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

No Canadian helocopters in Afghanistan; 30 Aug 07 - Sen Kenny calls for this to change.

Scoobs is right about that aircraft not flying.  We would have gotten in serious kaka, as it was we (Scotty D and me) swung the kit down to Ft.Worth by pulling in a few IOU's and some connections to dry-fit the plank to the Griffon floor, and mount the various goodies on the plank.  We didn't tell anyone what we were doing (specifically) until after we got the pics sent back up to us.  The aircraft was CH146401, on of the two bailed aircraft we had down in FW to do the initial aircrew converson onto the 146.  To start the whole thing, SD and I had asked Comd 1 Wing if we could work on a proposal to mock-up some potential system configs and take some pics.  He was a bit surprised at first, but rather pleased to see the result...it got a fair bit of traction to get some folks thinking creatively.....that is under the "System" sucked all the creativity and effort out of the vital support chain at the Op and Strat levels...ERSTA fell quickly after that, everyone agreeing it was a good idea and no one putting there hand up when the Vice asked "who's supporting ERSTA?" at the spring 2003 JCRB...alas.... :'(  That is why I sometimes appear to the chain as having a conspicuous lack of faith..."once bitten, ..."

Cheers,
Duey
 
Just did some checking. The RAF Lynx is being used in south Afghan and has less power than our Griffin. Mind you, it says, they only fly at night when it is cooler. Would we gain much by having Griffins over there?
 
observor said:
Just did some checking. The RAF Lynx is being used in south Afghan and has less power than our Griffin. Mind you, it says, they only fly at night when it is cooler. Would we gain much by having Griffins over there?

I think so.
 
Observor, I think Duey in being polite.  Unless I mistake the situation you might find that he and others have already addressed your question earlier in this thread.  If you have already read over the discussion and can't find the answer I apologize.

Cheers.
 
That is why I sometimes appear to the chain as having a conspicuous lack of faith..."once bitten, ..."

Duey

Do you think the air force is damaging its credibility by not being more responsive to the AF mission and making the Griffon deployment happen whatever the obstacles (or indeed the CF18). From what I've read it seems that deployment of our air assets would be possible with a more determined AF leadership but it's just not happening.

Or is that too simplistic? - and there are insuperable logistical and technical problems that prevent Griffons and CF18s from being sent overseas?

Cheers, mdh
 
MDH, in the case of the Griffon, it's not the AF, it's political and higher up than the AF.  I know of two very determined pushes (and I mean multi-leaf Generals lobbying HARD) to put Griffon into theatre, each with a slightly different angle.  It was clear that the time wasn't considered "right" by some.  Recenet development (not Lebanon) may result in Griffon going in sooner than later, and of course without the luxury of as much time now (or soon) as we would have had going in more deliberately, earlier.  We'll go from, "shut up, sit on your hands" to ""why the hell aren't you over there yet?  Get moving!"  I won't complain about that, better to be over there doing what we train to do than sitting around having my non-flying buds ask me why the boys and I "aren't in the fight"!  All I can say is hopefully Tac Vest Mk.II is around when I go back in theatre...that first canvas piece of turd sucked...heck, maybe I'll just asked some 'friends' to lend me one of those nice 10-mag chest rigs for use along with my C8...  >:D

Cheers,
Duey
 
All I can say is hopefully Tac Vest Mk.II is around when I go back in theatre...that first canvas piece of turd sucked...heck, maybe I'll just asked some 'friends' to lend me one of those nice 10-mag chest rigs for use along with my C8... 

+1  ;)

As always thanks for your perspective,

cheers, mdh
 
Duey said:
  All I can say is hopefully Tac Vest Mk.II is around when I go back in theatre...that first canvas piece of turd sucked...heck, maybe I'll just asked some 'friends' to lend me one of those nice 10-mag chest rigs for use along with my C8...  >:D

....and then you can give it to me, and I'll put on a school for you!!  ;D
 
Has the AF approved the wear of such Tac Vests.  I hear they can be pretty specific as to what you can have in the cockpit. ;)
 
Aviation Life Support Equipment (ALSE) includes everything worn by the crew, and, yes, its pretty tightly controlled. It is not supposed to burn, snag on switches, catch when exiting normally or in a mad panic, tangle with seat harnesses, contribute to deceleration injuries in a crash, and a whole bunch of other stuff. That being said, I've seen a few nutty things in the past.

The current Life Preserver Survival Vest (LPSV) is a pretty good piece of kit, especially compared to its predecessors, but I would consider it totally unsuitable for a combat situation. It's designed to keep one afloat (the inflatable collar is removeable and obviously woould be taken off for Afghanistan) and support one during an impromptu camping trip of about three days' duration.

There would be no use for snare wire and such in the environment under consideration here. I see the biggest single threat as the gents that just shot one down. That requires a pistol with many mags and multiple mags for a 5.56 mm weapon. It has to be understood that the preferred larger weapon may not be available post-crash, hence the requirement for a pistol. If it's not worn on one's body, it can be left in the hel as it burns or ejected and damaged etc. A decent combat first aid kit is a must-have. Water could rapidly become critical. Communication/signalling/locating devices are essential. Integration with body armour is absolutely necessary. A cutting tool to aid in escape from a mangled wreck and possibly defence is a good idea. An inflatable collar capability would be retained, although not used in Afghanistan.

