No Blackhawks for Canada

[FormerHorseGuard]

see interesting news story

i never figured we would look at those birds after all we have the Griffons, another airframe to look after, was interesting read.


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/19/canada_nixes_black_hawk_helicopters/8365/

 

[FoverF]

I don't think we really did look at them (not seriously, anyways). Sikorsky made an unsolicited and informal offer ("Pssst. Hey buddy, wanna buy some Blackhawks?"), and we declined ("No.").

Canada is trying to bum some Chinooks from somebody while we wait for our fancy ones to get built. Sikorsky just saw an easy buck in trying to get us to buy/lease some Black Hawks ("or Lease-To-OWN, with no money down, and a limited 30-day warantee* against manufacturing defects") instead.

 

[OldSolduer]

Why would you want a Blackhawk when the made in Canada Griffon is available?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Friggin right. I'd rather fly in a griffon over a blackhawk ANY day! Hell are blackhawks even tested in combat like our griffons are?

 

[OldSolduer]

I've flown in both.....but I'm not a pilot or FE, just an old infanteer that likes choppers.
I have seen a Blackhawk lift a fully loaded (about 7,000 lbs GVW) HumVee. Can the Grif do this???

 

[aesop081]

I have seen a Blackhawk lift a fully loaded (about 7,000 lbs GVW) HumVee. Can the Grif do this???

And with that much weight to lift, how much fuel do you think that blackhawk carried. The more weight you sling the less the aircraft itself can weight. First thing to go when thrying to lighten an aircraft is fuel. Less fuel, less distance traveled.

because it can sling 7000 lbs doesnt make it a good idea all the time.

 

[PO2FinClk]

Hell are blackhawks even tested in combat like our griffons are?

I take it you meant this in jest right? :

 

[niceasdrhuxtable]

I think what's being missed is the level of infrastructure and support required to undertake a purchase such as this. It's not as simple as just picking up your shiny new Blackhawks at Sikorsky and plunking them down on an existing squadron. More helicopters will require more aircrew to man them, as well as the relevant training to qualify them on the helicopter. It will also require more technicians with more training infrastructure to qualify them to service the helicopters. There's also all the equipment necessary to service these machines. New training and operational doctrines will have to be written. This all at a time with stretched budgets and limited manpower.

 

[time expired]

Funny that,the Aussies seem to be able to cope-
-Sea King mk.50
Sikorsky S70 Seahawk
Kaman SH-2G
Aerospatiale AS350BA
Sikorsky S70A9 Blackhawk
Bell UH-1H Iroquois
Bell 206B-1Kiowa
CH-47D Chinook
Eurocopter Tiger ARH
Plus I believe they are obtaining a version of the EH101 to replace the Sea King I think.
                           Regards

 

[aesop081]

Funny that,the Aussies seem to be able to cope-
-Sea King mk.50
Sikorsky S70 Seahawk
Kaman SH-2G
Aerospatiale AS350BA
Sikorsky S70A9 Blackhawk
Bell UH-1H Iroquois
Bell 206B-1Kiowa
CH-47D Chinook
Eurocopter Tiger ARH
Plus I believe they are obtaining a version of the EH101 to replace the Sea King I think.
                           Regards

They didnt start operating all this all at the same time now did they ?

 

[time expired]

Whats your point,they are operating them now.
                                  Regards

 

[aesop081]

Whats your point,they are operating them now.
                                   Regards

My point is that it took the Australians years to build an infrastructure ( both personel and resources) capable of supporting that many different fleets.

EDIT : Just to drive the point home a little bit more, we dont have enough technicians, aircrews and support personel to fully man operations of the fleets we have now. We "rob Peter to pay paul" by posting people around so that every once in a while, a fleet gets people for a year or two and so on. Adding another fleet now just adds more pressure to a system in Crisis. The CC-177's intro into service was made slightly less painful by the fact that only 1st line servicing is done (as i understand it) by military technicians. The CH-149 Cormorant is maintaned by contract with IMP. The last few days i have learned that alot of AMS lab fuctions are goign civy contract too......even with all that, we are still criticaly short.

 

[AirCanuck]

Funny that,the Aussies seem to be able to cope-
-Sea King mk.50
Sikorsky S70 Seahawk
Kaman SH-2G
Aerospatiale AS350BA
Sikorsky S70A9 Blackhawk
Bell UH-1H Iroquois
Bell 206B-1Kiowa
CH-47D Chinook
Eurocopter Tiger ARH
Plus I believe they are obtaining a version of the EH101 to replace the Sea King I think.
                          Regards

so many quotes I'd like to respond here.  First, I believe the ADF has a substantially higher priority in it's governmental funding (unless I'm mistaken) due to an eye-opening incident that happened in Timor (correct me if I'm wrong).  That certainly makes it easier to afford the infrastructure of so many different aircraft.  I wouldn't say Canada is in any shape to start picking up another heavy lift helicopter while waiting for the Chinooks to be ready.  Just doesn't make sense.

