Dutch Apaches

[ChopperHead]

I heard somewhere Don't rember where but That Canada was considering purchasing 5 used Apaches from the Dutch. General Hilier said that the main focus is accuire heavy lift helicopters, but if the price is right there is no way you could turn them down. Just wondering what has happened with this issue did we end up buying them or does anyone have any info. thanx




Kyle.

 

[scm77]

Found a little bit...

CASR  Commentary Column ...

27 July 2005  â ”  Dave Piedra, Toronto, ON
Dutch Treat: Are Surplus Netherlands Air Force Apaches too Good to Pass Up?

The Netherlands has recently announced it is selling a small number ( five or so ) AH-64D Apache  attack  helicopters  that are surplus to it's requirements. These aircraft are only a few years old and presumably in good condition. With the CF troops heading to Kandahar and the Afghan commitment likely a long-term one, shouldn't the Canadian government be looking at snapping up those Apaches?

As General Hillier has pointed out, medium-lift helicopters are a priority but, if the price of the Dutch Apaches is good, one can hardly argue against the usefulness of attack helicopters to support Canadian troops in the Afghanistan theatre.

Response
28 July 2005  â “  Stephen Priestley  (CASR moderator)
Re:  Are Surplus Netherlands Air Force Apaches too Good to Pass Up?

The Netherlands originally leased AH-64As from the US for $1 each. If we go for this Dutch AH-64D deal, we could probably arrrange training with the US Army.

The KLu sent six AH-64s to Afghanistan aboard a Volga-Dnepr An-124. The KLu AH-64s were exposed to hostile fire right away â “ probably doesn't help that they are indistinguishable from US aircraft â “ but the only loss was Q-20 (attributed to â Å“technical problemsâ ?). These Dutch AH-64D Apaches are based at Kabul airport.

Does anyone know what became of the AH-1s that Turkey was trying to buy from the US?  Maybe DND could follow the example of the Marines â “  upgrade Cobras to AH-1U status and trade in the Griffons for similarly T700-powered Bell UH-1Us.

Response
29 July 2005  â “  Jeremy Oreskovich,  Sarnia, ON
Re:  Are Surplus Netherlands Air Force Apaches too Good to Pass Up?

The idea of acquiring surplus Apaches, though appealing, might not be the best course of action for DND at this time. The AH-64 is a technically complex aircraft and getting only five or six of these helicopters would not make financial sense â “ no matter how cheap they are.  One must also consider their attendant logistical trains  â “  new parts streams, a new engine type, and armaments that have little in common with anything else currently in the inventory.  The AH-1T/W/U, on the other hand, has much in common with helicopters already in service with the CF.

I believe that Bell tested a Cobra with the same four-bladed rotor head now used by the Griffon; could such a retrofit work?

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/zz-apache.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/zz-apache-2.htm

 

[ChopperHead]

ya I already read that I was just wondering if anyone Knows what has come of this? is it going to happen or is it all just talk?





kyle.

 

[Gunnerlove]

While having Apaches in our inventory would be "cool" it is for the most part an anti armour weapon system and as we are not facing down any large armoured forces it would be employed for the most part as a Reece aircraft. Cost wise we would be better off spending the acquisition and maint money (huge amount) on other programs such as smart anti armour artillery munitions, a mid range anti armour missile system, heavy(er) lift choppers, and up arming Griffons into gunships (If the twin Huey can carry door or stub mounted 7.62 miniguns and TOW missiles our 412s can).

These projects would offer a more economical increase to our capabilities without putting all our eggs in one basket. 

My understanding is that they are such maint pigs that we would need all five in theater if we wanted one that would be good to go. They travel with a bigger entourage than J-lo.

I think they would become an albatross around our neck, but thats just my opinion.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I disagree entirely.

We used Dutch Apaches to very good effect in Kabul earlier this year and ISAF was beginning to panic after they realized that they were being withdrawn later in the Spring.

