Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canada To Spend $15B On Def, May Incl Attack Helos  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5562 times:

$3B (for C-17's) and $4.6B (for C-130J's) part of the plan...

I wonder what AH-64D's will look like in Canadian colors?

Quote:

But the question in military circles is how those unarmed transport helicopters will be protected in combat zones, such as Afghanistan, where aircraft face the threat of rocket propelled grenade attacks from insurgents on the ground.

The air force will eventually need to either arm existing rotary aircraft or purchase attack helicopter, a senior military officer said in a background briefing.

"It’s a capability we’re going to have to address," said the high-ranking officer in Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

"On landing the (transport) choppers can be fired on with (rocket propelled grenades for example."

Canadians troops currently hitch rides on helicopters belonging to other coalition countries and those aircraft rarely leave Kandahar without an attack helicopter escort, usually U.S. Apache gunships.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/512522.html

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5541 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'd say they could equip some of their helos with "gunwagon" equipment such as is found on Marine Hueys, or even as was found on older UH-1D/H models which were equipped with miniguns and rocket launchers.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I wonder what AH-64D's will look like in Canadian colors?

I hope it will be black.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5500 times:

IMO the Cobra would be a more realistic (ie affordable) purchase for Canada. Keep in mind, we still haven't got Sea King replacements, despite starting that program in 1993 (& restarting it in 1999).

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
I'd say they could equip some of their helos with "gunwagon" equipment

The Griffon would be hard pressed to carry any usefull weapons load in Afghanistan. The climate already puts certain restraints on the aircraft due to density altitude, then there's the armour & defensive systems that the crews probably wouldn't fly without (rightfully so). No point in putting those guys in harm's way just so they can shoot a few 7.62mm rounds at the bad guys- the troops would have better fire support from the LAVs anyway.



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 3):
The Griffon would be hard pressed to carry any usefull weapons load in Afghanistan. The climate already puts certain restraints on the aircraft due to density altitude, then there's the armour & defensive systems that the crews probably wouldn't fly without (rightfully so). No point in putting those guys in harm's way just so they can shoot a few 7.62mm rounds at the bad guys- the troops would have better fire support from the LAVs anyway.

As it is now the Griffon can barely lift 6 infantry soldiers (and that's in a Canadian climate!), put gun pods or whatever on it and it will become completely useless.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

Attack helicopter? I wonder if this is a change in the federal government's use of military power? As much as I love the air force... it is useless. By the time they got the chance to use their nice new CF-188, it was already incapable to carry guided bombs, then it didn't have proper radio ID equipment... the role it played was a token one at that. More like burning our own fuel rather than let the Americans do it for us.


What we do best is peace keeping, we should tailor our military to that. We watch, and when we see something bad, we call our American friends with the big stick.


User currently offlineQB001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
What we do best is peace keeping, we should tailor our military to that.

Peace keeping is one thing, but we also must have the ability to establish peace. And for that, Canada needs adapted weaponery.

I personnaly agree with most of the 16G$ order, except for the C-17. If we really need that capacity, it would come at a much cheaper price with the An-124. And if we don't need it, I think we should order the A400 as the CAF work horse.

And I would tend to agree about ordering attack helicopters. My personal choice would be the AH-1Z Super Cobra.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5272 times:

Quoting QB001 (Reply 7):
If we really need that capacity, it would come at a much cheaper price with the An-124.

An-124 is much bigger than a C-17. Its operating costs are going to be much higher due to the much higher weight and larger crew. Not to mention, it may not be easy to integrate into the armed forces of a non-Russian speaking nation.

Quoting QB001 (Reply 7):
And if we don't need it, I think we should order the A400 as the CAF work horse.

You would have to get in line and wait 8 years.

