Argus Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 It wasn't good in the roll that it was being considered for at the time. The Chinook is performing that job. That isn't the roll that it's performing now, and it is well suited for the mission that it's performing now. The Defense Minister defended it today and so did a retired general.I heard it on The World this hour...or The World at 6, one of the two. It is well-suited? What utter crap. It's not well-suited to even be flying in Afghanistan. It's definitely not well-suited to any kind of combat exposure given it's a civilian helicopter without the duplication, protection and backup systems military helicopters - even transports - are routinely built with. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Similar helicopters used to do it all the time in the US (until quite recently actually). The crash had nothing to do with that mission anyway. This was a support mission. The US military does not and never has used civilian helicopters. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) It is a civilian version of a military helicopter that has been outfitted to basic military standard for the mission (and is used by countries of varying wealth around the world). As I said, the military seems confident in the ability of the helicopter. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/07/...fghanistan.html Edited July 9, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Shakeyhands Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 The US military does not and never has used civilian helicopters. The Griffon is simply a variant of the Huey... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-146_Griffon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Huey But lets not let facts get in the way... Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Argus Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 The Griffon is simply a variant of the Huey... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-146_Griffon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Huey But lets not let facts get in the way... It is most certainly NOT a Huey variant. It is a Bell variant. You clearly don't understand the difference between a military and civilian aircraft. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Uh huh, and how many military operators does the Bell 412EP have? Go take a look at the page. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 I think you folks need to get a grip. Before we worry about what equipment to buy, we need to decide the role we want our military to take. We need a domestic and foreign policy defined prior to the purchase of equipment. This is a small nation that leaves a small international footprint, that must be considered. Quote
Wilber Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 And who do we have to defend ourselves against? How much money is it going to cost? We have a relatively effective plan in place now for modernization and expansion. I think that we should let it work. There isn't much else we can do short of raising taxes. Continue letting the others do it for us I take it. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 I think you folks need to get a grip. Before we worry about what equipment to buy, we need to decide the role we want our military to take. We need a domestic and foreign policy defined prior to the purchase of equipment. This is a small nation that leaves a small international footprint, that must be considered. Are you suggesting we abandoned any alliances we now have. We have profited mightily from them. Without our participation in NATO and NORAD our defence would have been much more costly over the years. You can't be part of an alliance if you don't have something to offer your allies. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Are you suggesting we abandoned any alliances we now have. We have profited mightily from them. Without our participation in NATO and NORAD our defence would have been much more costly over the years. You can't be part of an alliance if you don't have something to offer your allies. Not at all. What I suggest is that we first come to some conclusions as to what role our armed forces will play before we decide on any specific procurement program. The world has a beat cop called the USA, and many are not pleased with that. Aside from that in my opinion large scale conflicts are unusual to say the least. What is more common is small scale engagements in urban settings. I think we need to consider the possible uses of our armed forces before we can determine any reasonable force composition. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 The delivery times for these purchases appear to be long after Canada is out of Afghanistan. I still don't trust the prices quoted. We never get equipment at the price quoted. It is always a lot more. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 The delivery times for these purchases appear to be long after Canada is out of Afghanistan.I still don't trust the prices quoted. We never get equipment at the price quoted. It is always a lot more. Well yeah...once you add registration, tire surcharge, fuel emmision surcharge and the killer GST...not to mention that desert camo is an upgrade.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90 Canada's new light tank? Afghan tested and proved. