Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by teacher »

Military boosts chopper firepower
Move to send armed helicopters to Afghanistan comes amid heated debate over nature, duration of mission

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Canadian military is looking at sending as many as six Griffon helicopters to Afghanistan to provide additional firepower and surveillance for troops.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said he has been told the Griffons will be used in an attack helicopter role and will be equipped with weapons and sensors needed to strike at enemy formations. The deployment of the choppers would be done as soon as possible, he said.

"It can't happen soon enough," said Mr. Kenny, chairman of the Senate defence committee. He has been pushing for the deployment of the Griffons to Afghanistan as a way to further protect Canadian troops and cut down on casualties. Canada does not have its own helicopters in Afghan-istan.

Military officials, however, said a decision on the choppers has yet to be made, but planning on the option is advanced.

The idea of basing a "Griffon six-pack" in Kandahar is being proposed as one option for the Harper government, which has yet to approve the chopper deployment.

In addition, Public Works and Government Services Canada announced that it intends to award a sole-source contract to a U.S. firm for the purchase of three high-speed mini-guns to be installed on helicopters. The electrically-driven Gatling guns can fire up to 3,000 bullets a minute and the purchase includes the equipment to mount the weapons on to helicopters such as the Griffon.

The move comes as the Conservatives and Liberals jostle over the government's confidence motion on Afghanistan, which would not only extend Canada's combat mission to 2011, but provides an option for renewal after that. The Liberals say they won't accept those terms and are calling for an end to the combat mission in February 2009.

Defence Department officials have not responded to several requests over the last 10 days for information on the option to send Griffons to Kandahar. Under a new process, most statements issued by the department to the news media must be approved by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office or the Privy Council Office and any media questions about the Afghanistan mission are considered highly sensitive.

But Defence Department spokeswoman Lt. Isabelle Riché said the minigun purchase is "not connected to deploying Griffons to Afghanistan."

It "is an air force purchase to support the pre-deployment close combat attack training requirement of ground troops," she added in an e-mail

According to the Public Works notice, there is the potential for more Gatling guns to be purchased. The procurement will be used to establish tactics and procedures required so that helicopters can support ground troops.

The capability is in response to lessons learned by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, the notice added.

The Gatling guns are to be purchased from Dillon Aero Inc. of Arizona and will be sent for testing at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B.

The Harper government announced in the summer of 2006 its intention to buy U.S.-built Chinook helicopters, but discussions are still ongoing on that deal. It is not expected those large transport choppers will be delivered until after 2011. In the meantime, Defence Department officials are trying to convince the U.S. to provide older-model Chinook helicopters for Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Poland has also indicated it will provide two helicopters and, while defence officials are appreciative of the offer, they note it won't meet all of Canada's chopper transport needs.

Military leaders such as defence chief Gen. Rick Hillier have talked about the need for Chinook transport helicopters to reduce casualties in Afghanistan. Canadian convoys have become frequent targets for both suicide bombers and Taliban ambushes.

Last year in response to Mr. Kenny's suggestion to send the Griffons to Afghanistan, Defence Minister Peter MacKay issued a statement that such an option would not be considered. Army officials, however, have been pushing for the choppers to be sent.

While the Griffons won't be used to carry soldiers, they can use the Gatling guns to attack insurgents on the ground who are threatening Canadian troops.

Details aren't being released on how much taxpayers are spending on the Gatling guns.

But it's not the first time the air force has considered arming the Griffon. In 2002, a military report concluded that outfitting the helicopter with sensors and weapons could be done and would be an effective way to enhance firepower. Weapons that could be fielded on the Griffon include missiles or a high-speed gun near the front of the chopper. The gun concept was considered as most suitable for upgrading the Griffon as an armed reconnaissance aircraft.

http://www.canada.com/components/print. ... 118bed03f5

http://dillonaero.com/home.html
---------- ADS -----------
 
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
User avatar
Scuba_Steve
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:10 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by Scuba_Steve »

send a civi helicopter over to fight a war?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Northern Skies
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by Northern Skies »

The senate should shut the @#$! up and let the military decide what it needs! Well at least they showed up, that's better than their usual performance.

