Canadian Forces helicopter capabilities (from pending Africa peace mission thread)

[Bird_Gunner45]

PSO is the new terminology and the MND was untraditionally clear on there being potential harm and some element of combat-like engagement if required, so even if Blue helmets are traipsed onto a C-17 leaving Trenton for the media, it would still allow for 'value-added activity' on the ground.  CH-147/146 package wouldn't be a bad thing either...worked pretty well supporting ops from K-har to the tip of the Horn and beyond.  :nod:

Regards,
G2G

So long as none of the SA-7s and SA-24's that Mali rebels may possess don't show up. With any luck these will be the same as the magical MANPADs the int reports always reported the Taliban as having.

Replacing Apaches with Griffons is akin to replacing a Leo II with a LAV.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20130715.aspx

 

[Kirkhill]

The Liberals have a longstanding aversion to "gunships" like the Apache.

Vis - CBC News Posted: Nov 26, 2008  :

Specially modified helicopter gunships will escort Canada's new Chinook transport helicopters on operations in Afghanistan when they come into service in the new year, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday...

...Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh also expressed concern Wednesday, calling on the military to rule out any attack role for the new choppers.

"We need to put absolute restrictions on these escort helicopters…they cannot be used for attack purposes. They should be purely for defensive purposes, for escorting," he said....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-to-send-griffon-attack-helicopters-to-afghanistan-1.711112

That is not the first time that a Liberal had spoken out against the purchase or use of Attack Helicopters.

In my particular view, supporter that I am of the F35s, IF (and please note the shouted IF  ;D ) if there were cost savings to be found for the RCAF by procuring something other than the F35 then I would be strongly recommending that those savings be ploughed back into acquiring a fleet of attack/escort/gunship helicopters (all suitably equipped for marine/desert/arctic/mountain conditions).

 

[Good2Golf]

So long as none of the SA-7s and SA-24's that Mali rebels may possess don't show up. With any luck these will be the same as the magical MANPADs the int reports always reported the Taliban as having.

Replacing Apaches with Griffons is akin to replacing a Leo II with a LAV.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20130715.aspx

Ground forces moving in close confines/urban valleys often preferred the overhead "door-shooting" Griffon over "nose-shooters" like the Apache or Cobra that hd to stand off further for long shots.  TB didn't like Dillon-equipped Griffons much...even named them "Allah's Breath" and pretty much slinked off when they were around.

Sometimes a LAV is a more appropriate means than a big Kitty Kat....

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[George Wallace]

The Liberals have a longstanding aversion to "gunships" like the Apache.

Vis - CBC News Posted: Nov 26, 2008  :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-to-send-griffon-attack-helicopters-to-afghanistan-1.711112

That is not the first time that a Liberal had spoken out against the purchase or use of Attack Helicopters.

In my particular view, supporter that I am of the F35s, IF (and please note the shouted IF  ;D ) if there were cost savings to be found for the RCAF by procuring something other than the F35 then I would be strongly recommending that those savings be ploughed back into acquiring a fleet of attack/escort/gunship helicopters (all suitably equipped for marine/desert/arctic/mountain conditions).

We have an award on the morning radio for the biggest "Bonehead".  Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh just won a nomination.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ground forces moving in close confines/urban valleys often preferred the overhead "door-shooting" Griffon over "nose-shooters" like the Apache or Cobra that hd to stand off further for long shots.  TB didn't like Dillon-equipped Griffons much...even named them "Allah's Breath" and pretty much slinked off when they were around.

Sometimes a LAV is a more appropriate means than a big Kitty Kat....

:2c:

Regards
G2G

G2G - need to be careful with the use of abbreviations.  They are highly situational.

When I saw TB my first thought was of Treasury Board and high rates of ammunition expenditure .......

 

[Good2Golf]

G2G - need to be careful with the use of abbreviations.  They are highly situational.

When I saw TB my first thought was of Treasury Board and high rates of ammunition expenditure .......

LOL....some would see little difference, although some would also say TBS is a more accurate 'enemy' than the Board itself... but yes, "the TB" would have been better...  :nod:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Ground forces moving in close confines/urban valleys often preferred the overhead "door-shooting" Griffon over "nose-shooters" like the Apache or Cobra that hd to stand off further for long shots.  TB didn't like Dillon-equipped Griffons much...even named them "Allah's Breath" and pretty much slinked off when they were around.

Sometimes a LAV is a more appropriate means than a big Kitty Kat....

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I dont disagree about relative advantages and disadvantages of various helos. That said, the reference was in regards to armament if there was a MANPAD threat. Apache is better than a Griffon for armour. One of the slickest ops I saw in A-Stan was griffons and chinooks working in sequence.

 

[jmt18325]

Too bad the Griffon isn't faster - apparently they're looking at addressing that.

 

[Ostrozac]

So long as none of the SA-7s and SA-24's that Mali rebels may possess don't show up. With any luck these will be the same as the magical MANPADs the int reports always reported the Taliban as having.

The Taliban definitely had some MANPADs. In 2007 a US Chinook went down in Helmand with US, British and Canadians onboard -- it was probably by a MANPAD strike.  But yes, overall, the bulk of RW lost to Taliban action were brought down by RPG, not MANPAD.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-taliban-missile-strike-chinook

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/28/afghanistan.wikileaks.manpads/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So long as none of the SA-7s and SA-24's that Mali rebels may possess don't show up. With any luck these will be the same as the magical MANPADs the int reports always reported the Taliban as having.

