Apaches
- Thread starter ringo
- Start date
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
This was looked at, once, years ago. One of my former COs in the Reserve's was an exchange Cobra pilot with the US (before becoming CO 413 in Sside...so this was a while ago). There was interest and talk on the US 'loaning' the CAF some Cobra's they considered surplus (something like that). The idea was put to bed when the cost of operating/arming/maintaining/etc attack helo's and/or political considerations of Canada 'owning' dedicated attack helo's.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,402
- Points
- 1,160
Hamish Seggie said:
Mind you they sometimes succeed in changing things, because they won't let go and wear out/out live their opponents. Keep in mind we got our first subs because of the actions of a BC Premier that would not be shuffled off by the Navy.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
AH1 advantage is that they can operate on ships...I don't know about cold winter.
Reiteratively (Fan...) is that those British second hand Apaches were adapted to operate in UK Navy carriers.
Reiteratively (Fan...) is that those British second hand Apaches were adapted to operate in UK Navy carriers.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,041
- Points
- 1,160
Colin P said:
We need a few good fanatics https://www.berlineaton.com/blog/good-fanatics
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Going back to capability gap and I don't want to quote "We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist" phrase, but I see the gap in two aspects:
1. Defense and deterrence.
2. Overseas Projection. Peace keeping.
1. Having them will increase our defense capabilities in case of an unlikely but plausible scenario from the North/Arctic (Bear) or Pacific (Dragon) and at the same will serve as a deterrent knowing our rivals that we do have that formidable hardware and 2. We can support other countries ground forces in UN sponsored initiatives: Mali as an example and the use of Holland Atta..err Support Helicopters.
How to close it: Here is where we have to be creative seeing all edges: Taxpayers and Canadian jobs.
One idea to upgrade Griffons into a UH1Y Venom (Bell 412 Mirabel Hardware) installing Rocket Launchers for Hydra or equivalent and both automatic Gatling -
Other is to bring those mothballed Apaches from UK in exchange for the future spare parts for their newest-there are models in the Army to calculate it-. Upgrade them to 64D and share expenses related to Logistics and Training with UK as they will replace Gazzeles and join the Linx in BATUS.
1. Defense and deterrence.
2. Overseas Projection. Peace keeping.
1. Having them will increase our defense capabilities in case of an unlikely but plausible scenario from the North/Arctic (Bear) or Pacific (Dragon) and at the same will serve as a deterrent knowing our rivals that we do have that formidable hardware and 2. We can support other countries ground forces in UN sponsored initiatives: Mali as an example and the use of Holland Atta..err Support Helicopters.
How to close it: Here is where we have to be creative seeing all edges: Taxpayers and Canadian jobs.
One idea to upgrade Griffons into a UH1Y Venom (Bell 412 Mirabel Hardware) installing Rocket Launchers for Hydra or equivalent and both automatic Gatling -
Other is to bring those mothballed Apaches from UK in exchange for the future spare parts for their newest-there are models in the Army to calculate it-. Upgrade them to 64D and share expenses related to Logistics and Training with UK as they will replace Gazzeles and join the Linx in BATUS.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Good2Golf said:
You are absolutely right. I thought I have wrote D Block III.
AH-64E Guardian (formerly known as AH-64D Block III)
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Reality:
We are stuck with Griffon in its current configuration, with a few minor tweaks, for the foreseeable future. It will be replaced outright, eventually, but not for another decade or three. Or more. No Griffon is ever going to be "upgraded" to a UH-1Y. That is a completely new helicopter. Yes, one could stick old CH146 builder's plates on the new machine and call it a CH146B "upgrade" for political reasons, but that is not very honest.
We already have, from the government perspective, a newtoy helicopter, and that should be enough to make us happy. Santa won't be back for a long time.
Chinook, despite careful and thorough planning, still lags. Introduction of a new fleet is more of a challenge than most people realize. Way more of a challenge. A radically different fleet - we have no history of attack helicopters whatsoever, beyond a few exchange Officers - brings even bigger challenges, and not just within the Tac Hel community.
We do not have anywhere nearly enough people to adopt a third fleet into the Tac Hel community. We are as-close-to-never-as-one-can-possibly-get going to have enough people. That is the same situation that every other community in the whole CF (save, perhaps, ever-more-numerous and ever-more-bloated HQs). CF total strength is capped. To increase positions in one place means reducing positions in others. To gain something, we must give up something else. What should that be?