The AH-64 is an excellent surveillance and reconnaissance platform that was critical to the success of a number of major operations.  Moreover, it was built into virtually every contingency plan developed by the Brigade, including a couple of "coalition operations".  Apaches were also used for very public deterrence displays and even played prominent roles in a couple of President Karzai's public appearances.  They worked hand-in-glove with Recce Sqn and had an excellent operational focus.

The Dutch were able to maintain very high readiness levels throughout the tour and never (AFAIK) experienced maintenance problems to the point where mission availability was affected.  The Apache is light-years more capable than a Griffon with an ad hoc "gunship" capability could ever hope to be.  "Cool" isn't an issue - platform capacity is.

If we're to go down this route (and I think we should - and partially pay for it by scrapping "direct fire" ADATS  ;D), we'd need more than five aircraft to be effective.  Personally, I think about 18 - 24 would do it.

My two cents.

Teddy "Apache" Ruxpin

 

[Britney Spears]

(Disclaimer: Staying in my lane? Screw that,  I'm going to the air weapons range, on the other side of the training area. I'm not even on the map.)

Anyone like the idea of cheaper, smaller attack helicopters like the AH-1Z or even the OH-6 little bird for these kinds of missions, instead of big, expensive, "kill a T-72 from 20kms away" Apaches?

Or even a <a href=http://g2mil.com/O-6B.htm>fixed wing propellor aircraft</a>

 

[Unknown Factor]

The AH-64 is an excellent surveillance and reconnaissance platform that was critical to the success of a number of major operations.   Moreover, it was built into virtually every contingency plan developed by the Brigade, including a couple of "coalition operations".  

I agree with Teddy.

More so than ever before is the need to place more emphasis on direct and indirect fire systems within the CF. With more attention being placed in the areas of mobility the flexability of the airframe is undisputed by those that saw it as their 911 in the sky.  More so will they prove to be invaluable to future Heavy Lift Helos as escort and LZ security.  Having served on Roto 2 I can attest to much of what 'teddy' says and being the foot on the ground it's all about the fire power available.  Canadian leadership is well aware of the flexability and speed that airmobility provides and the benefits that it provides in operations such as those ongoing in Afghanistan,  it would only be prudent to compliment this ability with a fire support aspect that is so dearly needed in operations outside Canada controlled by Canadians. - Cheers!

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Brit:

"Z" would work just fine, especially if the new Cobra Longbow radar was fitted.  The Turks are actually building them new, so there must be something right about the aircraft.

http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=291

Why not?  Probably cheaper than the Apache too...

I don't think the OH-6 would work too well.  You'd need a platform with decent surveillance suite and I don't think that the Little Bird has the same capability (not to mention firepower).  Another alternative might be the Tiger - just bought by the Aussies.

I'm rapidly leaving my lane too - I don't know what makes 'em go...!

 

[ChopperHead]

.



we'd need more than five aircraft to be effective.   Personally, I think about 18 - 24 would do it.

Thats probably true around 20 would be Ideal However wouldnt 5 or 6 be better then none? At least you would have some airsupport for our troops.

Kyle.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Five or six is too few.  You have to have a critical mass of any piece of equipment to ensure the training system is getting value for money and that it is economical to stock spares, ammunition, etc..  There has to be a certain number of aircraft remaining in Canada to ensure training for crews and for units using the capabilities of the helicopters.  With only five or six aircraft, the entire fleet would be likely to be overseas all the time, which is unworkable in realitiy.

IMHO, you'd be looking at equipping a squadron (to provide the critical mass, command and control, etc.), with that squadron capable of deploying (say) six aircraft at any given time.  That leads me to my (very uneducated) guess of 18 - 24 helicopters.

 

[Inch]

Five or six is too few.   You have to have a critical mass of any piece of equipment to ensure the training system is getting value for money and that it is economical to stock spares, ammunition, etc..   There has to be a certain number of aircraft remaining in Canada to ensure training for crews and for units using the capabilities of the helicopters.   With only five or six aircraft, the entire fleet would be likely to be overseas all the time, which is unworkable in realitiy.

