I'd be trying to find a Griffon replacement

 

[daftandbarmy]

Because Cold Lake isn't Jointy enough. You can't get the Navy there.

And it ain't in the centre of the country. A flight of Chinooks in Churchill can ferry themselves anywhere in Canada, East Coast to West Coast and North of Resolute in something like 8 hours. I believe? As long as there is local airfield they can touch done on once they get to the area of operations they can gas up and get to work.

Edit: And Churchill needs development, as does the Hudson Bay Route - Add two Polar Icebreakers to the Port and start shipping lumber, furs, grain, gas and oil.

Yeah, about that 'port thing':

N.W.T. premier urges investment in Arctic ports as sea ice recedes​

Bob McLeod says he wants to see at least 3 ports in the territory support increased shipping traffic​

Climate change has hurt the northern economy in ways few southern Canadians can appreciate, says Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod, but he also wants to make sure his territory benefits from increased shipping traffic as Arctic sea ice recedes.

"It's getting harder to resupply our communities," McLeod said in an interview Tuesday from Saskatoon, where he spoke at the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region summit.

"We rely a lot on ice roads. Their life span is getting shorter and shorter," he said.

McLeod noted fuel had to be flown into three communities last year.

Declining rainfall meant reservoirs didn't replenish enough for two hydroelectric facilities to run, meaning diesel generators had to be fired up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nwt-premier-urges-investment-arctic-ports-1.5223319

 

[KevinB]

With the great distances and and few runways across Canada’s north, tilt-rotor aircraft would give options even for operations at home.

I'm a firm believer that future CF rotary assets need to be tilt-rotor - if just for the Domestic aspect.
I would have preferred the V-22 to the Hook honestly - (sorry GTG) as I think it offers more to the CF.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm a firm believer that future CF rotary assets need to be tilt-rotor - if just for the Domestic aspect.
I would have preferred the V-22 to the Hook honestly - (sorry GTG) as I think it offers more to the CF.

As required, IIRC that alot of our domestic needs can be met through contracting with the private sector.

For example, the 'fire fighting' air fleets operating across the country during the summer can grow to be bigger than the RCAF, as I understand it

 

[foresterab]

.....

So, again, if I were king, and if I carry through to shuffle the Army into the one heavy, one mech and one light brigade (because that's what we have gear for) then I'd do the following:

1) make 1 Wing a real CAB - not in name but in equipment and capability to deploy as an entity and provide all of its squadrons with the necessary operational and maintenance support (and training) to operate as a unified formation.

2) move 408 squadron from Edmonton to Petawawa. In my kingdom, 1 CMBG is an armoured brigade and 2 CMBG becomes a light brigade. 1 Wing's primary focus is to support the light brigade. Moving 408 would give Pet it's own (non SOF) squadron as well as the Chinooks. On top of that, 400 Sqn in Borden, 430 Sqn in Quebec and 438 Sqn at St Hubert, are close enough to Kingston (1 Wings HQ) and Pet that they can easily combine for training. In time I would consider moving 1 Wing HQ to Pet as well but it's not pressing.

I realize that by removing a squadron from 1 CABG would deprive it of helicopter support but essentially I can live with that. 1 CABG focuses on armoured mech ops with little scope for tactical lift. What they lose during training is experience with recce and medivac. That can be remedied by sending a flight to work with them annually and concentrating much more on UAV supported operations.
....

FJAG,

So a question for you? I've worked with many ex-military pilots on wildfire duties from multiple nations from Vietnam to Australia to Norway and I wonder how difficult it would be to find a pilot/civilian charter that has the following:
1) Military background to allow for clear understand of command functions
2) Use of a Bell 212 for at least daytime Medivac. For reference we use them and/or Astar's for this depending on situation.
3) Use of a Astar or 212 for recce work? I use these folks as an intelligence asset when working Plans roles and to do low level flight and/or mapping and/or over C&C is possible and common uses for us.

What this does not allow however is:
A) Lack of experience if the concentrated squadrons do not work with 1CMBG
B) Lack of overland travel experience. A critical Canadian skill especially if you're into Mountain ops vs. coastal vs. artic training
C) Possible OPSEC issues due to radio usage. But these guys can already operate with CFB Cold Lake on fires (with permission) so less of an issue
D) possible insurance issues?

Again I'm looking at this from an augmentation, short term charter perspective as an alternative to maintaining a second, expensive fleet that is occasionally used for 1 CMBG. It's a trade off of dollars and accepting a lesser capacity potentially in order to maintain training at "good enough" levels....which might be fine for a Company Level or even Battalion exercise but should be not accepted if you're doing Combat Team (sorry...brain fart on the right term as that's a US expression) final mission training or Brigade level exercises.

