Apaches
- Thread starter ringo
- Start date
A
aesop081
Guest
geo said:
Sure.......but whos going to fly them and fix them ?
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
All those SQ and army PLQ qualified guys in the air force.... :rofl:
cheeky_monkey said:
A small number of FLIR systems were purchased for them for the Gulf War.
Should there be a similar need during the remainder of the Sea King's life - however long that may turn out to be...
But, no, I did not mention any specific machine, did I?
A
aesop081
Guest
geo said:
That's the problem with all these "lets buy this, lets buy that" threads and posts.........it takes allot of people and resources to sustain the equipment and missions. We are desperately short on people as it is now, adding something new just increases the pressure on the existing structure.
geo said:
No, because they had already adopted a "navalised" (to a limited degree) J-model Sea Cobra which continued to evolve.
The Marine and Army missions are different, and they employ their helicopters differently as well - or at least did. I would expect that Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred the lines considerably.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
geo said:
I believe that is already being looked at, from a conversation I had with a couple of fellas from the TacHel world a few months ago while they were in town on RUET.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CDN Aviator said:
From the Griffon fleet.
- Chinooks will allow us to reduce airframe (and crew, and tech) numbers, without losing lift capacity
- Apaches would take the surveillance workload
- Apaches will replace Griffons that will need to be dedicated to the Chinook escort role
-One Apache in theatre is worth HOW MANY Griffons that are at home because it is too hot/too high/too wet/too high a threat level to deploy them?
From the Herc fleet.
- we are replacing many airframes (-E/-H) with few airframes (-J/C-17)
- those fewer airframes have smaller crews
- those fewer airframes require a fraction of the maintenance
From the Sea King fleet
- being replaced (some day) by a machine with (hopefully) fewer maintenance requirements
From the recruitment benefits we get from having bad-ass helicopters like Apaches
- everyone in the world knows Apaches are bad-ass
- everyone in the world thinks it would be cool to fly or probably even just fix Apaches
From Army trades.
- if the Army wants them, then they're going to have to make sacrifices
- fewer Leo IIs?
- Eryx/Javelin/ADATS/others retired without replacement?
- No new M777s/Excalibur?
If the CF decides that this is a priority, then it can be done, and done handily. Its not as if the Canadian Forces as an organization is incapable of mustering the resources to buy and fly a limited number of Apaches, especially given the ridiculous economies of scale we can take advantage of from our neighbors. The only question is, what are you willing to give up to see Apaches overhead?
I can think of worse things to spend the money on (had a large list here, but elected to erase it), but I can probably think of better things too (had an even larger list here).
A
aesop081
Guest
FoverF,
I was born at night......not last night. I know full well that it can be done, i've figured that much well before this thread started. My point is this : What are we willing to give up ?
Increased recruiting alone will not make up the shortfalls. Something will have to be given up to bring something like an AH-64 into the fleet.
I was born at night......not last night. I know full well that it can be done, i've figured that much well before this thread started. My point is this : What are we willing to give up ?
Increased recruiting alone will not make up the shortfalls. Something will have to be given up to bring something like an AH-64 into the fleet.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
CDN Aviator said:
Downsize NDHQ by 10%....that'd be an easy 2,000 salaries right there. I still can't believe there are 20,000+ people "administrating" what is a VERY small armed force.
Matthew.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,577
- Points
- 1,160
To paraphrase Churchill: Every (modern first world) country has attack helicopters, it's own or someone else's.
If we continually go cap in hand to the US and others to beg for basic assets to transport and protect our own troops, what does that mean for our long term claims to self-reliance and, by extension, sovereignty?
AH are basic tools of the trade these days. We've proved that we know this by trying to Jury Rig our Griffins to be gunships.
Let's by some Apaches and stand on our own two feet Canada! (Cue national anthem)
If we continually go cap in hand to the US and others to beg for basic assets to transport and protect our own troops, what does that mean for our long term claims to self-reliance and, by extension, sovereignty?
AH are basic tools of the trade these days. We've proved that we know this by trying to Jury Rig our Griffins to be gunships.
Let's by some Apaches and stand on our own two feet Canada! (Cue national anthem)
A
aesop081
Guest
FoverF said:
We are already criticaly short of crews an technicians. Reducing one fleet while introducing another will not increase the number of personel available. It just maintains the status quo
Take the surveillance workload away from what ? Right now surveillance is done by UAVs and LRPAs how would the Apache take over from that ? The key to surveillance is persistance. The AH-64's endurance (or lack of) does not make it a surveillance platform.
Again, showing your ignorance. CH-146s are in fact going over, thats why we are buying miniguns for them. Loachman can talk about the aircraft's performance figures for over there.
How does that make more personel available ?
Those new airframes dont have Navigators and FE. Those people will go to other airframes that are short Navs and FE.........Both trades are short.
But that does not equate to a requirement for less technicians. Oh and did i mention that we are criticaly short of technicians ?
See above
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
TCBF said:
My recollection is I got the number from I report I read by Dr Geoffrey Shaw of the American Military College on the Unification of the Canadian Military .
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I never recommended buying Apaches as the solution to the CF-wide personnel shortage. In fact, I never recommended buying them at all.
I was just saying that if the CF decides that flying Apaches is an operational priority (and some people seem to think it should be), then there are more than enough bodies in the CF to make it happen. Other things would have to give, but that's what prioritizing is about.
CDN Aviator said:
If we could maintain the status quo in terms of personnel shortages, and get Apaches, I'd take that deal. But while I was simply giving examples of where we may be able to free up some personnel in the next 5 years or less, there are lots of other options too. Lets not forget about all the people sitting in the backlogged training system (crews and techs), who are essentially doing busy work. If we bought Apaches, a good chunk of those people could simply hop onto the US army's training system along with the initial cadre. Or we could send them to civvy trade schools to learn to fix things while waiting for the obligatory extensive upgrades to be completed. Or sink more money into paying for techs. Headhunt from civilian companies. Maybe even headhunt from foreign militaries. I have yet to see a problem that can't be solved by the prudent application of some currency.
There's also the option of.. wait for it... wait for it... enlisted flight crew. One (or god forbid, even both) of the crew could be army NCOs, and trained in the US. That would go a long way towards addressing the aircrew problem, and with a minimal burden on our training infrastructure.
The bottom line is that if the CF decided it really needed to get some Apaches, solutions would be found.
So the impetus is on those who want Apaches to make the case that they are needed, and needed more than something else that's on the table right now. I think it could be very hard to make that a convincing case.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Griffon numbers in A Stan may be OPSEC
I don't think we have any exchanges with Apache crews but that's out of my lane so I won't commit to that.
I don't think we have any exchanges with Apache crews but that's out of my lane so I won't commit to that.
Similar threads