IMHO, you'd be looking at equipping a squadron (to provide the critical mass, command and control, etc.), with that squadron capable of deploying (say) six aircraft at any given time.   That leads me to my (very uneducated) guess of 18 - 24 helicopters.

It may be uneducated but it's a damn good guess. 

You hit on all the pertinent points, training and maintenance are two things that people often forget about when thinking of equipment numbers. I would say that 18-24 aircraft is pretty bang on in this situation.

 

[aesop081]

It may be uneducated but it's a damn good guess.    

You hit on all the pertinent points, training and maintenance are two things that people often forget about when thinking of equipment numbers. I would say that 18-24 aircraft is pretty bang on in this situation.

don't forget normal attrition due to accidents and also factor in combat losses.

 

[Gunnerlove]

Perhaps I should have made my cost point a little clearer. IMO the cost of operating a fleet comprised of 4-5 specific and complex aircraft will be disproportionately high compared to the benefit to Canadian soldiers in the field.  

If we are going to join the anti armour helo gunship club, it should be a program that will be big enough to justify the cost. For example the Dutch bought 30 for operations and leased 12 for training.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

when we had the kiowa helicopters for reece, ( i did get some flight time with the air res wing in toronto took pics for the LFCA newspaper at the time) they  were a nice small chopper, the guys told me about the gun system they had for them in storage in monteal, no one at the wing had seen it on any  helicopter, none of the pilots had any  trigger time I flew with, they were told cost, maintaining, and training time was too costly for them to be allowed.

they  got the flight time and stuff but the guns were in montreal, the tech never got to mount one to learn how.

so that  was a small bird. the ah 64 models are way out of our price ranges, and there woud not be enough for the troops to learn to train with let alone take on missions.  myself I was thinking at least 12 birds for flying the 18  to 24 number sounds more realistic.  that  does include airframes for the tech people to train on, plus spares for training at home and to have missions overseas, so we are now looking at least 30 plus airframes.  we already  storing large numbers of the F18s because we cannot afford the updates for all aircraft. what  would we have to give up to pay  for the ah 64 , the rest of the f18s, the new to us helicopters we have now giffons?  give up our small apc fleet?  or just give up the entire res force programs?  that  is alot of money  for a small bang overall.

we could use some light helicopter, updated oh 58s , more medium lift choppers,  blackhawks, costly  but lots of USA army  orders for spare parts  be cheap, another bell purchase would be better money spent.

we have to remember Canada has a history  of buying helicopters and keeping them forever. Fly them long past the life span they were purchased for. so we have to get a good one and lots of them for the money spent.

 

[Blue Max]

In the case of Canada's needs and abilities why not take a page out of the Mariine Corp operations. Since the Vietnam war the Marines have stayed with the Cobra and then Super Cobra even when superior helo's were availible for the following reason:

have chosen to go with the Super Cobra for a number of years over the Apaches

 

[a_majoor]

The preception of "the price is right" misses the entire equipping of the CF saga; nothing shall be purchased which cannot be translated into political pork for our supporters.

Over the years I have heard rumors and read reports in the press which would make a strong man weep; the Dutch retiring (and offering to sell) an entire armoured brigade of 400 Leopard 1s, the Germans offering to leave a Panzerbrigades worth of equipment in Shilo, rather than pay the expense of bringing it home, the United States offering to put us in a production run of MLVW type trucks, only to be shot down (and then see the Treasury board point out a "made in Canada" production run of the few trucks we need would cost about $700 million more than the American deal, not $700 million but $700 million MORE), Bristol Aerospace having their better bid quashed in order to send CF-18 maintenance to Montreal, C-7 rifles costing about $1000 each, when an almost identical M-16A2 cost about $300....well, the list goes on and on.

