Future CH146 Deployments

[Loachman]

The 1 Wg Op for future CH146 deployments for recce and escort tasks was signed off on 13 December. We're going.

There's not a lot of detail of general interest on it, and I'm not giving any out even if there was, either.

 

[Rayman]

Best of luck to you and all the other CH146 crews out there is all I can say. 

 

[Sf2]

and "they" said it would never happen.....

although, many things have been "signed off", yet not carried to execution?.  I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Spencer100]

I will be interested in how the MSM paints this.  Any vote on how the spin is?  Cons sends underpowered helo to war or Cons are buying expensive kit (Chinooks) when we have one that works or Cons are too slow to send helos we had all the time. 

Anyways....god speed and good luck!

 

[karl28]

      Good luck come home safe.

 

[Loachman]

I don't see how anything negative can be made to stick.

It's underpowered for a troop/cargo lift hel (and has other shortcomings), but with light armament (one or two 7.62 mm Miniguns) and decent recce ball plus taking off from a benign environment (big honking runway with no obstructions or significant human threat as opposed to a hilly, rocky, dusty, Taliban-infested field LZ) it should be alright. No armour, other than possibly the armoured seats for the pilots, but I am not terribly concerned about that.

Chinook is still very much necessary for troop and cargo lift, plus mobility for the M777, none of which the CH146 can do in that environment, or well anywhere else.

Escort is not required without anything to escort.

Recce was not as necessary with Sperwer in theatre, although I was always of the opinion that a manned helicopter is better than a UAV for that purpose. Sperwer is a dying system and either we replace it with another UAV (insufficient time or money) or, finally, put hels in theatre with an even better capability.

We have what we have. The Lieberals bought Sperwer. The PCs bought Griffon. We cannot do a complete change of inventory every couple of years.

All-in-all, this is a huge step up.

Now I'm headed down the hall to beat on my CO's door and make sure that my upcoming TUAV deployment doesn't hurt my chances of doing this.

 

[Loachman]

      Good luck come home safe.

Thanks, but nobody's going in this capacity for well over a year yet.

 

[dapaterson]

I somehow suspect that if the Army owned its own Tac Air we'd already have helos in theatre.  But that's for other discussions...

 

[observor 69]

'Sperwer is a dying system."  Could you expand on this comment. I have heard of the Sperwer shortcomings but not to the point of calling it a dying system. Or is it just that it is being technologically left behind by more competent systems.

 

[Sf2]

Loach, are you a member of the sqn earmarked to go first?  (we all know which one it is.....)

 

[Loachman]

Loach, are you a member of the sqn earmarked to go first?  (we all know which one it is.....)

Responded to privately.

 

[Loachman]

I somehow suspect that if the Army owned its own Tac Air we'd already have helos in theatre.  But that's for other discussions...

Not necessarily.

The Army shares a good part of the blame for us being saddled with Griffon in the first place, and us not having ERSTA.

 

[Loachman]

'Sperwer is a dying system."  Could you expand on this comment.

No longer supported by the manufacturer. Nothing gets replaced. What breaks stays broken, other than minor wear-and-tear stuff.

 

[Rick Ruter]

I somehow suspect that if the Army owned its own Tac Air we'd already have helos in theatre.  But that's for other discussions...

It doesn't matter who owns the Griffons, I did the original Staff Check to go to Kabul and there is no way the Griffon would have been able to fly there with the climate, mean temperature and altitude. With the Threat level at the time, it would have needed armoured seats and floors which means no cargo capacity worth talking about. Now Kandahar is at a lower elevation so it may be possible to operate but then I'm not doing staff checks anymore.

It was never a question of desire to be there or not, it was always aircraft performance limitations.

 

[Rick Ruter]

All right loach, I get the picture with the pumpkins but I've been busy. Recruiting never stops.

 

[dapaterson]

It doesn't matter who owns the Griffons, I did the original Staff Check to go to Kabul and there is no way the Griffon would have been able to fly there with the climate, mean temperature and altitude. With the Threat level at the time, it would have needed armoured seats and floors which means no cargo capacity worth talking about. Now Kandahar is at a lower elevation so it may be possible to operate but then I'm not doing staff checks anymore.

It was never a question of desire to be there or not, it was always aircraft performance limitations.

Note that I said "If the Army owned Tac Air" - not "If the Army owned the Griffons".  While Tac Air would still be the poor cousins they are now, I think the kit would have been a tad more functional.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

While Tac Air would still be the poor cousins they are now, I think the kit would have been a tad more functional.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda ... wasn't it the Army that killed ERSTA?

 

[STONEY]

I know that they maybe different models but i noticed that the PAKS are getting 25 Bell 412's .

Why when we got the CH146 didn't we get a better power package , wasn't it touted at the time
as being a lot better than the A/C it was replacing.  I realize that DND really didn't want the A/C in the firstplace as it was a political decision ,but doesn't anyone at NDHQ have the balls to speak up every once in a while.  If we had to accept it couldn't they have tried for a better package.

Cheers 

 

[Zoomie]

<snip> I think the kit would have been a tad more functional.

Unfortunately it is not the CF that chooses what it wants to fly, drive or float - it is the Government.  If the Army owned its own aviation wing - it would still be flying the Kiowa's and not have enough money for fuel. 

The real benefit to having one branch of the CF own all the aviation assets is the reallocation of YFR (Yearly Flying Rate) - if one fleet under-flies its allocated hours, they can be shared with another fleet.  This happens with the Buffalo all the time - we had back our unused hours and they get allocated to the Hercs, Grifs, etc.  This is all done internally within the Division.  If the Army had its own fleet, they would have to decide whether or not to fuel MBTs or Helo's - who do you think would win in that fight?

 

[Loachman]

Note that I said "If the Army owned Tac Air" - not "If the Army owned the Griffons".

In our situation, it's the same thing.

"Tac Air", to be picky, generally refers to figher and seized-wing attack aircraft. "Tac Aviation" generally refers to battlefield helicopters and related systems. We tend to follow the US terminology in that regard.

While Tac Air would still be the poor cousins they are now,

I'd argue that that would not be the case. We would, instead, be another Combat Arm (as the US Army sees it), and our officers would fill staff positions at Bde, Area, and higher levels and an Army Aviator could actually be CLS someday.

I think the kit would have been a tad more functional.

Not at present. As I have said, we are responsive to Army requirements, and the Army had its hand in the selection and purchase of the Griffon and can take its share of the blame.