Rumour regarding Medium Lift

[FSTO]

Heard a rumour that since the Griffons seem to be incapable of handling the army requirements for medium lift in Afghanistan that the sea kings will be pressed into service in Afghanistan. Someone please tell me that this is wild conjecture and that there is no truth to it.

Thank-you

 

[mcnutt_p]

To the best of my knowledge Canada does not even have any aviation assest currently deployed in Afghanistan. Personally if the CF were to deploy helo's to Afghanistan, they would probably deploy the CH-146. Just imagine what would happen politically if a Sea King were to crash over there.

If they have not destroyed or sold the CH-113's why not deploy them.  The USMC has had good success with the Sea Knights over there according to reports.

 

[Slim]

Heard a rumour that since the Griffons seem to be incapable of handling the army requirements for medium lift in Afghanistan that the sea kings will be pressed into service in Afghanistan. Someone please tell me that this is wild conjecture and that there is no truth to it.

Thank-you

No personal knowledge but highly unlikely as those things need so much support and can barely do the job they have now. Also there are not (to my knowledge) enough to go around as it is.

Slim

 

[Inch]

When a Sea King is at sea, the serviceability is great, there's 11 dedicated techs per aircraft and unless something major breaks (which can happen to any aircraft), you're flying your arse off.

Also there are not (to my knowledge) enough to go around as it is.

Slim, are you keeping tabs on the 12 Wing Flying Program? Knowing how army.ca has been used as a reference before, I'll keep the goings on to myself and those with access to the DWAN.

Oh and McNutt, the CH113s were about as serviceable as the Sea Kings, at least there's still qualified aircrew and techs for the Sea Kings.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I'll just throw this out there and then leave this topic to those who know:

The Brits (Royal Navy) have been using Sea Kings for transport in Bosnia for many years...  Of course, theirs are a tad newer than ours...

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2006.html

 

[aesop081]

I'll just throw this out there and then leave this topic to those who know:

The Brits (Royal Navy) have been using Sea Kings for transport in Bosnia for many years...   Of course, theirs are a tad newer than ours...

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2006.html

The brit Sea King Mk4 is not an ASW version like our is.  Theirs is a troop transport.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Ahh yes, very true... They're Mk 4s...  I'll stop talking now... ;D

 

[Sam69]

The brit Sea King Mk4 is not an ASW version like our is.  Theirs is a troop transport.

True - but the Brits also recently took five surplus to need Mk6s (ASW) and converted them for troop transport to supplement the Junglies (Mk4). There is no good reason, in my mind, why we couldn't do the same with ours if an operational need were to be identified.

Sam

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Question from an Army guy, then:

Did our Sea Kings not provide over the beach support in Somalia?   I seem to vaguely remember pictures to that effect and remember (when I was in Halifax 1996/97) being asked to provide C-6s for door gun training...   If so, did we modify them?

 

[Sam69]

The three Sea Kings that served in Somalia were lightly modified to optimize them for the logistics support role. The SONAR reeling machine was removed, an additional three troops seats were fitted (for a total of six), and a C-9 was mounted in the cargo door (which proved pretty much useless and was later replaced by the C-6). As well, two of the birds had FLIR installed for night recce.

As it was, the three SKs flew a variety of mission types in support of the CJTF but the most common was what would be termed (I believe) administrative logistic support. As the deployment stretched on, the ratio of recce missions increased as the amount of direct logistic support required from PRESERVER diminished and as the SK crews grew more proficient in the nighttime recce role. Several SKs were targeted by ground fire during operations over both Mogadishu and Kismayu but none were damaged.

PRESERVER and her three SKs left Somalia in Mar 03 after the 427 Sqn Twin Hueys became operational in Belet Huen and took over the mission to provide support to the Army ashore.

Sam

 

[aesop081]

True - but the Brits also recently took five surplus to need Mk6s (ASW) and converted them for troop transport to supplement the Junglies (Mk4). There is no good reason, in my mind, why we couldn't do the same with ours if an operational need were to be identified.

Sam

True.  But why not get a purpose-built machine ? Or Should we recycle the CH-124 into the tac hel role after the new CH-148 reaches operational status ?

 

[mcnutt_p]

The three Sea Kings that served in Somalia were lightly modified to optimize them for the logistics support role. The SONAR reeling machine was removed, an additional three troops seats were fitted (for a total of six), and a C-9 was mounted in the cargo door (which proved pretty much useless and was later replaced by the C-6). As well, two of the birds had FLIR installed for night recce.

