• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hillier nixed Air Force 2005 plans for Hornets, Griffons in Afstan

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
146
Points
710
What to make of this story by Murray Brewster of CP?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080106.wafghancraft0106/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

The Canadian military initially planned for a much wider involvement in the Afghan war than what it delivered in Kandahar, newly released documents show.

As a battle group of 2,200 soldiers was preparing to face the Taliban two years ago, the air force drew up plans in late 2005 to deploy eight CH-146 Griffon helicopters, specially modified as attack aircraft, and a fleet of CF-18 fighter-bombers.

The proposals were eventually set aside, despite NATO's plea for more aircraft, specifically transport and attack helicopters.

The Griffons and jetfighters were intended to give Canada's troops their own hard-hitting air power, instead of relying on other allied nations, such as the United States and Britain.

Canada eventually chose to send C-130 Hercules transports, which drop supplies to far-flung desert bases.

The country's top military commander said he asked the air force to draw up the contingency plans, but ultimately decided against recommending the deployment of the fighters and helicopters.

“The air force believes in this mission,” Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press
[emphasis added]...

Extensive preparations were made with the air force arranging a service-support contract for the CF-18s and a demonstration trial where a weapon system was installed on one of the utility helicopters.

At the same time [i.e. middle of 2006] as the army was deciding on a squadron of old Leopard C2 battle tanks to counter the surge in Taliban violence in the fall of 2006, the air force pulled together [that's not late 2005 as mentioned above--is this a second plan or bad reporting?--emphasis added] a timetable that would have seen armed Griffons on station for a year at Kandahar Airfield, beginning in February 2007.

But Gen. Hillier rejected the air force plan, saying NATO already has enough fighter-bombers and attack helicopters based in Kandahar and the CH-146 was not the kind of chopper Canada most needed.

“The Griffon community was ready to go,” he said. “It's just that when we do our assessment, the real need that we have there right now is troop lift, heavy loads of people. Unfortunately, the Griffon just can't do that in that environment.”..

As the military variant of the civilian Bell 412, the Griffon has the capacity to carry 12 soldiers in full combat gear, or six stretchers. The Conservative government intends to buy 16 CH-47 Chinook helicopters, which carry up to 30 soldiers, but deliveries aren't scheduled until at least 2011.

Critics have been pressuring the Defence Department to send the Griffons, in part to get Canadian soldiers off Kandahar's bomb-strewn highways.

But Gen. Hillier flatly rejected the argument, saying the CH-146 wasn't suited to operate at high elevations and in 55C degree heat.

But internal air force documents suggest that to cope with the altitude and climate extremes, the takeoff weight could be lowered by roughly 453 kilograms.

Gen. Hillier also indicated he wasn't satisfied the helicopter could function well in an attack role, citing the level of complexity and precision needed to deliver guided missiles on target...

Mark
Ottawa
 
LOL dont have to argue, the Griffon suck, point taken and noted LONG TIME AGO lol 
 
The were going to sent the Griffons over as attack choppers, not troop carriers. I am not a roto head type, so for those that are here:

How would that have been a good idea?
 
Scotty884 said:
LOL dont have to argue, the Griffon suck, point taken and noted LONG TIME AGO lol 

People who don't know what they're talking about also suck.  ::)

G2G
 
I long ago figured out that everyone sucked but me  ;D

On a serious note, I can from a ground stand point see why CF-18's could be used heck we loved our CAS over there and to know that it could be Canadian pilots dropping those bombs well thats just an added bonus. As for the CH-146 It's not a bad platform for what is does I just don't see it in the context of a Multinational coalition which from what I can see needs more heavy/medium troop lift then it does anything else.

I accept though that I am an outsider looking in and I could very well be way ff base ref my comments about the CH-146
 
What most civies do not understand is that we draw up contingency plans all the time and 90% of them are never used. The CDS reviewed his options and took the ones that he thought were best. I think he made some pretty good choices myself and considering that the government is making us fund this operation out of our operating budgets there is also a matter of cost. The cost to maintain CF 18s in theatre would be enormous and what is the point when the Dutch, French, US and Brits have the assets in place to do CAS?
 
I'm not in favour of Canada sending CAS unless the army is specifically requesting it.

Although I do not doubt for one instant the competence of our air force pilots, I couldn't think of a worse public relations disaster for the Canadian Forces than a CF-18 bombing and strafing the wrong target- wedding, school, allied troops, our own people  -- take your pick.  Just my 0.02.
 
Personal opinion says it would be great to see our Air Force take on an offensive role with the Griffons and CF-18's, as the priority would go to our grounds forces when called for.

Like mentioned above I wonder about the cost for maintaining even a small contingent over there and if it's really required with all the other multi-national partners.  I also have questions about the ability for the Griffon to operate at such high altitudes, as the amount of munitions they could handle would be limited.
 