I'm not a heli pilot, but I think a 412 with armor, a bunch of troops with heavy gear, a couple of C9's, a FLIR, and any other mission gear is going to have quite a bit of trouble In hot-and-high afghanistan!
---------- ADS -----------
 
sky's the limit
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by sky's the limit »

Scuba_Steve wrote:send a civi helicopter over to fight a war?

The Griffon is the military version of the Bell 412, which of course is just a distant relative of the old Military UH-1, or the Bell 204 in Civi terms.

This is a derivative of the same airframe they fought with in Vietnam, just a four bladed rotor system which happens to be worse at altitude than the old two bladed system on the 212.....

The only machine the Yanks really have working up high in Afghanistan is the Chinook.

stl
---------- ADS -----------
 
ch135146
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:23 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by ch135146 »

Northern Skies wrote:...but I think a 412 with armor, a bunch of troops with heavy gear, a couple of C9's, a FLIR, and any other mission gear is going to have quite a bit of trouble In hot-and-high afghanistan!
You're right, and it can even be a problem here, back home, in the summer heat.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by Cat Driver »

I hear the R22 would be a fierce fighting machine.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Northern Skies
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by Northern Skies »

Cat Driver wrote:I hear the R22 would be a fierce fighting machine.
Proposed liberal procurement 2010.

pretty scary bird, with the pintle-mounted daisy red ryder BB gun. Either that or a pair of estes model rockets hanging off the skids, but not both.

The taliban can't fight us once we put their eyes out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by LH »

Let's see if I understand everything that I just read:

1) The CAF and the government might be considering sending a 51 year old aircraft design and a 30 year old model of that design into a high and hot wartime combat theatre.

2) They are going to outfit these Griffons with Gatling guns that fire 3000 rounds per minute. What is wrong with the 6 barrel Gatling guns that fire 6000 rounds of 7.62 ammo that I used in Vietnam in '67 or is that too rapid for the CAF? Test them in Gagetown again? Wasn't the first test of a little more than 30 years ago good enough or have the records of that event all been lost? Let me give you a tip idiots. A bullet hits the ground every 7 inches and if you hold the trigger for one minute you start to melt the barrels and find your Huey going backwards from the recoil. Accuracy? You don't have to have any.

3) This is being pushed by a Canadian Senator with no military experiece, not a pilot of any type and whose knowledge of weapons only extends to the rifle he owns to shoot moose and whose idea of a terrorist is some kid throwing snowballs at his house.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it General Hillier Sir!

Another thing Sir.......your bosses are a bunch of complete idiots,
---------- ADS -----------
 
WJflyer
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: CYVR/CYYZ

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by WJflyer »

LH wrote:Let's see if I understand everything that I just read:

1) The CAF and the government might be considering sending a 51 year old aircraft design and a 30 year old model of that design into a high and hot wartime combat theatre.

2) They are going to outfit these Griffons with Gatling guns that fire 3000 rounds per minute. What is wrong with the 6 barrel Gatling guns that fire 6000 rounds of 7.62 ammo that I used in Vietnam in '67 or is that too rapid for the CAF? Test them in Gagetown again? Wasn't the first test of a little more than 30 years ago good enough or have the records of that event all been lost? Let me give you a tip idiots. A bullet hits the ground every 7 inches and if you hold the trigger for one minute you start to melt the barrels and find your Huey going backwards from the recoil. Accuracy? You don't have to have any.

3) This is being pushed by a Canadian Senator with no military experiece, not a pilot of any type and whose knowledge of weapons only extends to the rifle he owns to shoot moose and whose idea of a terrorist is some kid throwing snowballs at his house.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it General Hillier Sir!