As for the comment above about our Griffs being able to lift a humvee, I have no idea if they can do that, but I certainly know that they can lift a small artillery gun.

Third, I really do hope the comment about whether a blackhawk has been tested in combat was a joke?

 

[KevinB]

I'm just luggage so my opinion does not count for much.

BUT

In my experiences as luggage - I vastly prefer the Blackhawk to the CH146.

The BlackHawk outstrips the Ch146 wholeheartedly -- and any pilot I know agrees

 

The Blackhawk is NOT a heavy lift chopper (and neither in the Chinook -- the Hook is a med - the Blackhawk a Utility hence UH-60, and CH-47 for the Hook)

  Canada blew it when we got the 146, but the Hawk is an older airframe now -- there may be a better platform out there if we need to jetision the 146's

 

[AirCanuck]

interesting opinion.  Mine only really counts as speculation as well - I am only a pilot in training at the moment with no time in choppers - however, I am aiming to end in griffins (although it will still be a while before I even get my hands on the Harvard II trainer at the rate the line is moving)

Personally, I've always loved the blackhawk - I'd certainly prefer it over the Chinook.  My point above referred to the (what I believe is a fact?) that we have already purchased the chinooks?

 

[time expired]

What you are saying is that 30 millions Canadians and their politicians
don't feel it is worth while investing in their own defence and 20 million
Australians do.IMHO you are absolutely right.
                                Regards
PS How many Aussies were killed in that incident in East Timor compared
with Canadians in 9-11?.

 

[slowmode]

What you are saying is that 30 millions Canadians and their politicians
don't feel it is worth while investing in their own defence and 20 million
Australians do.IMHO you are absolutely right.
                                Regards
PS How many Aussies were killed in that incident in East Timor compared
with Canadians in 9-11?.

  First of all let me post my opinion about this article. Its a good thing we turned down the blackhawks and we could spend our money on some other fleet of helicopters. Now I dont know much about helicopters so I cant comment from experience but what I can say is I dont think the blackhawks are big enough. I think we need Chinooks or something big to carry our men and equipment. Now if i'm wrong about this by all means someone correct me

Also the reason why the AUstralians have a bigger fleet of Helicopters is the fact that they have more technitions, and workers able to work on them. They also had the need for them. Since Canada has not really been in an intense combat role like afghan since Korea The government did not see the need to invest in helicopters. *This can get deep like the fact we had a liberal gov for most of this period but this is not a thread for politics". Canada so far is doing a great job rearming her self. In the span of 4 years we have modernized our army and given our soldiers one of the best equipment. THe main priority should also be the soldiers first, then the extra equipment, like helicopters, Humvies. But it seems that were spending on these items now, and its great.

Now i'm not fully education on this topic so dont take my word on it, But I give you what I believe.

 

[AirCanuck]

slowmode, very well put on the rearming comment.  I personally feel that the chinooks seem a bit unwieldy in comparison to the blackhawks - but i think it's a moot point as as far as I know we've already purchased the hooks.

time expired, not sure on the casualties for the aussies, but I think the reason it opened their eyes had less to do with the amount of casualties they took as the state of degradation their military was in with regards to equipment and training. (something along the lines of they were using the wrong charts, crossed a border inadvertently and got their butts kicked)

 

[aesop081]

I personally feel that the chinooks seem a bit unwieldy in comparison to the blackhawks

2 Different helos built for 2 different roles. We were looking for a medium-to-heavy lift helos and the blackhawk is neither of those. You insist on comparing apples to basketballs.

 

[cobbler]

PS How many Aussies were killed in that incident in East Timor compared
with Canadians in 9-11?.

I dont see how the two compare. I cannot think of any incident in Timor where there was multiple loss of ADF life.
East Timor was an operation. 9-11 was a terrorist incident. Maybe you are getting confused with the Bali bombings, in which case 88 Aussies dies. Or even the Jakarta Embassy bombing.

time expired, not sure on the casualties for the aussies, but I think the reason it opened their eyes had less to do with the amount of casualties they took as the state of degradation their military was in with regards to equipment and training. (something along the lines of they were using the wrong charts, crossed a border inadvertently and got their butts kicked)

Excuse me?

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. So you have your head out abit far to go making wild claims like that.

As for exactly where some clashes may have happened, thats disputed. And the reasons behind it I doubt (though don't quote me on it) they are of public knowledge.

Either way, I dont see how a battle with Indonesian forces in which Australian Infantry killed quite a few Indonesian soldiers for no major casualties of our own translates into getting our "butts kicked".
Pretty high expectations you have, whats the view like from up there on your pedestal?

PS: Australia had Blackhawks many years before Timor happened.