And if it has problems once in service and the C-17 line has been shutdown, I don't think there will be anything larger than an C-130 that would be easily integrated into the Canadian armed forces.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5262 times:

I'm surprised that Canada isn't more interested in air and missile defense than it is. The country is closer by great circle route to China and North Korea than most of the US is(with the exception of Alaska). It may be a tempting target if US population centers are to far away and/or well protected. Sure, the US would trash their a**'s if they tried anything. But that wouldn't stop the bad guys from doing major damage.

User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5244 times:

Attack helos?? Hmmmmm...................

I never did trust Canada!  stirthepot 

I'm keeping a close eye on you Canucks from now on!!!  Big grin


User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5238 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8):
An-124 is much bigger than a C-17. Its operating costs are going to be much higher due to the much higher weight and larger crew. Not to mention, it may not be easy to integrate into the armed forces of a non-Russian speaking nation

Canada would not be buying AN-124 but wet leasing them. Skyavaiation would base I believe 2 AN-124 and some Il-76's at CFB Trenton. They would be there for Canadian use first and fore most, but Sky avaiation may use them as well if the CAF has no mission for them.


KrisYYZ


User currently offlineQB001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 11):
An-124 is much bigger than a C-17.

Yes, and for that reason we would only need 3 An-124 to get the capacity of 4 C-17.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8):
Its operating costs are going to be much higher due to the much higher weight and larger crew.

The newest version of the An-124 is operated with a crew of 4. And at 1/5th the cost of a C-17, it will still be cheaper to operate for 40 years than the C-17.

The best comparison between the C-17 and the An-124 is here:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-1.htm



Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4161 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5225 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8):
An-124 is much bigger than a C-17. Its operating costs are going to be much higher due to the much higher weight and larger crew. Not to mention, it may not be easy to integrate into the armed forces of a non-Russian speaking nation.

That's why NATO is basing a number of AN-124s at Leipzig Airport / Germany...  Wink Cheaper and more capable for many missions. I might add that those birds have been flying for many European defence forces for quite some time now on charter missions. It will always depend what you really need. The AN-124 is great for replenishment duties, but probably not so much combat zone transporter, a role where the C-17 is better adapted to. However, what does Canada need?

I'm surprised that the Tiger helo hasn't been mentioned here - that might be a good idea. Or a CSAR NH90...



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineOryx From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5224 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 9):
I'm surprised that Canada isn't more interested in air and missile defense than it is.

Perhaps they have a more realistic point of view of the chances to intercept an inbound ICBM.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 3):

The Griffon would be hard pressed to carry any usefull weapons load in Afghanistan.

Perhaps they could look into expanding their fleet of S-92s (HH-92 Superhawks)....those could replace some Griffons as well as use the Sikorsky gunship upgrades intended for the S-70. It could carry troops as well as serve as a gunship escort (albeit not as an anti-tank helo per se).



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineQB001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5191 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
Perhaps they could look into expanding their fleet of S-92s (HH-92 Superhawks)....those could replace some Griffons as well as use the Sikorsky gunship upgrades intended for the S-70. It could carry troops as well as serve as a gunship escort (albeit not as an anti-tank helo per se).

Canada is apparently going to buy some Chinooks. That should do the job.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 13):
I'm surprised that the Tiger helo hasn't been mentioned here

Good point. But you can safely bet a beer or two that if Canada buys some attack helos, it is going to be the AH-1Z Super Cobra. Bell Textron already operates an assembly plant in Canada; that'll give them a serious edge.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP




Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5160 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting QB001 (Reply 16):
Canada is apparently going to buy some Chinooks. That should do the job.

Well, you can mount miniguns and .50 cals out the side doors and off the ramp, but it's not exactly a point and shooter for escort duty, and there's no facility for rockets, which come in handy for everything up to MBTs.

But Chinooks would be a very useful airplane for them to have and use.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5158 times:

There's supposed to be a press conference tomorrow with the minister & the CDS, we should know the details by then.


Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5093 times:

Here's more on the helo part of the deal...