The constant factors are: despite the real or potential benefits to be gained in theory, the Government is not interested if they cannot throw money to their friends as part of the deal; and; they do not care what is actually produced (Bombardier versions of the Illtis and MLVW, Western Star's LSVW), as long as their friends are getting the money.

So unless the Dutch could somehow get the transfer of the helicopters incorporated into the Sponsorship program, there will be no serious consideration of transferring AH-64s from the Netherlands, or indeed any other nation.

The other reasons we won't (or shouldn't) consider such an offer have been stated in the preceding replies to this thread, so I won't belabour the obvious. If I were to make a suggestion as to our CAS needs, Hellfire armed Predators might be more to our taste, being inexpensive, having many of the virtues of the propeller driven CAS proposals highlighted by Britney, and usable as recce platforms when not off on the hunt. While they are not as sexy or flexible as helos or A-10s, we could get a useful number for a fraction of the cost of the "real thing".

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Cynical, but good points...

Lately, I have a bit more faith in the CDS' ability to get things through, though, and I know aviation was on his "to do" list...

In the case of Canada's needs and abilities why not take a page out of the Mariine Corp operations. Since the Vietnam war the Marines have stayed with the Cobra and then Super Cobra even when superior helo's were availible for the following reason:

have chosen to go with the Super Cobra for a number of years over the Apaches

As was stated earlier, there's nothing wrong with AH-1Zs...

 

[Britney Spears]

As was stated earlier, there's nothing wrong with AH-1Zs...

As I understand, the role of the AH-64 from it's inception was to be a sort of mobile tank destroyer brigade to counter a Soviet armoured breakthrough on the plains of central Europe. A Sqd of Hellfire armed Apaches would be sortied and "surged" to the point of a breackthrough to blunt the tank column before it can exploit the breakthorugh.  It was never designed to provide sustained support for infantry operating in complex terrain, something that the Cobra had been doing  since the Vietnam War. It *can* perform in the role but a smaller, cheaper, more agile helicopter would be better suited for the role.

 

[Blue Max]

Sorry I had a miss post.

IMHO Canada could take a page out of the Marine Corp operations hand book. Since the Vietnam war the Marines have stayed with the Cobra and then Super Cobra even when superior hello's were available for the following reason:

- Cobra and then Super Cobra have been more then adequate to all tasks demanded of Marine corp operations, with generational upgrades.
- Apache is not affordable by the smallest budget in the pentagon (marines).
- Logistical tail and maintenance demands of Apache's are too large for Marine corp operations. It was rumoured to have been a sour note for this very reason that the US Army could not get Apaches into the Bulkans fast enough.
- Super Cobra's have done an excellent job in the Balkans and two Iraqi wars for the marines, with I believe no losses from their MOP hitting the enemy(I stand to be corrected). Where as the Apaches MOP did not go unscathed when deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan with withering ground fire.

If Canada were ever to realise any attack Hello capability and choose the Super Cobra, it would allow the CF to spin being frugal.

 

[a_majoor]

Sidestepping the virtues of various makes of attack helos for a moment; do we even require this capability?

As was pointed out the AH 64 is designed for a high intensity mechanized warfare battle, while the Cobra is more of a "general purpose" weapon. Light and medium attack helicopters exist which can be configured for various roles. Prop driven ground attack airplanes might prove useful in a low to mid intensity theater, since they combine high speed, extended loiter time and a large stores capacity, while the A-10 provides the same suite of capabilities for a high intensity theater.

Based on the sort of missions we have been doing, loiter time seems to be more important, since the enemy is very elusive and usually appears in small numbers. Alternatively, a very small machine which could be "parked" relatively close and launch at a moment's notice might do as well. Turboprop trainers, "Little bird" helicopters, UAV or UACVs could provide these sorts of capabilities without the large and expensive logistics tail of AH-64 class helicopters. Buying AH 64's because they are available is no bargain if they do not fit into our doctrine.