Another thing Sir.......your bosses are a bunch of complete idiots,
1. These Griffons probably won't be carrying any large loads, they will be operating more of a convoy escort and response role. Hence the need for decent armament.

2. The gun that is being sole sourced is the Dillon Aero's M134D gatling gun; the same gun that was used in Vietnam, but has undergone modernization and simplification.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... le&sid=929

3. Colin Kenny is perhaps one of the most nuisanced, intelligence people I have ever met. Yes, he is a Senator, but he does know what he is talking about. This comes from years sitting as the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. So don't dismiss Senator's lightly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Northern Skies
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by Northern Skies »

WJflyer wrote:This comes from years sitting as the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. So don't dismiss Senator's lightly.
Considering the kind of work these cronies do, I have a hard time believing that simply sitting on a committee qualifies this guy to make such decisions. Their job should only be to approve the budget, and DND should be empowered to equip itself with what it needs for the mission. They are the ones with their lives on the line. Thus, I do dismiss the senator, lightly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by LH »

WJflyer

1) So the Gatling Gun has been modernized by going titanium and weighs 20% less. Then there's testimony about how it jammed in Vietnam and conversaions he had with the military about reducing the fire rate from 6000 rounds per minute down to 3000 rounds per minute to solve the problem. "Yes" I could always have used less weight in the Central Highalnds so any reduction in weight is always nice. Great news! Jammed guns? Served there for 26 monhs and never had nor heard of a jammed anything problem with the Gatling gun mechanism. Being it was with the 1st Air Cav with 16,000 personnel and a proportionate amount of equipment, that amounts to quite some number of available and operating Gatling guns on all manner of equipment other than helicopters.

Read your info on the 'new' Gatling and contacted some folks in-the-know at my Division's home base at Ft. Hood, TX. Their reply? It's lighter and that's it. The rest is 'bafflecab' from a representative of an arms supplier attempting to justify the large increase in unit cost. The crowd he was talking to doesn't have nor know how to operate a 'B.S filter' because they never ever operated the weapon in a combat theatre themselves.....and he probably didn't either.

3) So Colin Kenney has got his experience from "sitting as the chair...........". If after getting all this great experience and knowledge from doing that, he is proposing sending outdated Griffons into the hot and high conditions of Afghanistan, then that is the perfect definition of "an oxymoron" with the accent on 'moron'. I've flown them in the Middle Eastern area with one Hell of a lot less bolted down/on military equipment onboard and let's put it this way......if I could have asked the few passengers that I had to lift their feet off the floor so that we could get off the f*cking ground, I would have. In Alberta type country my ass was being beaten consistently by it's much older and less-powered brother, the 205, with civilian thickness 'skin' on it's airframe,

No sir, I'll not 'play mental gymnastics about combat or helicopters with a Canaadian Senator who gets his flying experience from flying with Air Canada and his combat experience from watching a Hollywood or TV movie. Based on the foregoing and Senator Kenny's desire to send Griffon's into 'harm's way' in Afghanistan, I will most definitely take him 'lightly'. Let's be even more blunt here sir. Approximately three weeks ago my nephew went down in the mountains of Afghistan on a hot and humid day. Nothing wrong with the twin-engined, P & W powered 1,800Hp Bell 212 he was flying and it was far from being over-gross.......he just powered-out and ran out of sky and ideas all at the same moment. He was flying for a UN contrat and he and a pssenger survived and were rescued to safety.......and he has 10,000+ on type. The a/c was a total loss.
---------- ADS -----------
 
'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by 'effin hippie »

LH.
What would you send?
Not a wish list either. Something in the ball park of affordable.

ef
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
sigmet77
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:28 am

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by sigmet77 »

CF-18's would provide some potent ground support. (and yes I know you asked LH not me)
---------- ADS -----------
 
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2949
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by rigpiggy »

Just get Bell Canada to refurbish old US army cobras to the twinpack standard.
[1.3] MARINE AH-1J SEACOBRA

* The US Marine Corps was very interested in the HueyCobra, but preferred a twin-engined version for improved safety in over-water operations, and also wanted a more potent turret-mounted weapon. Although at first the Department of Defense had balked at providing the Marines with a twin-engined version of the Cobra, in the belief that commonality with Army AH-1Gs outweighed the advantages of a different engine fit, the Marines won out, and awarded Bell a contract for 49 twin-engined AH-1J "SeaCobras" in May 1968. As an interim measure, the US Army passed on 38 AH-1Gs to the Marines in 1969.