Quote:

OTTAWA, June 28 (Reuters) - Canada announced a C$4.7 billion ($4.2 billion) project on Wednesday to buy 16 medium- to heavy-lift helicopters and maintain the fleet for 20 years, but did not say what companies might be contenders for the contract.

Helicopters likely to be on the list are the Boeing (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Chinook, the S-92 made by United Technologies Corp. (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) subsidiary Sikorsky, and the NH90 from European manufacturer Eurocopter.

http://today.reuters.com/stocks/Quot...ENSE-CANADA-HELICOPTERS.XML&rpc=66


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4874 times:

Quoting QB001 (Reply 12):
Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 11):
An-124 is much bigger than a C-17.

Yes, and for that reason we would only need 3 An-124 to get the capacity of 4 C-17.

The C-17 has a much higher reliability rate than the An-124, so you may need to lease 5-6 of them. Which brings up another point, leasing, or in this case wet leasing the An-124. On some missions, the contractor can simply claim it is too dangerous to risk the cilivan crews and the aircraft. But, C-17s flown by CF pilots and crews will go wherever they are ordered to go.


User currently offlinePronto From Canada, joined Mar 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

IMO, having our own C-17s goes with above comment: it's there to perform the mission for Canada, with no second party having to agree/disagree with it. Reliability is a factor, as is availability. (A400 hasn't flown yet, let's not take that one any further...) As for attack helos? I can't see Canada purchasing such an item. It's never been on "our list", and the public would not accept such a purchase(remember the reaction to ALCM testing in Canada?). Only possibility would be the larger helos(CH-47, H-92 if used) be armed with door guns for troop transport.

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

Quoting Pronto (Reply 28):
As for attack helos? I can't see Canada purchasing such an item. It's never been on "our list", and the public would not accept such a purchase(remember the reaction to ALCM testing in Canada?). Only possibility would be the larger helos(CH-47, H-92 if used) be armed with door guns for troop transport.



Quoting Pronto (Reply 28):
IMO, having our own C-17s goes with above comment: it's there to perform the mission for Canada, with no second party having to agree/disagree with it

Then the Canadian public is being unrealistic. As mentioned in the thread starter, how do you protect your transports? By depending on a second party who has attack helicopters?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4694 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 29):
As mentioned in the thread starter, how do you protect your transports? By depending on a second party who has attack helicopters?

The best use for attack helos is tank hunting IMO. Most helo transport missions in the world are performed without escort anyways.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4617 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
it would come at a much cheaper price with the An-124.

Try slamming a loaded AN-124 unto a 5000ft rwy in Afghanistan. Cant' do it! But the C-17 can!


And don't try to wet lease Russkie junk around the Christmas holidays. Those flights are all booked up by the toy manufacturers!



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineHanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 3):
IMO the Cobra would be a more realistic (ie affordable) purchase for Canada. Keep in mind, we still haven't got Sea King replacements, despite starting that program in 1993 (& restarting it in 1999).



Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 13):
I'm surprised that the Tiger helo hasn't been mentioned here



Quoting QB001 (Reply 16):
if Canada buys some attack helos, it is going to be the AH-1Z Super Cobra. Bell Textron already operates an assembly plant in Canada; that'll give them a serious edge.

There are no plans to buy attack helos, although I'm sure if you ask the CF would love to have them. If they do decide to buy, it will be the Cobra (because it is made in Canada) or some other helo, but not the Apache (with all of the Apaches that have been downed in Iraq, their survivability would be questioned by the public). If we do get attack helos, I pray it isn't the Cobra, as it is even more vulnerable than the Apache. I would say that the Tiger would have a good chance, although the CF would want the Apache (if the US has it, the CF wants it).

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
$4.6B (for C-130J's)



Quoting QB001 (Reply 7):
I think we should order the A400 as the CAF work horse.