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wilber Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Not at all.What I suggest is that we first come to some conclusions as to what role our armed forces will play before we decide on any specific procurement program. The world has a beat cop called the USA, and many are not pleased with that. Aside from that in my opinion large scale conflicts are unusual to say the least. What is more common is small scale engagements in urban settings. I think we need to consider the possible uses of our armed forces before we can determine any reasonable force composition. I don't see what the US has to do with it. We either want to play a roll in the world or not. Let's not blame all our poor decisions regarding our military on them. The fact that they are willing to take such a large roll has just made it easier for us to make poor decisions. It has been our recent history to have our armed forces play as little roll as possible. I believe that one of the biggest reasons peace keeping was foisted on us as our primary roll in the world is because it is cheap. You don't need up to date equipment in order not to fight. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90Canada's new light tank? Afghan tested and proved. Looks great. Interesting how a neutral country much smaller than Canada with a population of only 9 million can design and build state of the art weapon systems ranging from guns, armoured vehicles and jet fighters, all the way to stealth warships. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Bonam Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Looks great. Interesting how a neutral country much smaller than Canada with a population of only 9 million can design and build state of the art weapon systems ranging from guns, armoured vehicles and jet fighters, all the way to stealth warships. Canadians take pride in being unable to build any military equipment. It further identifies us as "not American". Canadians like to denigrate the military-industrial complex as some terrible monstrosity created by the evil empire of America, and so are proud to have nothing to do with it. Quite sad really. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 It is most certainly NOT a Huey variant. It is a Bell variant. You clearly don't understand the difference between a military and civilian aircraft. The CH-146 is a varient of the 412 which is a varient of the 212... which is a varient of the original UH-1. They are all Huey's and all are Military helicopters. Thanks for coming out. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Re: The CH-146 Griffon (lol) is what is known as a Kiowa...a Viet-Nam era civilian helicopter (and as mentioned earlier) painted green or brown as the case may be. That the US no longer operates the 412 in their own military should have been a clue for us. What we need, really, is that bad-boy being developed for the USMC, the Sikorsky CH-53K Super Stallion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K You can refuel it in mid-air even.... But since we probably can't "afford" to protect our troops that well, a pile of UH-1s would have been a better buy if we must buy old helicopters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1_Iroquois Edited July 9, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Re: The CH-146 Griffon (lol) is what is known as a Kiowa...a Viet-Nam era civilian helicopter (and as mentioned earlier) painted green or brown as the case may be. That the US no longer operates this machine in their own military should have been a clue for us.What we need, really, is that bad-boy being developed for the USMC, the Sikorsky CH-53K Super Stallion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K You can refuel it in mid-air even.... But since we probably can't "afford" to protect our troops that well, a pile of UH-1s would have been a better buy if we must buy old helicopters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1_Iroquois You want to upgrade? Buy a few squadrons of V22's and create a gunship variant. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 ....But since we probably can't "afford" to protect our troops that well, a pile of UH-1s would have been a better buy if we must buy old helicopters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1_Iroquois OK, but they wouldn't be any worse than Mi-6's, Mi-8's, or Mi-24's in terms of actual loss experience in Afghanistan. The Soviets took a beating (about 340 rotary wing aircraft losses due to all causes over 10 years). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Looks great. Interesting how a neutral country much smaller than Canada with a population of only 9 million can design and build state of the art weapon systems ranging from guns, armoured vehicles and jet fighters, all the way to stealth warships. They have a history going back a hundred plus years manufacturing state of the art artillery. The intellectual capital didn't appear overnight. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Shakeyhands Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Re: The CH-146 Griffon (lol) is what is known as a Kiowa...a Viet-Nam era civilian helicopter (and as mentioned earlier) painted green or brown as the case may be. That the US no longer operates this machine in their own military should have been a clue for us. Ummmm no. The Kiowa is the OH-58 (the latest version) and it was based on the Bell 206, the civilian version was called the Jet Ranger. Oh another thing... the Kiowa is still in active service in the US. Edited July 9, 2009 by Shakeyhands Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 You want to upgrade? Buy a few squadrons of V22's and create a gunship variant. They're maintenance hogs, unfortunately. As well, the US does operate their own version of the 412 Kiowa (OH-58) which naturally has better gear aboard. But damnit...it's still the poor-man's version of an military chopper. Especially if you want it to haul troops. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 Ummmm no. The Kiowa is the OH-58 (the latest version) and it was based on the Bell 206, the civilian version was called the Jet Ranger. My bad. I was looking at the export version. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Posted July 9, 2009 ....Oh another thing... the Kiowa is still in active service in the US. So are Chinooks...so what have we learned Canada? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.