TAC HEL

[George Wallace]

Back in 1972 the RCD lost their Hillier Helicopter Recce Troop to 10 TAG and they became an Air Force asset, as opposed to an Army Aviation asset.  Since those days, we have seen great advances in the types of support that Tactical Helicopters can provide.  Cobras and later Apaches were employed by the US Army to great success ever since their introduction to Cav Regiments in Vietnam.

Should Armd Recce in its new role as part of ISTAR, fight to get its' helicopters back?

Do we require Attack Helicopters to fill that role or just LOH with sensor packages?

Should a Recce Troop consist of 8 vehs and two Helicopters (to be permanently part of each troop)?

Should a Flight of Utility Helicopters be a fixed part of an Assault Troop in a Recce Sqn?

GW

 

[Michael OLeary]

When the RCD owned the Hel Recce Tp, did they also own all of the logistic and maintenance support assets? Or were the helicopters tasked under command for operations, but remain logistically supported by their parent squadron?

 

[George Wallace]

At the time they were Army Pilots (from pre-Unification) and all support would have been Army--within the Regiment.   (The same would have probably been true of the L-19 pilots who flew FOOs and spotters for the Artillery, Int., etc. earlier.)

These Army Pilots were members of the Regiment for all aspects of Admin, etc.

GW

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Actually, all of the army pilots were trained in their trade first.  I knew quite a few of them.  They were armour officers first, and trained as pilots second.  After the army lost its helicopters, these officers were forced to go Air Force, but were allowed to keep their unit hat badge.  It did look kind of strange, seeing a pilot in uniform, with the FGH or Arty badge or whatever.

Each Armoured Regiment had its own helicopters, pilots and support elements as part of its Recce Sqn.  Each helicopter flight "belonged" to a troop.  Six helicopters, three troops.  Although every Unit in Germany had eight helicopters, I believe, to make up for when the choppers were down for maintenance.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Well George, do you think we can revert to the past?  The Hilliers were very simple machines, piston engines, no avionics to speak of, hence were reasonably simple to maintain.  With our choppers today, that is certainly not the case.  Although, there are simple, piston engine helicopters out there, I can't see us buying them.  I can certainly envision a use for them, though!

UAV's, even armed UAV's would be the way to go, in my opinion.  Have a black hat NCO trained to fly these things remotely, and away we go.  You certainly don't need trained pilots to operate them, and, I believe, they are simple enough to be maintained with a relatively small cell. 

LOH's, as I know you know, are a great assett to recce.  It's a shame we lost them, we lost a huge edge when they went.

We certainly need attack helicopters. 

Why did we spend so much money buying the POS Griffin, and in such numbers?  Stupid Air Force....... :threat:

 

[George Wallace]

Why did we spend so much money buying the POS Griffin, and in such numbers? Stupid Air Force....... :threat:

Well, that purchase was a two paragraph announcement on Page 16 +/- of the Globe and Mail while everyone else was arguing the pros and cons of the EH 101.

GW

 

[George Wallace]

As Armour Regiments are currently in the process of "recreating" and rethinking their future roles and drafting up what they may look like, why not look at the CAV Regt of the Future.  A fast moving, hard punching organization.  One that will keep ISTAR moving at a fast pace on the battlefield.  One that will not have to rely on UAVs for instantaneous decision making and can make a concerted effort in defence of a Troop on the Advance. 

UAVs are a useful tool, but they do not have the capability to bring direct fire instantly down on an enemy attacking your troop.  A manned helicopter (Attack Helo) could do so in the Recce Troop. 

As for support; well HQ Sqn will have to adapt once again.  As we have done when we got tanks, we will have to do so again with TAC HEL.  All the advances in technology, is only making all our HQ Sqn and Support elements grow in size.  The Regiments will have to decide what is necessary for First Line Repairs and Maint. and then the Service Bns will have to do Second and Third Line as necessary  and on up the line.  The support tail is only going to get larger and longer, the more we advance with technology.