QB001, I agree with you to a point. I think that the C17 will be fantastic for the CF, but instead of the C130J, which even the USAF is unhappy with, I think the CF would be better off buying A400s to replace the Herc fleet.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 9):
I'm surprised that Canada isn't more interested in air and missile defense than it is.

The issue here is the Canadian public. They are against Missile Defence and want no part of it and the government is reluctant to join the program. Even when you point out the fact that any missile attack will undoubtedly involve Canada, the public is still against it. Now if the Conservative government were to win a majority government, then there is a possibility, but as long as we have a minority it isn't going to happen.



Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
25 RAPCON : I agree for different reasons. Bell has a long history of excellence with their Canadian subsidiary, and BECAUSE JOBS ARE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT F
26 Post contains images LY744 : Or some CH-53Es! It's sad that the Griffon really does need replacing, even though it's about 10 years old. I don't know if this is true, but people
27 GDB : Canada's armed forces are still, nearly 40 years on, feeling the effects of the wilful vandalism of Truedeau (SP?) If Canada is prepared to put troops
28 HanginOut : God no!!! Canada should have bought Blackhawks, but because the 412 is built in Canada, it was a no brainer that they would be bought (I mean no brai
29 LY744 : Amen. Um, the "Cyclone" is Chinook sized. It's huge. No way are they a replacement for the Griffon. LY744.
30 Post contains links DL021 : That attitude has changed. The USAF is pleased with the performance of their C-130Js and even decided that it's probably better to buy new J models t
31 HanginOut : No, the Cyclone (based on the Superhawk is meant to be the successor to the Blackhawk) and is smaller than the Merlin, which is itself smaller than t
32 DL021 : I think that the NH-90 or the Superhawk is a much better choice to replace that helo, as the Merlin/Cyclone is far too big. You could not buy enough
33 RAPCON : Well in view of the current operational experience of the SAR Marlins, I think that the Canadian Armed Forces may pass on that option.
34 LY744 : My bad, I was thinking about the EH-101. Can't keep up with all these marketing names. Why do they have a replacement for the Black Hawk? The UH-60M
35 GDB : RAPCON, the Merlin is in full scale operational service, in combat zones, with the RAF, has been too with the RN. For a machine of it's size and compl
36 RAPCON : But the prospective purchaser, Canada, is not happy with the product: EH101. That is a huge problem.
37 HanginOut : Actually, the problem is that the aircraft while almost identical to the EH101, is not the EH101, which could be why it is having problems. The Cormo
38 Post contains links RAPCON : Something aking to the RN's work? So, it's a lighter version of the RN's units? Flying with cracked tail rotor half hubs just like the RN? I'm sure t
39 HanginOut : " target=_blank>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia....html I am well aware of the crash, but as the report indicates the CF is well aware of the tai
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Canada To Spend $15B On Def, May Incl Attack Helos
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Orion Cockpit To Be Based On 787 posted Sat Oct 7 2006 04:43:32 by N328KF
Canada To Buy 4 Boeing C-17s posted Wed May 31 2006 00:31:33 by KrisYYZ
Canada To Get 16 New Transport Airrcraft posted Tue Nov 22 2005 21:07:36 by CO737800
Discovery To Piggy Back On A 747 To Cape Canaveral posted Tue Aug 16 2005 00:27:15 by Gilesdavies
Canada To Get Jsf In 2018 posted Sun Feb 6 2005 17:20:51 by BT
India Air Force Says To Rely Less On Western Jets posted Wed Feb 25 2004 15:39:16 by HAWK21M
U.S. , Britain To Ease Rules On Defense Sales posted Tue May 27 2003 23:05:23 by STT757
Canada May Be Forced To Ground 2/3's Of It's Herks posted Fri Apr 18 2003 12:36:13 by L-188
Bulgaria May Have Solution To Helo RPG Threat posted Fri Oct 20 2006 14:44:06 by Lumberton
China Uses Lasers To Attack US Satellites posted Wed Oct 18 2006 01:45:30 by Exarmywarrant

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format