The current LPSV is unsuitable for that role. We need a new THCSV - Tac Hel Combat and Survival Vest. Mag pouches can carry snare wire, windproof/waterproof matches, fishing kits and such in peacetime domestic flying ops, but the little pockets on today's vest will not carry 5.56 mm mags. The pistol would be carried in a thigh holster. The current tac vest and commercial versions would most likely not be cockpit compatible, and I'd prefer to be wearing as little nylon as possible in an environment that can get pretty hot pretty quickly. Nomex is not so durable, but our stuff is not normall subject to the same punishment.
 
Hey Duey. I was in Baden along with many others waiting for the 409 CO and his boys to turn up. We had  been working at  preparations for the new world of CF-18 aviation when we hear the new high tech toy refused to fly. At lest that was the story I heard. Computer said overweight or some such!! Ah yes the new toy had excellent flight recorders. Anyway us old 104 guys got a smile. ;)
 
Quagmire said:
Thanks for the technical Loach.  I was just making a joke is all.
Oh. Okay.

Somebody needs to be thinking about this officially, though, and I'm not so sure that somebody is.
 
TCCC-approved med-kit, Hook-112 (GPS PLB), water and 10 mags for my C8CQB (with the EOTech sight, of course)....that's all I need, and I'll take GO!!! up on schooling me in the ways!

Re: pistol, having it is, like Motar Guy said, like pissing yourself in a dark suit....feels good but doesn't impress those around you much.  Keep the fricking thing.  If I don't get out of my aircraft intact with my C8, I don't think a 9mm is going to help the situation much.

Cheers,
Duey
 
What Duey, you've never seen "Behind Enemy Lines", with Owen Wilson playing a downed US pilot in the former Yugo. ;D
 
Rescue Randy said:
If I read all this correctly, there is no apparent technical or doctrinal reason why the Griffin is not deployed at this time.  It appears that we need helo support, and it is at least as capable as some machines currently serving in the region. 
There are certainly jobs for the Griffin supporting our troops in Afghanistan.  Observation, recce, liaison, etc.  There have been times where heavier airframes were unavailable, but had Griffins been in country they would have been preferred over the nothing that we got.
 
He wants Griffons in Afstan asap; it seems to me that if the Griffons could do a useful job they would already have been sent (fair provisions use of Copyright Act):

More choppers, fewer casualties: senator
Kenny wants Griffon fleet to be used instead of vulnerable ground convoys

David ********, Ottawa Citizen
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=6a669488-01c0-47bd-8d10-d6a0b4bab88e

The head of the Senate's defence committee is calling on the government and the military to immediately send Griffon helicopters to Afghanistan as part of an effort to cut down on casualties.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny says the use of the choppers as resupply transports would reduce the time troops spend operating ground supply convoys that are highly vulnerable to insurgent attacks and improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. IEDs are seen as the main threat to soldiers on the ground at this point, he said.

Troops can be particularly vulnerable to such attacks as they travel in ground convoys to resupply forward operating bases. Military officers see more use of helicopters to move supplies and personnel as one of the solutions in reducing that exposure to IEDs.

Canada is currently in negotiations to buy medium-lift Chinook choppers from the U.S., but those aircraft might not be available until 2011.

But Mr. Kenny says Canada has an existing fleet of smaller Griffon choppers that could be used in Afghanistan. "Obviously the Griffons won't be able to carry as much as a Chinook, but they can still play a role in moving some equipment and reducing some of the exposure of supply columns to IEDs," he said. "Any amount counts."

"Why isn't that being done?" Mr. Kenny asked. "Why do we have 76 Griffons still sitting here in Canada?"

Defence Department spokeswoman Sarah Kavanagh said the current Afghanistan mission requires a medium-lift helicopter able to carry sufficient numbers of personnel, up to 30 at a time, or an appropriate amount of cargo and equipment.

"The role of the Griffon is not intended to fill the role of a medium-lift helicopter, and at this time there is no intent to deploy the Griffon to Afghanistan," said Miss Kavanagh. But, she added, "While the performance characteristics of the Griffon are not ideally suited to the environment in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces continues to monitor the evolution of operations in that theatre to determine if there may be an appropriate role for the Griffon in the future."

U.S. and Dutch Chinooks are currently available in southern Afghanistan, but they are much sought after by various forces in the region. The Canadian Forces used to operate Chinooks, but the Conservative government sold them off in the early 1990s as a cost-cutting measure. Mr. Kenny said that while the Griffon carries less than the Chinook, any difference could be made up by operating more of the smaller helicopters. He said 18 of the Griffons should be sent over to Kandahar as soon as possible.

"I'm of the view that anything that can be done to reduce casualties and provide the necessary equipment should be tried," said Mr. Kenny, whose committee has been supportive of additional equipment and personnel for the military.

According to figures provided by the Canadian Forces, the Griffon can carry its crew as well as 10 passengers. It has been used in domestic missions as well as overseas on operations such as in Haiti. It has armour lining the floor and the crew seats, according to the military, and the chopper can reach speeds of up to 260 km/h.

Canada is spending $4.7 billion on 16 Chinook helicopters, but negotiations with aerospace firm Boeing are still ongoing. The Canadian Forces expects the first Chinooks to arrive in 2011, although the Defence Department is trying to arrange for a faster delivery by acquiring choppers earmarked for the U.S. military.

Mark
Ottawa


 
Flag hoisted.  I wonder if anyone will salute it?

G2G
 
I thought Griffons are the Milcot of the airforce, or are they modified to Operational Airforce Specs?

I suppose that would breach OpSec to talk about on here if there is any thought to them being deployed...

 
Back
Top