The first AH-1J made its initial flight in November 1969. The most prominent features of the SeaCobra were its Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) T400-CP-400 Twin Pac engine system, and its GE M197 20 millimeter cannon mounted in a "universal turret".

The Twin Pac engine system had only recently been developed by a joint US-Canadian program for what would eventually emerge as the Model 212 Twin Huey, and it was available just in time to give the Marines a twin-engine Cobra. The T400-CP-400 engine system was basically two P&WC PT6 turboshafts driving a common gearbox, and in fact was also known as the "PT6T-4". Total output power of the engine system was 1,140 kW (1,530 SHP), a comfortable boost upward from the 1,045 kW (1,400 SHP) of the AH-1G's Lycoming T53-L-13 engine. The Twin Pac provided enough power to keep the helicopter flying with an engine out. The Twin Pac engine system was actually capable of providing 1,340 kW (1,800 SHP), but the helicopter's drive train wasn't robust enough to support it and when both engines were running, they were power-limited. When one engine went out, the other could be run at full power

2.3] MARINE AH-1T SEACOBRA, AH-1W SUPERCOBRA

* While only 69 examples of the USMC AH-1J SeaCobra were built, the service had planned to acquire 124. The reason for the small buy was that the Marines wanted TOW capability and more power, and midway through planned production, two AH-1Js were converted to prototypes of a new SeaCobra variant, the "AH-1T". The first AH-1T prototype flew on 20 May 1976 and proved very satisfactory.

The AH-1T featured a new P&WC T400-WV-402 Twin Pac engine with 1,470 kW (1,970 SHP), plus a new transmission system taken from the Bell 214, a bigger 14.6 meter (48 foot) rotor with wider chord and swept tips, and a bigger tail rotor. The tailboom was lengthened to accommodate the new rotor system, resulting in a visible "kink" where the tailboom joined the fuselage. The forward fuselage was extended slightly as well to balance the longer tailboom, with the additional space allocated to increased fuel tankage. The AH-1T also had a small ventral fin.

A total of 59 production AH-1Ts were built. Due to funding problems, the first 33 did not have TOW capability, but the last 24 were fitted with nose sights and Sperry-Univac helmet-mounted sights for TOW compatibility, and the survivors of the first 33 were eventually brought up to this standard. Modifications were later added to allow them to carry the Hellfire missile.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
GilletteNorth
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: throw a dart dead center of Saskatchewan

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by GilletteNorth »

I find it laughable that people posting are so against using an 'old' helicopter design despite the fact the helicopter itself was 'relatively' recently manufactured and is a proven working design. Yes there are disadvantages to using a military version of a Bell 412 compared to dedicated attack helicopters like the AH-1T Seacobra or AH-1W Supercobra, but it's what we have in Canada. I bet the troops in Afghanistan will appreciate having a "six pack" of Griffons over having nothing at all. Don't think for a second any government we elect in Canada will buy "new" equipment dedicated to a single role. Our government believes in multi-capability aircraft that share the workload rather than spending more on defense and getting specific aircraft for one specific role... that's the way it is.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?
WJflyer
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: CYVR/CYYZ

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by WJflyer »