It's looking at what's good enough vs. perfect scenario and when do we need each?
foresterab

 

[Kirkhill]

A Hook doesn't need a field - it just needs prepositioned fuel - which can be kicked out the back of a Herc if need be.
But I don't think that it best to have all the Helo's based up North
I would rather rotate Light units north on a seasonal aspect - like Alert postings.

As I noted, while I wish that we would post a heliborne force at Yellowknife, I recognize the lack of funds and will power. Thus my Churchill suggestion - a permanent station (like Alert) but with Aircraft and troops, perhaps from a heli-mobile brigade in Petawawa, rotating in and out. Long term, short term, some mix. It doesn't matter. So long as the presence and northern focus is established.

And I agree it would be better NOT to put all the helos up north. On the other hand it would be better to buy more VTOL craft so some could be permanently stationed further north to support northern security and development and military response.

Doing Kevin math - that makes roughly 8.5 birds / squadron of Griffons, I will use 10 for the Operational Sqn for simplicities sake.
10 x 4 = 40 Griffons
1 of which is doing "Armed Escort" - so 30 for available for UH purposes.
and 15 Hooks - which I suspect some are fairly hard dedicated to CANSOF, I'll say 3 for the purposes of this exercise.

1 Hook / M777 - is that a 6 or 8 gun Bty?
Lets say 4 for argument sake. - that leaves 8 Hooks to move people, and 30 Griffons.
Being generous I will let the Griffon carry 6 combat loaded troops with rucks etc.
Thats 180 troops.
If you squeeze really tight in a Hook with a combat load you are looking at a max of 40 troops - but realistically going north - your at a 30 pax max with toboggans etc. - so with 8 you have another 240.

Best case scenario you get all 15 hooks - you still need to cut some to the guns - and if you leave the guns - that's 450 troops going North - plus the Griffons - so a BN Minus in one sortie

Accepting that you are not going to get all the rotary wing assets into one place for one long range lift.

On the other hand a two stage lift might be doable.

Troops to a staging field, of which there are many in Canada, by CC-150 Polaris.
6 to 8 Hooks to self-deploy light to the staging field.
Hooks and troops join up to deploy to FOB. Troops to be moved in lifts over a 12 hour period?

Vehicles, Guns, Supplies and other large kit to be delivered by tactical landing, LAPES, airdrop or precision air drop to FOB by Hercs and CC-177s

The fairness aspect simply ensure no one has enough of anything to do anything -- a very Canadian solution

I would make 4 Bde, using the reserves to bring the #'s up.
2 Light 1 Med, and 1 Mech (I refuse to call anything with LAV's Heavy regardless of the Leo 2).


I was following you until that -- I would colocate in 1 spot -- Sqn's can do away trips to the other locations for training every few months.

As I said above - I think 1 Wing needs to be colocated in Pet.

For 2030 - I'd be trying to find a Griffon replacement

One of the problems with the collocation solution is that the Griffons are used every day. All over the place. And that is a good thing.

With their short legs they can't be centralized, they have to be dispersed. Just like Milverados.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yeah, about that 'port thing':

N.W.T. premier urges investment in Arctic ports as sea ice recedes​

Bob McLeod says he wants to see at least 3 ports in the territory support increased shipping traffic​

Climate change has hurt the northern economy in ways few southern Canadians can appreciate, says Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod, but he also wants to make sure his territory benefits from increased shipping traffic as Arctic sea ice recedes.

"It's getting harder to resupply our communities," McLeod said in an interview Tuesday from Saskatoon, where he spoke at the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region summit.

"We rely a lot on ice roads. Their life span is getting shorter and shorter," he said.

McLeod noted fuel had to be flown into three communities last year.

Declining rainfall meant reservoirs didn't replenish enough for two hydroelectric facilities to run, meaning diesel generators had to be fired up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nwt-premier-urges-investment-arctic-ports-1.5223319

Too bad they didn't have any exploitable natural gas up there.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm a firm believer that future CF rotary assets need to be tilt-rotor - if just for the Domestic aspect.
I would have preferred the V-22 to the Hook honestly - (sorry GTG) as I think it offers more to the CF.

I'm a firm believer that tilt-rotors have a place in the CF rotary assets inventory. Including domestically. If nothing else it would cut down on the need for airstrips with their maintenance and snow-clearance requirements.

However I also see a continuing need for utility birds with useful payloads but short legs. I also see, especially with foresterabs intervention, a greater exploitable opportunity with reserve flights and squadrons. There seems to be a large community of helicopter, and bush plane, pilots whose skills could be better utilized by making government aircraft available, in reserve, on demand, locally, for their use. Whether or not they are Air Force, Rangers or CASARA.

 

[Kirkhill]

As required, IIRC that alot of our domestic needs can be met through contracting with the private sector.