Replacing Apaches with Griffons is akin to replacing a Leo II with a LAV.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20130715.aspx

An example, Boko Haram are reported to have stuff like this.

My gut feel is the MANPAD threat is limited, but not magical and that makes it real.  You never know where the nasty little buggers are until the corkscrew stuff is happening.

 

[Good2Golf]

Too bad the Griffon isn't faster - apparently they're looking at addressing that.

Vne is Vne.

An example, Boko Haram are reported to have stuff like this.

[pic]

My gut feel is the MANPAD threat is limited, but not magical and that makes it real.  You never know where the nasty little buggers are until the corkscrew stuff is happening.

...and something not to be ignored, but also to be put into context, that once you start trucking around with some Igla/Strela under your arms, you become notably different-looking that just a guy with an AK.  Those people stick out, then make themselves part of the trail back to higher levels of the organization...a good thing when you have eyes on to them... :nod:

Most helo folks will respect all threats, but when prioritizing, I'd be most concerned with the Dishka (or other heavier 'small' arms)...those will leave a mark.  :-\

The flip side is that even Boka Haram knows that having a "mini-Spectre" Griffon gunship orbiting, spitting out 6000 rds/min of 7.62 is not something they'd want to deal with on a regular basis.  Move-countermove-countermove-countermove, etc...

Regards
G2G

 

[Loachman]

Too bad the Griffon isn't faster - apparently they're looking at addressing that.

Who is "they", and how are "they" going to "address" that?

 

[Good2Golf]

Who is "they", and how are "they" going to "address" that?

"recycled" news from when "they" looked at it in AFG...again, Vne is Vne.  :nod:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Vne is Vne.


...and something not to be ignored, but also to be put into context, that once you start trucking around with some Igla/Strela under your arms, you become notably different-looking that just a guy with an AK.  Those people stick out, then make themselves part of the trail back to higher levels of the organization...a good thing when you have eyes on to them... :nod:

Most helo folks will respect all threats, but when prioritizing, I'd be most concerned with the Dishka (or other heavier 'small' arms)...those will leave a mark.  :-\

The flip side is that even Boka Haram knows that having a "mini-Spectre" Griffon gunship orbiting, spitting out 6000 rds/min of 7.62 is not something they'd want to deal with on a regular basis.  Move-countermove-countermove-countermove, etc...

Regards
G2G

the flip side to the flip side is the strategic impact of a chinook or griffon being shot down. In A-Stan I think the impact would have been more limited since the public was cognizant that we were in a combat mission. I suspect that no matter what the liberal government says about "peace support vs peace keeping" the vast portion of the population will still equate UN to peacekeeping and will subequently be exponentially more upset about taking casualties in what they see as a peacekeeping mission (especially a helo going down, which is flashy).

The problem for the "sunny ways" approach is that it doesn't mesh well with casualties. IF the Liberal government is putting us into peacekeeping solely to get a UNSC seat than it will be up to them to explain to the public why this is so important.  Casualties will complicate this, so I imagine our use of any asset is extremely contingent on its ability to not be made a casualty. If I'm Boko Haram/ISIS/insert terrorist group than the "juice vs squeeze" analysis on moving/acquiring a MANPAD vs being engaged would look really appealing.

 

[Kat Stevens]

the flip side to the flip side is the strategic impact of a chinook or griffon being shot down. In A-Stan I think the impact would have been more limited since the public was cognizant that we were in a combat mission. I suspect that no matter what the liberal government says about "peace support vs peace keeping" the vast portion of the population will still equate UN to peacekeeping and will subequently be exponentially more upset about taking casualties in what they see as a peacekeeping mission (especially a helo going down, which is flas
The problem for the "sunny ways" approach is that it doesn't mesh well with casualties. IF the Liberal government is putting us into peacekeeping solely to get a UNSC seat than it will be up to them to explain to the public why this is so important.  Casualties will complicate this, so I imagine our use of any asset is extremely contingent on its ability to not be made a casualty. If I'm Boko Haram/ISIS/insert terrorist group than the "juice vs squeeze" analysis on moving/acquiring a MANPAD vs being engaged would look really appealing.

Most of the people I know, sadly, would think a noble noisy death in the service of peace (  :-X ) infinitely more palatable than a noisy death in a war.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Who is "they", and how are "they" going to "address" that?

Put new decals on the speedometer..........

 

[jmt18325]

Vne is Vne.

Apparently (and I'm only going by what I read somewhere) new engines would allow for an increased top speed, but, I'm not expert and I can't confirm that.

 

[brihard]

Apparently (and I'm only going by what I read somewhere) new engines would allow for an increased top speed, but, I'm not expert and I can't confirm that.

Not sure if you know much about G2G, but he most definitely is an expert. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Apparently (and I'm only going by what I read somewhere) new engines would allow for an increased top speed, but, I'm not expert and I can't confirm that.

And all they need is a new Jesus nut to hang it from.

And I second Brihard's comment.  :cheers:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Most of the people I know, sadly, would think a noble noisy death in the service of peace (  :-X ) infinitely more palatable than a noisy death in a war.

And, no doubt as long as it was someone  else doing the dying too.