GW

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Would it have to be an attack helo? Could it not be an armed recce helo along the role of a Kiowa Warrior or similiar?

 

[George Wallace]

I suppose we could use the Coast Guard BO 105s ;D

GW

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

LOL you would be definitely stepping down from the Griffons.

 

[Kirkhill]

I remember talking to a Float Plane pilot on a trip from Rupert to Ketchikan.  He had been in the Coast Guard but quit.  He claimed that some of the Coastie Pilots were so weight-challenged that they limited the lifting capacity of the Bo-105 so much that they were no longer capable of effective SAR tasks. 

Does that say more about the Pilots or the Helicopters??????

 

[George Wallace]

Actually the German HEER had outfitted Bo 105s with six AT Missle launchers back in the 80's.  How effective they were I am not sure.

GW

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd forgotten about that George.  Floatplane pilot's comments must say more about the Prince Rupert Coastie pilots. ;D

 

[12alfa]

Attach helo's?

Just what the hell-o copter would we be attacking?????

We can't afford 5.56 rounds, new jeeps, fuel, and were talking Attack helo's that are worth millions!!!

Have you forgotten the EH-101 deal that is on going?off, on going?

We would end up with a lesser helo, over priced, 20 years behind in tech, and buy in the end 1/3 of what we need.

Attack helo's ya right.........

tanks they find offensive, what do you think the government would think of a Appache or a Cobra in the news painted with a maple leaf on the tail?  LOL

 

[Fishbone Jones]

12Alpha,
Jeez, thanks for that highly technical and timely input into what was a great discussion! :

 

[George Wallace]

That's okey.  He may be a little out of the picture, but they are points that the Cdn Gov't/sheeple will be asking.

What is a 'friendly' chopper that would be acceptable, yet could be 'fitted' with armaments in time of crisis.

I know the BO 105 could, but is it still a viable option?

GW

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Attack Helicopters, eh?

This thread reminds me of a conversation during a luncheon I was invited to at the Canadian Embassy in Washington DC during spring of 2001.  I was spaking with an Air Command Major attached to the Defence Liason Staff at the embassy in Washington DC regarding the ISTARs package that was being proposed/developed for the Griffon at that point in time.  I asked her what was involved in the "gunship package" for the Griffons and she curtly replied that ISTARs is not a "gunship package" and that Attack helicopters have no place in the Canadian order of battle as they only represent an aggressive posture.

When you get officers of the Armed Forces that are personally so distressed at the image of aggressiveness by their equipment/pers. you've got to wonder if you really want that kind of person in a leadership position in the profession of arms.  :

 

[Kirkhill]

OH MY  :blotto:

 

[G .Dundas]

Some years ago at the same function I was attending   the subject of gunships came up twice.I was informed by a Sr.Airforce type that gunships were not in the the orbat and would not be considered unless the Army had a need for them.
Twenty minutes later and twenty feet   across the room I was told by a sr. army type that the army had a need for them in it's orbat but that the Airforce did'nt see the need.        ??? :

 

[George Wallace]

You guys have thrown in that aspect of leadership that catered to the Liberals "Kinder-Gentler" Army.  For years we wore OD, 'cause some think tank at a California University carried out a study for the CF and found that camouflage uniforms could make the troops more 'aggressive'.  Back in the 70's, flipping through a National Geographic, I spotted soldiers wearing Canadian Combats, but they were camouflage, and they were in the Kenyan Army(?).  Go figure.

Today, I am told that the new Bde Comd passed down in an 'O' Gp that we are not to wear scrim on our helmets, as it makes us look too aggressive.  I sure hope it is BS....it took me a long time to put it on.

So I guess Tac Hel is out.  CADPAT will follow in the same order as the tanks, M 109's, Pioneers, TUA and Mortars.  When do we get those neat dark blue coverals that SWAT wear and ball caps?

Totally demoralizing to some of the finest troops in the world, to be treated this way.  A Farce.

GW