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

[MarkOttawa]

c_canuck: From the story:

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 [emphasis added]," 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 [emphasis added]."

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Flip]

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

I think Senator Kenny needed to do what I did. (before he opened his yap)
I asked a former infantry Sergent what he though of the griffon.

The look on his face told me what he thought....... ;D

 

[KevinB]

FWIW - As someone not specifically enamoured with the CH146 Griffon (I'm a Blackhawk fan - and have way more hours being transported in them than I did the 146, but more -135 time than the others)

There are several posters here that are intimately familiar with both the Afghanistan mission and flying a Ch-146 -- I've listened to their comments, and I see what a 146 can do - in some roles - but it was NEVER a Medium utility helo anyway - and I dont think that role is realistic.
  CSAR, Light Aerial firesupport, insertion and extraction of small dets, and MedEvac are all possible roles from what I have heard SME's say (and by all means chirp in guys)

 

[Old Sweat]

With all due respect to the senator, the lash marks on this deceased equine are getting pretty thick.

 

[Strike]

I asked a former infantry Sergent what he though of the griffon.

The look on his face told me what he thought.......

Unfortunately what someone thinks about a subject can sometimes show how little they know about it.  This subject has been discussed in depth by those who have flown this aircraft (and similar ones) in similar environments.  I would suggest we let those people throw in their $0.02.


Editted for spelling

 

[GAP]

Has this not been  :deadhorse: in other threads?

 

[Loachman]

I thought Griffons are the Milcot of the airforce,

LSVW.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think Senator Kenny needed to do what I did. (before he opened his yap)
I asked a former infantry Sergent what he though of the griffon.

The look on his face told me what he thought....... ;D

It seems to work well for some follks....the former infantry sergeant need not loose sleep over his perceptions of the Griffon.


The "dead horse" lives here.



G2G

 

[McG]

Has this not been  :deadhorse: in other threads?

It has been talked of a few times.  Typically, the guys that know the airframe show-up and remind us that Kandahar is not Kabul (so restrictions that made Griffons unsuited up in Kabul did not necessarily apply now that we are down in Kandahar).  We also get told that the Griffon can do varios light tasks in the Kandahar area.

If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt the SMEs), then we could provide a capability to fill light needs.  This would free heavier medium lift assets for heavier tasks.  In addition to the tasks listed by I6, we could also use Canadian helicopters to put more eyes over the battlefield.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Would they fit into a C-17?  Perhaps they will "trial some"

 

[Scoobs]

Yes, they will fit into a C-17.  You can fit them in a Herc (been there, done that), but must take the head off (the thing that the rotor blades attach to).  With the C-17, just remove one bolt for two blades, use blade folding kit, and tow the helo into the C-17.  Strap it down and voila, a Griffon to go.  Best thing is that when you get to Afghanistan, the Griffon just roles off the C-17 and there is no need for a test flight.  However, this still may be done for other purposes.  Every helo has limitations when it comes to outside temp and altitude.  The difference is what capabilities the helo starts with.  The Blackhawk starts with very good capabilities and thus it can still perform most, if not all, of its roles in theatre.  That being said, the Griffon can still perform a role in Afghanistan.  However, the reality is that how could the CDS get the government to buy Chinooks if the Griffon was in theatre?  Obviously if the Griffon was in theatre, he would have a harder time selling that we need the Chinooks (which we do and I am very glad we are getting).  What Mr Kennedy doesn't realize is that sending helos won't solve all the problems.  I'll leave it at that. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Thanks, great resposne, I certainly hope they "test the deployment capability of the Griffion via a C-17" soon. 

 

[McG]

Once we do have the Chinook, the Griffon may be our only option for the escort helicopter.

 

[Old Sweat]

The senator suggested the deployment of the Griffon to replace the use of ground vehicles in resupply convoys. Is that a viable role?

Even if we deployed 18 as he proposed, not all the helos would be available at any one time, and a couple just might be earmarked for ferrying the commander and a couple more in reserve. I hate to sound like a dork, but what we are left with is a dozen or so minivans trying to do the job of some honking big trucks.

Now that I have displayed my ignorance, comments please.