Griffons for Afstan?
It's looking pretty likely:
A topic thread on Griffon deployment to Afstan was started at Milnet.ca on Dec.18 last year.
The Canadian military is looking at sending as many as six Griffon helicopters to Afghanistan to provide additional firepower and surveillance for troops.The reporter, David Pugliese, omitted to mention that the CH-146s are already "Lightly armed with a C6 machine gun mounted in open doorways [video here, see 00:52]..." The M134 would however be a huge increase in firepower. And Griffons might also be used as escorts for any Chinooks we might get soon.
Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said he has been told the Griffons will be used in an attack helicopter role and will be equipped with weapons and sensors needed to strike at enemy formations. The deployment of the choppers would be done as soon as possible, he said.
"It can't happen soon enough," said Mr. Kenny, chairman of the Senate defence committee. He has been pushing for the deployment of the Griffons to Afghanistan as a way to further protect Canadian troops and cut down on casualties. Canada does not have its own helicopters in Afghan-istan.
Military officials, however, said a decision on the choppers has yet to be made, but planning on the option is advanced.
The idea of basing a "Griffon six-pack" in Kandahar is being proposed as one option for the Harper government, which has yet to approve the chopper deployment.
In addition, Public Works and Government Services Canada announced that it intends to award a sole-source contract to a U.S. firm for the purchase of three high-speed mini-guns to be installed on helicopters. The electrically-driven Gatling guns can fire up to 3,000 bullets a minute and the purchase includes the equipment to mount the weapons on to helicopters such as the Griffon...
...Defence Department spokeswoman Lt. Isabelle Riché said the minigun purchase is "not connected to deploying Griffons to Afghanistan."
It "is an air force purchase to support the pre-deployment close combat attack training requirement of ground troops," she added in an e-mail.
According to the Public Works notice, there is the potential for more Gatling guns to be purchased. The procurement will be used to establish tactics and procedures required so that helicopters can support ground troops.
The capability is in response to lessons learned by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, the notice added.
The Gatling guns are to be purchased from Dillon Aero Inc. of Arizona and will be sent for testing at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B...
While the Griffons won't be used to carry soldiers, they can use the Gatling guns to attack insurgents on the ground who are threatening Canadian troops.
Details aren't being released on how much taxpayers are spending on the Gatling guns.
But it's not the first time the air force has considered arming the Griffon. In 2002, a military report concluded that outfitting the helicopter with sensors and weapons could be done and would be an effective way to enhance firepower. Weapons that could be fielded on the Griffon include missiles or a high-speed gun near the front of the chopper. The gun concept was considered as most suitable for upgrading the Griffon as an armed reconnaissance aircraft.
A topic thread on Griffon deployment to Afstan was started at Milnet.ca on Dec.18 last year.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 11:17 a.m.
8 Comments:
That is nucking futs... Griff's ceiling is 10,000ft and OAKN's field elevation is already 3,330ft. One-third of your altitude already eaten before you leave ground, and then you've got to deal with the high temperatures further degrading turbine performance.
If they want them to act as gunship support then they'll need armor and sensors in addition to uprated weapons, that will decrease performance even more.
Good luck to the rotorheads going over there... I guess some helo is better than no helo, but I thought the CF had already investigated and rejected the Griff option?
I thought the CF had already investigated and rejected the Griff option?
As I understand it, Hillier did, but those in the Tac Hel community have kept quietly pushing for a role in theatre. And Hillier has recently reconsidered.
I'm obviously not in on the discussions myself, but that's what I've heard.
I guess that community would be the best judge of what they can and can't do... Those are some pretty significant airframe and powerplant limitations to live with, but if the drivers say they can do it, go nuts.
Yeah, you have to give the Tac Hel folks credit for riding to the sound of the guns with nothing but the airborne equivalent of the Iltis for a mount.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Taylor. I fix Huey's for a living, and there is no bigger piece of crap than a Bell 412/Griffon. They are about worthless for anything but a VIP taxi. As Chris points out, a third of their operating envelope is gone before it lifts off the ground, the heat will make things worse by a factor of prolly 3 times more. There is no point in sending those machines anywhere near the war over there. I understand the TAC Helo guys want to help out and be a part somehow...but if we want an armed helicopter, get some Cobras. A Huey with the twin-engine of the Griffon is just a sad joke to the men fighting over there.
With a empty weight of more than 7000 lbs(equipped), and a max gross weight of 11,200, that doesn't leave much room for fuel or cargo. remove the performance due to heat and altitude, and you have basically nothing.
@chris
The Griffon's maximum operating altitude is actually 20,000 ft. (Pressure Altitude). Of course temperature and air density come in to play. More on that below. The 10,000ft sounds more like the CF crew limitation for non-pressurized aircraft. Not to mention that there is really no practical reason to fly that high there.
@artic_front
I guess your job hasn't allowed you access to a Bell 412EP flight manual so allow me to enlighten you. First, the max takeoff weight is 11,900lbs. In the area where CF troops are operating you are dealing with 3000' altitude and 40 deg daytime highs throughout the summer season. The Hover in Ground Effect Max Weight under those conditions is then reduced to approx 10,600 lbs.
Now lets go with your empty weight of 7000 lbs, which would change in a deployed theatre as we would be stripping out a lot of the unnecessary gear (IFR kit) that is on it. So we are left with 3,600 lbs. We could put 2,100 lbs. of gas in it (full tanks) but why? Zhari/Panjwaii is only 30km from KAF so we don't always need that much gas.
Anyways you get my point, there is still some leeway even under the high heat and altitude limitations. Certainly enough to carry a crew of four (2 pilots, flight engineer, and gunner). The Dillon Gun isn't that heavy, check out their website for yourself. The missions won't always be flown under the hottest summer conditions, either.
But the Griffon is just a VIP Taxi according to you. Have you considered that there may even be a role for this? You would be surprised how many Chinooks get retasked last minuted to fly around VIPs. If the Griffon could alleviate the pressure on Chinooks or Blackhawks to fly small groups of people perhaps this could be considered an important job. I'd rather see Chinooks hauling beans and bullets.
So since we aren't just going to wake up and find Cobras on the ramp, maybe we should start thinking about what we can do with the helos we DO have. Using accurate performance specs, of course.
Brett: Some of your points are well taken, however, I work around 212's, 205's and 204's, so I'm not that familiar with the 412EP. I agree there is a bigger performance envelope than a standard 212 or 412. I also agree the need for a VIP taxi is valid too, but being as my co-worker just left 'Team Green' he concurs that the machine will be wheezing on most any day. As for your suggestion about removing the IFR stuff, we'll i've done that task myself. The war would be over before they could get it all out. As for what they could remove from the ship would be minimal at best. Maybe the HUMS kit?
For hot and high conditions, you 'should' have a bit more available power when you are in a hot shooting war. The Griffon is just a bit short of that in my humble opinion. I can tell you one thing, and that is you don't see any 412's on a fire-line during the summer. Even a 212 is the last hired, and first gone when there is a fire. The 205's run circles around them. I know they have their place in the off-shore market, but they are one of only a few machines that are multi-engine for over-water use.
Thanks for the accurate data on the 412, I was not aware of the up-gross to 11,900. That is a big increase. BTW, I have just recently worked on the new Eagle Single (212 converted to basically a 205B) it kept the 212's 11,200 GW, but has 600 lbs less empty weight due to the twin-pac being replaced with a T53-17. An awesome machine with a long-line.
@brett:
Thanks for the correction on ceiling. I should have checked the max operating alt on the manufacturer's site but went with a less-than-complete cheat-sheet instead. My bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home