Sam

If Canada were to send helo's to Afghanistan, the chopper they should send should be the CH-146.

If the goverment decides to send any CH-146 would they need any modificatons other then the C6 mounted to them?

 

[Sam69]

True.  But why not get a purpose-built machine ? Or Should we recycle the CH-124 into the tac hel role after the new CH-148 reaches operational status ?

Good questions. I have no specific answers.

The TALC project will procure a medium-heavy lift helicopter as announced in the DPS. That is pretty much a given (barring a change of gov't and a new policy statement). I suppose the question is: what do you do in the interim?

Sam

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

If Canada were to send helo's to Afghanistan, the chopper they should send should be the CH-146.

If the goverment decides to send any CH-146 would they need any modificatons other then the C6 mounted to them?

Why do you say this?  AFAIK (based on experience with 427 Sqn in Bosnia), a Griffon isn't much use in a troop-carrying role with door guns and the armour kit, especially in the heat and altitude of Kandahar...

Sam, thanks for the info...

Cheers,

TR

 

[mcnutt_p]

What is the number of troops the Griffon can carry with the add on armour and the door guns? Is it more the the Sea King?

The reason I said use the Griffons is because of what I have read about the with SFOR and KFOR.

 

[Slim]

Slim, are you keeping tabs on the 12 Wing Flying Program? Knowing how army.ca has been used as a reference before, I'll keep the goings on to myself and those with access to the DWAN.

No...Just talking out of my lane. I'll stop now.

Good info on this thread guys.

Lets remember OPSEC though.

Cheers

Slim
)Moving back to the slow lane now ;D )

 

[Inch]

No...Just talking out of my lane. I'll stop now.

Good info on this thread guys.

Lets remember OPSEC though.

Cheers

Slim
)Moving back to the slow lane now ;D )

Ha! I didn't mean it that way, I was just marvelling at how close to the mark you were with your availability comment. It's almost as if you were watching the 12 Wing Flying Program and saw me get cancelled for my check ride for the 3rd time.

What is the number of troops the Griffon can carry with the add on armour and the door guns? Is it more the the Sea King?

The reason I said use the Griffons is because of what I have read about the with SFOR and KFOR.

The Sea King has a max Take off weight of 20,500 lbs, the Griffon is under 12,000 lbs. If you were to strip out the Sonar reeling machine or just take one of the CH124Bs that already have the sonar reeling machine removed, plus remove a few other things that aren't needed for overland operations you could get the empty weight down to around 14,500 lbs or less, add in 3 crew members, a C6, and a self defense suite and you're looking at around 15,300ish lbs for an operating weight. If you were to only take 3000lbs of fuel (the Griffon carries max 2200lbs I believe) that would leave you with 2200lbs of payload, or about 8 crunchies weighing in at 275 lbs each. Take only 2000 lbs of fuel and you could get a whole section with all their kit in the aircraft providing enough seats were installed or it could sling 3200 lbs of cargo. The Griffon cannot do this, I know it. I don't have the exact numbers, any Griffon drivers care to comment?

Now, I don't have my check list on me right now, but the air density will play a factor in this too, but IMO, the Sea King will still be able to lift more men and equipment than a Griffon in similar atmospheric conditions.

 

[childs56]

Ahh the Sea King. Great helo. I would figure they will send them in to get rid of mission essiental equipment and also replace some components that may be prone to failure. Big plans i guess for the boys deployed in the Sea King world. I mean give up your comfy ship for a tent or a trailer. Oh well ehh no life like it. Actually if they do send Sea Kings that is where i would want to go. A great Helo with much more ability then we use them for. Some one is thinking and trying to use our resources to its fullest. Good on them.  Cheers

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Waaay out of my lane now, but if memory serves, Griffons - with armour and door guns - were lifting (on average) 4 pax in Bosnia.  That's with all their fighting order, weapons, etc...  Lots of lifts to get even a platoon moved.

 

[Slim]

Ha! I didn't mean it that way, I was just marvelling at how close to the mark you were with your availability comment. It's almost as if you were watching the 12 Wing Flying Program and saw me get cancelled for my check ride for the 3rd time.

I have a cousin who is a Griffon driver in Edmonton right now...he and I chat now and then and he has given me some of the numbers and what not...Also the navy guys talk occasionally about how they don't always have a helo to go with a deployed ship.

Just adding up the numbers.

Cheers

Slim