What Colin Kenny intends is for a bunch of Griffons operating as top cover for convoy's traveling across Afghanistan, and maybe the occasional casevac operation. For the most part, we are interested in arming the Griffons with guns and rocket pods, and maybe a sensor to do this job. He is drawing upon the experience of the USMC, operating the Bell UH-1N Twin Huey in the exact same role. I will say this once: There is no major technical hurdles to overcome to deploy the Griffon to Afghanistan. Nor are there any doctrinal reasons why the Griffon can't be deployed to Afghanistan. The reason for the lack of deployment is because of political considerations at home. Now that the political situation is changing at home, there is less of a reason why the Griffon's can't be deployed to Afghanistan.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by LH »

'effin hippie ----- what's needed is a R/W that has a proven history of operating succesfully, with little 'unscheduled maintenance down-time' and whic can also play a major multi-functional role at home and in other possible CAF areas of operation. The Bell Huey line are NOT the ones to look at for that role. Everyone of them before the 412 was designed to meet a specfic military tender and for a very specfic climate and enviroment. The temps, blowing sands and and dryness of the Middle East played no role in that design. They've been used in Middle Eastern and Sub-Saharan areas alright, but with some very bad inherent problems. The 412 was designed primarily for the civilain IFR market of the time and NOT to meet any militayr tender. They have no history of servcie of any type of combat theatre for any period of time. Two engines? You have two engines to keep you airborne in case ypou loose one. If you fly the a/c as though you have the power of two engines ALL of the time, then if you loose one for some reason, you fly to the crash site with all those onboard. So you load it so that if you loose that engine you can still remain somewhat effective and get everything and all to some sort of safety. It's all acedemic anyway about having two engines as opposed to one because the two engines operate together through ONE Combining Gearbox and if that Box gets shot-up or fails, you don't have any engines at all. At that point, if you are in the rugged Afganistan mountains, you get out your 40 second Rosary and pray like Hell because buddy, there's very littlle flat real estate down there for a nice landing. So much for the vanted USMC and their 212's in Afghanistan, They have them there because thoughout it's history the USMC has always been the smallest Service in the US military and their budgets have reflected same. When I first landed in 'nam in'1965 they were still wearing the same boots as they did in Korea and were using the same armament as they did in Korea also. Sp please, no mention of recommendations from the vaunted USMC.

CF-18's for ground support? At a cost when new of $30 -$35M and a present day cost of $50M canada couldn't afford to loose even one to the Taliban. That's assuming that they are all up-to-date with their avionics suites. Otherwise, Canada is once again asking the Yankees for help in partial emergency upgrades so that they can even communicate with a host of things. I think it's best we leave the F-18 back home in the 'barn'.

Bottom line after all this 'gobbley-gook'.......Canada will send whatever they HAVE to send and if others laugh or swear. that's just gonna be the way it is. Lastly, if one wnats to know how come we are in this state then they should look at their parents or look into the miror if they are old enough.........BECAUSE it's US that allowed this to happen and so don't be blaming it on those you elected to Ottawa because once again, it's YOU who elected them. IF it wasn't YOU who did so, then you won't have to look far to find someone who did because the majority of most of US did the electing. Excuse me please, but I've waited over 40 years to say that because I lived to see it all happen and didn't read it from some book. I consioder myself damn lucky that I don't have a son or grandson trying to 'pu out fires' over there also.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by LH on Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ScudRunner
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3239
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by ScudRunner »

---------- ADS -----------
 
'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by 'effin hippie »

LH. I think I understand the concept of engine-out operations; and participatory democracy.

Your criticism of the gov't regarding our military has been most eloquent. What makes it so is your understanding of rotorcraft and weapons systems, as well as practical experience applying these tools in conflict.

Last time I checked, Canada was in the market for a new utility/ multi-role helo.It sounds like a utility helicopter with sufficient performance for hot and high ops and weapons suitable to an infantry support role is a necessary requirement given our current military commitments. Given what is available today, what machine and weapons would you suggest?

ef
---------- ADS -----------
 
snaproll20
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by snaproll20 »

send all those ATCA or whatever they call themselves, those dudes doing security at airports.Solve two problems at once.
(and they would be attacking the problem at source.)

or, how about a couple of A-10 Warthogs? Probably cheaper than choppers.

