Canada Increases Helicopter Capabilities in Afghanistan

well it is about damn time.

I wonder what is different now about the Griffons? We have had them since the git go and they were designed to move troops around, provide support, etc. If I recall it was the military itself that was giving the thumbs down on deploying the griffons. Somebody mentioned them not being suitable for the climate. I wonder whats different?

I can't say im too excited about this becuase, like they said ealrier A-stan is too hot and high for the griffons. Im just wooried that we are gonne just beat the hell out of 8 of our choppers because they arent designed for this and that will be virtually useless once they get back.

I can't say im too excited about this becuase, like they said ealrier A-stan is too hot and high for the griffons. Im just wooried that we are gonne just beat the hell out of 8 of our choppers because they arent designed for this and that will be virtually useless once they get back.

That desicion may well bite them in the ass if the worst happens and a Griffon crashes because it can't handle the climate. Unless they did something to make them more adaptable then the reasons they weren't deployed before still remains.

Also, I surprised at the number of people thinking this is some sort of magic shield against taliban attacks. They have shot down helicopters before. In Jun05 it was a Chinnok downed with all aboard killed. There is no reason to think ours will be any less vulnerable. They are certainly great for getting troops quickly in and out of areas but alot of the mission is based on patrolling villages to maintain a presence lest the enemy simply enforce an invisible presence.

The IED threat will still remain.

Inverted really knows their capabilities, simply because he flies them. He said in another thread that they could have been deployed years ago (they obviously wouldn't carry as much as a Chinook, but could have been used like the US uses Blackhawks), but surmised this might have been a political move by the Air brass to get their Chinooks back.

After the Chinooks were sold by Mulroney, the Air Brass were ocnvinced to shed the Kiowas and Hueys as well, and get one common airframe, making maintenance and operations easier. Air brass thought they'd get Blackhawks or something similar, not the Griffons, and have been dissatisifed with them since they got them.

So far from previous assertions by others that the Libs deployed us the Afghanistan without air transport and that lead to Canadian deaths it was the military itself playing politics and risking lives to pursue an agenda?

Interesting. It still seems rather niave though to think that air transport will provide greater saftey (and would have prevented some 60% of deatsh according to one poster) when the US had both chinocks and blackhawks shot down with entire crews and passengers lost in combat. Imagine if Canada had a fully loaded Chinock shot down?

Well, air support won't totally prevent casualties, but it should limit them. From what I've read, a lot of IED casualties come on convoys of APCS and trucks supplying our outlying firebases. If a helo can carry the supplies, it should reduce the number of casualties.

While the Taiban has shot down helos before, the total number of helos lost is far less than the number of trucks, APCs and other vehicles, simply because AA weapons are in far shorter supply than old mines and bombs left behind after two decades of fighting.