Psst

Are apologies to the Zoomie community in order yet?  Griffons have their defenders on this site but those poor fighter jocks seem to be without adequate support.  :D
 
"As the military variant of the civilian Bell 412, the Griffon has the capacity to carry 12 soldiers in full combat gear, or six stretchers."

Sure it does...

If "full combat gear" is for a bar brawl. Just because one can put twelve seats into it (in addition to the two pilots' seats and FE's seat) doesn't mean that one can lift that much weight off of the ground with a useful fuel load either.

"Six stretchers" can indeed be installed, if having the FE trapped in the middle between them where he/she cannot look out of the door and a complete absence of a med tech are acceptable.

And there is nothing that can turn a Griffon into an "attack helicopter" short of pushing it through a shredder and recycling the materials into an AH1Z or AH64. A bolt-on minigun makes it an ARMED helicopter, not an ATTACK helicopter.
 
whiskey601 said:
I couldn't think of a worse public relations disaster for the Canadian Forces than a CF-18 bombing and strafing the wrong target- wedding, school, allied troops, our own people  -- take your pick.

And what if an M777 or Leopard round goes astray? Anybody can screw up, and the slight potential of that happening is not a rational decision-making factor.
 
Canadian.Trucker said:
the priority would go to our grounds forces when called for.

Not necessarily, especially for the CF18s.
 
Loachman,

You beat me to it.

"Fast air" goes into a big pot and is allocated by the air commander according to the priority of tasks, not the nationality of the troops requesting the support. The phrase "priority of tasks" or whatever words are in use at the time can convey different things to different people. The mysteries of air tasking have always baffled me and are so far outside my lane, I ain't going there. It also has been a highly emotional subject since the Second World War and one that has led to more than its fair share of animosity between the army and the air force.

To suggest that Canadian aircraft would support Canadian troops as a matter of priority is just plain wrong, in more than one way.
 
And what if an M777 or Leopard round goes astray? Anybody can screw up, and the slight potential of that happening is not a rational decision-making factor.

I'm sure you have some idea about the loops one has to jump through to shoot one of those M777s.
 
Old Sweat said:
To suggest that Canadian aircraft would support Canadian troops as a matter of priority is just plain wrong, in more than one way.

To suggest that they wouldn't is just plain wrong, in more than one way.


In a nutshell, that's why the US Army has attack helicopters... so they own their own air assets and aren't reliant on the USAF.
 
Other practical matters intrude as well: KAF is already one of the busiest airports on Earth, sharing fixed wing, rotary wing, transport, attack and even civil aviation 24/7. Where would we be putting the extra airpower, flight crews and support staff? I don't think anyone was suggesting they fly in from somewhere else to perform missions.

As was said earlier, this was one of many contingency plans prepared and evaluated. I'm sure the ever intrepid MSM will eventually discover other plans and be prepared to use speculation about the plan itself or lack of implementation to support some sort of position, without ever considering the other factors which resulted in the contingency plan being shelved. BTW, I'm sure it never occurred to the intrepid reporter that the plan is probably still "warm" in case conditions change and the benefits do outweigh the costs.
 
Loachman said:
"As the military variant of the civilian Bell 412, the Griffon has the capacity to carry 12 soldiers in full combat gear, or six stretchers."

Sure it does...

If "full combat gear" is for a bar brawl. Just because one can put twelve seats into it (in addition to the two pilots' seats and FE's seat) doesn't mean that one can lift that much weight off of the ground with a useful fuel load either.

"Six stretchers" can indeed be installed, if having the FE trapped in the middle between them where he/she cannot look out of the door and a complete absence of a med tech are acceptable.

And there is nothing that can turn a Griffon into an "attack helicopter" short of pushing it through a shredder and recycling the materials into an AH1Z or AH64. A bolt-on minigun makes it an ARMED helicopter, not an ATTACK helicopter.

It's a Canadian Attack Helicopter, it will just drop strongly worded letters, threatening to drop even more strongly worded letter, failing which it will be used to threaten the Taliban with a Royal Commission.  ;D
 
dapaterson said:
To suggest that they wouldn't is just plain wrong, in more than one way.

Its all about whos available. If the Brits are on alert for CAS with the harriers they will be the ones responding. CAS aircraft wont be dealyed because its Canadian troops in contact and we want Canadian fighters to respond. If Canadian fighters were responding to a CAS requirement somewhere else in the country and Canadian tropps required CAS in Kandahar, our fighters wouldnt drop whatever they are doing to go help Canadians. Someone else would be launched and they might no be Canadian. Its whoever is airborne, on alert , whatever the ATO says.
 
Cdn Aviatior

Good reply. The key is that air power is centrally controlled by the air commander, not by a general.

I think, however, one could read Dataperson's response in more than one way.
 
Back
Top