People take years to recruit and train (much, much too long - and that is a whole other rantable subject), and even longer to develop operational experience. We cannot knit or buy Pilots and Techs. We do not have enough as it is, and experience levels are already low across the community. There are huge delays between courses, and three or four years wasted in university or RMC in the case of Officers. We cannot retain enough of the people in whom we have invested so much for a variety of reasons, many of which are correctable if the right people in the right places cared enough and truly wanted to.
The government cannot even buy simple trucks as it is, or decent boots, or maintain sufficient quantities of basic operational clothing. It cannot buy ships, maritime helicopters, fighters, or a host of other items, "cheap" or otherwise, in a timely fashion.
There are so many other priorities, and always will be.
And it is far easier to not get something that one has never had than it is to give up something that one views as absolutely essential in order to pay for it.
We are stuck with Griffon in its current configuration, with a few minor tweaks, for the foreseeable future. It will be replaced outright, eventually, but not for another decade or three. Or more. No Griffon is ever going to be "upgraded" to a UH-1Y. That is a completely new helicopter. Yes, one could stick old CH146 builder's plates on the new machine and call it a CH146B "upgrade" for political reasons, but that is not very honest.
We already have, from the government perspective, a new
Chinook, despite careful and thorough planning, still lags. Introduction of a new fleet is more of a challenge than most people realize. Way more of a challenge. A radically different fleet - we have no history of attack helicopters whatsoever, beyond a few exchange Officers - brings even bigger challenges, and not just within the Tac Hel community.
We do not have anywhere nearly enough people to adopt a third fleet into the Tac Hel community. We are as-close-to-never-as-one-can-possibly-get going to have enough people. That is the same situation that every other community in the whole CF (save, perhaps, ever-more-numerous and ever-more-bloated HQs). CF total strength is capped. To increase positions in one place means reducing positions in others. To gain something, we must give up something else. What should that be?
People take years to recruit and train (much, much too long - and that is a whole other rantable subject), and even longer to develop operational experience. We cannot knit or buy Pilots and Techs. We do not have enough as it is, and experience levels are already low across the community. There are huge delays between courses, and three or four years wasted in university or RMC in the case of Officers. We cannot retain enough of the people in whom we have invested so much for a variety of reasons, many of which are correctable if the right people in the right places cared enough and truly wanted to.
The government cannot even buy simple trucks as it is, or decent boots, or maintain sufficient quantities of basic operational clothing. It cannot buy ships, maritime helicopters, fighters, or a host of other items, "cheap" or otherwise, in a timely fashion.
There are so many other priorities, and always will be.
And it is far easier to not get something that one has never had than it is to give up something that one views as absolutely essential in order to pay for it.
Eagle_Eye_View
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 52
- Points
- 360
Well said :goodpost:
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,784
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=Loachman]
The government cannot even buy simple trucks as it is, or decent boots, or maintain sufficient quantities of basic operational clothing. It cannot buy ships, maritime helicopters, fighters, or a host of other items, "cheap" or otherwise, in a timely fashion.
[/quote]
For sure. I think most if not all of our air assets would be grounded or taken out pretty quick if we came up against a Russian Motor Rifle Brigade.
Its insulting to a lot of these other countries were hypothetically squaring off against to call them "near peer" with Canada.
The government cannot even buy simple trucks as it is, or decent boots, or maintain sufficient quantities of basic operational clothing. It cannot buy ships, maritime helicopters, fighters, or a host of other items, "cheap" or otherwise, in a timely fashion.
[/quote]
For sure. I think most if not all of our air assets would be grounded or taken out pretty quick if we came up against a Russian Motor Rifle Brigade.
Its insulting to a lot of these other countries were hypothetically squaring off against to call them "near peer" with Canada.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,695
- Points
- 1,140
Good2Golf said:
I don’t know what a ATACMS is but I like the sound of it .....
- Reaction score
- 3,509
- Points
- 1,160
Hamish Seggie said:
If sound is what you want, sound is what you get: https://youtu.be/UZ5PXC4oSXk?t=46
You're right, it sounds pretty.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,041
- Points
- 1,160
$2.3B to upgrade the British Apache fleet, in 2016. I can't imagine Canada being able to find the political will and financial capital to invest that much, and more, to maintain an attack helicopter fleet:
https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defence-systems/rebirth-british-army%E2%80%99s-apache-fleet
https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defence-systems/rebirth-british-army%E2%80%99s-apache-fleet
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
alexanderpeterson said:
How many of these units do you expect Canada to buy to be a minor inconvenience, let alone a deterrent, to these bears and dragons?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I think 16 will be sufficient...
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,695
- Points
- 1,140
Infanteer said:
20
Similar threads