Throw the Gatlings onto a Caravan. Close support has always been provided by the most unlikely candidates.

It is hot and high in Afghanistan. Make allowances. Get creative.

Betcha a Twin Otter would be kick-ass.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by LH »

'effin hippie ----- what I'd send to Afghanistan would be a R/W that has already domonstrated, by it's past record in a combat theatre, that it can ably handle very hot, dry and sandy conditions that I expect them to operate in. I don't therefore want to have Canadian troops having to rely on a R/W for transport and other missions that doesn't have that history. What to get? Look at around at other nations who have had their Services operate in similiar combat theatres and what a/c they used. STAY AWAY from the manufacturers because they have always 'over-sold' their a/c and always will. I couldn't pick one because I don't have enough info concerning them all. It would have to be one that Canada could afford and it would have to be debated in Parliament for at least one year, followed-up with some sort of Senate Report or Royal Commision on same. Weapons? Canada doesn't have to go 'off-shore' for weapons or theior ammo because we make the vast majority of that under contract to the Americans anyway at present. The Gatling "Chain gun', 2 rocket launcher pods with at least 8 rockets, a .50 cal and if room and power allowed....a 20MM cannon. The last one is a dream, but the other items work very, very well...take my word for it. The airframes have to be able to take all of the recoil and punishment that the foregoing dole-out. If not, they'll tear your a/c apart over time and turn it into a maintenance nightmare. So your mounting 'hard ppoints' on the airframe better be hard alright.


snaproll20.........WartHog you say?........$8.8M USD per a/c. We can pay less for a proper R/W.....bet on it. Caravans? Why not? We used Porters in 'Nam and Caribous...so why not Caravans. Twin Otters and any of the family of DeHavilland a/c that followed? Sure thing and he CAF operated some for SAR for a very long time....so yeah. There's a problem though with all this.........Canada can't afford to have them all. so which one is the anointed one and how many do we get. The cost for them also comes out of th same budget that is trying to buy R/W to transport our troops and keep our stupid f*cking subs running, etc., etc. Reminds me of my house.......do we buy that 1/2 Ton we really need and could use or do get the well-worn roof re-shingled, BUT we can't do both.

"Hot and high, so make allowances". So if the temps go above certain degrees you ground the a/c, restrict them to certain altitudes or start dumping armaments to loose weight. Please don't give me the "Improvise, Adapt & Overcome" B.S because I had my fill of that crap a terribly long time ago. You find out what you need, buy or make it, send it there and if you can't do the first two you don't go there at all. Otherwise, the CAF in Afghanistan would still be carrying .303 Lee Enfield rifles and Sten guns if certain idiots would have had their way. Lastly, our biggest assets in Afghanistan are our military members, led by another 'God-send"...Rick Hillier. I'll be damned if I will have any part of being one of those who would send them improper equipment or equipment that doesn't quite 'cut it'. Do it proper or don't do it at all and bring them back then out of harm's way UNTIL e can afford it. I detest sounding like some Jack Layton, but some Canadians overseas are putting their lives on the line every day while I have coffee at Timmie's or watch TV in my living room and I'll do my part to see that they get the proper tools to do that job or I want their asses back home yesterday.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dobs
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:18 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by Dobs »

How about a tandem seat ultra-light w/ a C6 gunner up front?
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by LH »

Once again, the R/W must be able to transport personnel, able to be adequately armed, operate where it's being asked to operate in this discussion and other theatres and have a history of not being a maintenance 'nightmare' with anything more than a 5% - 8% 'downtime record. Anything 'mission specific' or specialized like the Cobra Series of R/W is OUT. The Cobra Series of R/W are not happening or even come up for discussion in Parliament. We can and should have some mission specific and specialized a/c though and the various pilotless numbers (R/W & F/W) that are available should and probably are being looked at seriously in large numbers. What you mention is fine, but again, it's not a multi-role a/c that can do a host of things and do them well. Kinda hard to transport 13+ troops on the a/c you mention.
---------- ADS -----------
 
snaproll20
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by snaproll20 »

LH

I was not suggesting improvise and throw the infantry to the dogs.