For example, the 'fire fighting' air fleets operating across the country during the summer can grow to be bigger than the RCAF, as I understand it

Maybe we just need a better plan and organization?

 

[lenaitch]

As required, IIRC that alot of our domestic needs can be met through contracting with the private sector.

For example, the 'fire fighting' air fleets operating across the country during the summer can grow to be bigger than the RCAF, as I understand it

One problem is the water bomber variant of the CL-415 doesn't have a lot of interior space to be of much use - it's all tanks. There is the Twin Otters. The Fire Boss (all private under contract as far as I know) is basically a water tank with an engine and cockpit strapped to it. Also, I'm not sure how suitable the CL-415 is for winter use.

 

[daftandbarmy]

One problem is the water bomber variant of the CL-415 doesn't have a lot of interior space to be of much use - it's all tanks. There is the Twin Otters. The Fire Boss (all private under contract as far as I know) is basically a water tank with an engine and cockpit strapped to it. Also, I'm not sure how suitable the CL-415 is for winter use.

I'm sure that there are other aircraft types, from Beavers to the biggest jet liners, that can be leased as required for a variety of reasons.

As a result, I'm not sure that you could argue successfully for a (big, sexy, expensive) tilt rotor for domestic purposes.

 

[foresterab]

One problem is the water bomber variant of the CL-415 doesn't have a lot of interior space to be of much use - it's all tanks. There is the Twin Otters. The Fire Boss (all private under contract as far as I know) is basically a water tank with an engine and cockpit strapped to it. Also, I'm not sure how suitable the CL-415 is for winter use.

In regards to wildfire support I would argue a more important tool would be adding C-130 airframes and using a modular MAFF's unit (these slid in and out as needed) similar to what the US uses with it's National Guard Units. Greater overall flexibility and better alignment with the Armed Forces overall mission. Keep in mind that the initial response will be by the province and usually the first response needed is air transport for civilian evacuations which means you do not want a specialized plane. Each province runs a slightly different mix of airframes and capacity in response to their local conditions and needs.

That being said there is a niche that is used by other countries - Malaysia, Thailand, Greece, Turkey where the CL-415 are used in a SAR role up to and including mid ocean landing if conditions work. This might be of more use on the West Coast on interior bays within the near shore than say the Atlantic.

The CL-515 is still in development and not ready for production but as I understand it will be able to better handle both suppression and transport needs. Viking still has only released concept details on these planes and search for interested parties.

Either way the MAFF's unit is a great tool and is often overlooked when looking at the "shiny" planes.
foresterab

 

[foresterab]

I'm sure that there are other aircraft types, from Beavers to the biggest jet liners, that can be leased as required for a variety of reasons.

As a result, I'm not sure that you could for a (big, sexy, expensive) tilt rotor for domestic purposes.

There's actually a fair number of heavy lift machines out there...the challange is finding a common fleet. Coulson for example has Sikorsky S61's the same as Vancouver Island Helicopters but others use the Bell 412ST or russian K-max or Kamov's. The challange is that many of these are lift only and do not have the capacity to move a platoon of men like a Chinook does....so if you only need sling loads moved you're find but not the people movers. They have become more popular on wildfires due to the sheer volume of water they can move in the right conditions but are a tool and not the solution to everything.

Fixed wing charters can be done up to a 737 level not bad....and frankly after that size you're into restricting which airports/strips can be used a lot. However the lead time for orders can be difficult as many, such as the Buffalo Airways fleet, are tied up with their regular contracts and may not be available short of either excessive premium prices or limited availability. Artic and rough strips also limit how many planes are out there but there are some sizable fleets out there folks don't think about...Kenn Borak Air based in Red Deer, AB for example runs Basler BT-67 planes (turbine engined DC-3/C-47) and is a main supplier to Antarctica that could also be used.

 

[KevinB]

I'm a firm believer that tilt-rotors have a place in the CF rotary assets inventory. Including domestically. If nothing else it would cut down on the need for airstrips with their maintenance and snow-clearance requirements.

However I also see a continuing need for utility birds with useful payloads but short legs. I also see, especially with foresterabs intervention, a greater exploitable opportunity with reserve flights and squadrons. There seems to be a large community of helicopter, and bush plane, pilots whose skills could be better utilized by making government aircraft available, in reserve, on demand, locally, for their use. Whether or not they are Air Force, Rangers or CASARA.

Osprey has a decent payload - granted the F model Hook does out do it (15k lbs versus 21k) - but larger tilts are coming.

I personally view civilian A/C as In Extremis use only - like a Dunkirk style evacuation - as they are not hardened against EW, ground fire - have no counter measures - and don't have TRF or Low/No Light Capability.

If I'd been in a Bell 412 instead of a -60, I would not be typing right now...