Canada examined bigger Afghan deployment with jets and helicopters

I call BS.

Why?

The is used routinely for Arctic search and rescue. If they can do it there then what really is the hold up in Afghanistan?

According to the article, they could operate in A-stan with a reduced capacity:

Oh my god, stop the godam presses and call off the f-in mission then!! For f**k sakes so they can't go as high and as far in the high and hot areas, whop de fuc*in do! Why then do our troops have to catch a lift off of our allies helo's then that have the exact same limitations? This is not a valid reason for the troops to do without.

It's clear that Hillier is pushing hard for Chinooks. So let's look at the track record:

1. Feb 18 2007: A US MH-47 Chinook from 2-160th SOAR carrying 22 U.S. servicemen crashed in Zabul province, killing 8 and injuring 14
2. May 5 2006 : A US Chinook crashed in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, killing all 10 U.S. soldiers on board.
3. On 31 october 2005 a Dutch CH-47D Chinook (D-104) from the Royal Netherlands Air Force crashed 25 miles North-West of Bagram. The chinook was en route from Mazar-e-Sharif to Bagram air base. 3 occupants were injured and taken to the USA military hospital at Bagram Air Base.
4. September 25 2005: Five US soldiers were killed when a Chinook helicopter crashes in Zabul province while returning from an operation. The US military initially said there was no sign of hostile fire, but later said the helicopter crashed because of ground fire.
5. August 16 2005: Seventeen Spanish soldiers were killed when their Cougar helicopter crashes near Herat. A second Spanish helicopter made an emergency landing, injuring five soldiers. The crash was an accident.
6. On July 27 2005, On july 27, 2005 a Dutch CH-47D Chinook crashed in the Afghan city of Spin Buldak on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan while inserting troops. The aircraft, one of two operating in the area at the time, was responding to reports of enemy activity.The helicopter was not shot down by enemy fire but destroyed by fire when the aircraft hit the ground as a result of "brown-out conditions". No one was injured in the incident.
7. June 28 2005: A US Chinook helicopter crashed in Kunar province, killing all 16 servicemen on board. The US military says it was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade.
8. April 6 2005: A US Chinook helicopter crashed in a sandstorm near Ghazni, killing all 15 American soldiers and three civilian contractors.
9. March 23 2003: A HH-60 Pave-Hawk crashes in Afghanistan, killing six on board.
10. December 21 2002: A CH-53 helicopter crashed in Kabul, killing seven German soldiers.
11. March 4 2002: A Chinook helicopter hit by rocket and gunfire and crash lands. One soldier fell out of the helicopter and was killed by enemy fighters.
12. January 28 2002: A Chinook helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan due to a dust cloud, injuring 14 soldiers.
13. January 20 2002: Two soldiers died when their CH-53 crashed 40 miles south of Bagram air base.
14. December 6 2001: American helicopter crashes at Kandahar air base, injuring two Marines.
15. November 20 2001: A MH-6j helicopter crashed at base, wounding 4 on board.
16. November 2 2001: A MH-53 Pave Low helicopter crashed on a special ops mission in northern Afghanistan due to bad weather, injuring the four on board.

Lets get big, honking, slow and low flying helicopters to Afghanistan right away and lets make sure they are always full with 36 or so, well trained and well armed Canadian soldiers.

Inverted has said several times his helo (Griffon) could be used in Kandahar, but the brass really wants to restore the Chinook capability it had until Mulroney sold them. Therefore, they've done everything possible to lead people to believe that the Griffon is a piece of crap.

I think that if told that most people would understand that the Griffon and Chinook have different roles. This is already portrayed in movies and mass media, so saying it in the press really isn't that hard.

Chinook is a heavy lifter and troop transport. Griffon is more a utility/tactical helicopter.

Well we are not calling in missle strikes in the arctic for one scape, and rarely does the Arctic reach 55c

Arctic SAR is the very definition of adverse conditions PEN. If they are cleared for that they sure as hell can do the job. Why not ask inverted?

Arctic SAR is the very definition of adverse conditions PEN. If they are cleared for that they sure as hell can do the job. Why not ask inverted?[/quote

Yes but the Arctic is mostly at sea level.

Afghanistan is mountainous and most of the operating bases are at high altitude. Khandahar itself is at 3500 above sea level. Altitude is a limiting factor for most aircraft and the Bell 412's best operating altitude is below 5000 ft. Even the C130's operating from Afghanistan have a much reduced payload en route back to civilisation

We have discussed this before.

Simply put the Bell 412/ Griffon is not the right aircraft for that theatre, it's just not up to the job at high operating altitudes, whereas the CH47 is. Those were sold by Mulroney after the wimpy CDS of the day said they were surplus to CF needs. Now the Dutch fly them in Afghanistan.

The utility version of the EH101 is being used by the Brits because of its high altitude capabilities.

We had 13 on order until Jean cancelled them.




Endex.

as a guy who's done his aircrew selection and is a future canadian air force pilot, I'd love to see the chinook in service over there before the griffon, like it or not the griffon is just a civilian helicopter in cam, it should be replaced with a blackhawk or blackhawk type helicopter that can go higher, faster and heavier for the troop support role. Chinook's are a package deal as well, you don't just buy chinooks you have to have protection for a air craft as big a target and as slow a target as that, so attack helicopters would ultimately have to be purchased for escort.

Yes but the Arctic is mostly at sea level.

Afghanistan is mountainous and most of the operating bases are at high altitude. Khandahar itself is at 3500 above sea level. Altitude is a limiting factor for most aircraft and the Bell 412's best operating altitude is below 5000 ft. Even the C130's operating from Afghanistan have a much reduced payload en route back to civilisation

We have discussed this before.

Simply put the Bell 412/ Griffon is not the right aircraft for that theatre, it's just not up to the job at high operating altitudes, whereas the CH47 is. Those were sold by Mulroney after the wimpy CDS of the day said they were surplus to CF needs. Now the Dutch fly them in Afghanistan.

The utility version of the EH101 is being used by the Brits because of its high altitude capabilities.

We had 13 on order until Jean cancelled them.




Endex.

Sorry, but the EH-101s we planned on buying wouldn't be of as much use as you think, simply because they were going to be filled with ASW gear. The Brits, as you noted, are using a UTILITY version, not the naval version. We could however, be using our Cormorants there if the brass wanted to.

The Griffon also could be deployed in Afghanistan if the CF wanted to. I think the argument that the Griffon is totally incapable of operating there is bullshit. Would it have a reduced payload? Of course, but so does every other helo operating there, including the Chinook. Rather than try and convince you, I'll quote Inverted, a current Griffon pilot for the CF.



Bold mine


http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... e&p=487496

Or see this post;

http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... c&start=15

The Griffon is not the piece of shit many people think it is. The fact is it could be used there tomorrow if the CF brass wanted to. They are just scared that if they use it, then the politicians will say, "I guess you don't need the Chinook after all". Cynical, but that's probably waht would happen, simply because most pols are so short sighted...