Every type of combat has had its own particular flavour and produced an evolution in tactics and equipment. Afghanistan is part of the new threat where you deal with an enemy prepared to commit suicide to kill others. It is perhaps the most difficult method of fighting to cope with. Couple that with the inherent guerrilla tactics of the Afghans (which nobody in recorded history has defeated) and the known methods go out the window.

I do not see how a 'multi-use' R/W or anything else will adequately do the job. Specific "hot and high" capable airborne sensing and destroying capability may be the only true choice. But, seemingly, we cannot afford it. To be cynical, coffins are cheaper.

The technology of having reconnaisance drones would seem to fit here, with a back-up strike capability lurking somewhere in the vicinity. Certainly, the main (successful) tactic of countering insurgents has been to harass them, keep their heads down and strike whenever. Eventually, they get so fatigued that they become tempted to surrender their ideology, conscious that other people are living better lives.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Canadian Military boosts chopper firepower

Post by LH »

............I wasn't suggesting that we throw the infantry to the dogs. What I am stating is that we cannot buy equipment that specifically targeted at the enviroment and situation in Afghanistan. It can have those abilities and should, BUT it also has to be able to operate in other climes and other roles. There is no sense whatsoever is buying equipment that operates well in that enviroment, but fails in the cold climate of Canada's north or becomes a maintenance nightmare in hot and humid area and then Canada gotta go shopping once again.
I ain't the one that has made the request of Ottawa, but if something is going to go there to satisfy their request, then I've already stated numerous times what that R/W should be able to do/have. The Griffons have no history whatsoever of continuous combat theatre operations in that climate, with any nation. I've heard the statement made many times..."but they have two engines and state-of-the-art P&W engines at that". Both of those engines operate the same as those of the Bell 212 (UH-1N)......they both join at a large onboard component called a Combining Gearbox'. Loose the abilities of that 'C Box' for any reason, including gunfire and you are looking for a place to land......NOW!

There are R/W that can do the job and be very effective in transport and in a multitude of ground support roles, so they are definitely available, make no mistake about it.

We are not going to 'fatigue' anyone fighting against us 'western infedels' in the Middle East. This is NOT a political war.....it is a religious war. They have been fighting relious wars and using guerrlla tactics in that area of the world since before the days of Abraham. So relinquish any idea of tiring them out and making them give-up their ideology. I've worked there and you are talking about a part of the world where religion invades every possible thing that you can imagine. Sit down at an outdoor cafe on a warm day for a cool drink with a friend perhaps and while relaxing there, cross one leg over another and you'll do it only once. How is that? In doing so you have shown the bottoms of one or more feet/shoes and that is a grave insult to those that can see that. You'll do it until the gendarmes caution or arrest you concerning it or somebody gives you a 'fat lip'. You have just insulted any follower of the teachings of the Prophet, you stupid, asshole Western infedel. Be invited to a Canadian Embassy party some evening perhaps and take your girfriend, wife or secretary. While there there could possibly be cocktails served. You and other imbibe and have a pleasant evening. The next day your girlfriend, wife or secretary will be served papers, escorted under armed guard to the airport, put on an airliner and advised that she is never again to attempt entry into that country. She has mixed with males at a party AND also serving alcohol and there is no more serious offense than those two.

Please try to understand this. We are not fighting the French Maquis, the Serbian Insurgents in the Balkans during WW2, the Red Brigade or the Bader-Meinhoff Gang. We are fighting a group of human beings who have been doing it almost continuously with someone else or mongst themselves for the last 2000+ years. You may discourage them about a lot of things with your modern western technologies, but if it concerns anything based on their religion it is you who will become discouraged and 'tire' because you have yet to figure-out how to fight that......and it ain't with guns.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”