• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CH-146 Griffon

  • Thread starter Thread starter the patriot
  • Start date Start date
The HH60M would be better for SAR, that is pretty much its design mission and Canada doesn't have enough C130 refuelling capable tankers to scatter around the SAR bases to make a MH variant with a refuelling probe worthwhile. And no navy to speak of so the naval versions would be overkill for SAR (and unnecessary extra weight) although would be fine for heli-dets, vert-rep and ASW.

Just don't get the UR designed medical interior. Super heavy and the powered stretcher lift can kill people. So stick with a double stack of stretchers on one or both sides with 1 or 2 LSTAT's for patient care and the OBOGS system. Then add a full Lonseal aviation grade removeable 'rubber' floor so it can be hosed out easily. Blood corrodes aluminum quickly and always seems to find seams and cracks to squeeze through.

As a side note, I flew MEDEVAC's all over the NWT and western Nunavut in DHC-6-300's and CC-138's with 440SQN including NPS (the Air Tindi ski bird linked above). FW helmets are almost a must for snow or esker/tundra landings - you can get knocked around a bit. Floats are so much smoother although full 45-17.00x16 tundra tires are not too bad. Often operators only use a main gear wheel on all 3 ("intermediate nose gear and fork") as tundra tires have both a weight and performance penalty.

Spring skiis are only good if you have a dedicated ice/snow runway at your larger destination airports but do save weight and air resistance. Wheel-skiis are more common since they can kand in pavement well. Similarly amphibious floats vs pure floats.

All that said you still need 1000'x50' of pavement/gravel/dirt runway although 1500' is better for skiis. So while it may meet the speed and range and load requirements it does not meet the VTOL requirement.

And I do not want to be on a V280 tactical assault at night - the chances of a collision in that sort of multiship and confined space (let alone under fire) is huge. The footprint is larger than a CH47 with a higher risk of blade-blade strikes. Give me a hungover VanDoo jumpmaster and even a T10 from 500' anyday.
 
Last edited:
It's my understanding (quite possibly wrong) that the ASW suite on the Cyclone can be removed so it can be used as a utility helicopter. If so, could the ASW suite be modified to work with a Cormorant? The AH/EH-101 for both the SAR and ASW roles and the Blackhawk as the Griffon replacement?
 
Apparently there was a faction within the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm that appears to have been fascinated by flying CH 47 off ASW carriers.
Got to admit a Chinook flying anti sub missions would be impressive to see.
 
Understood. Explaination?
Airworthiness.

Cutting holes in aircraft where there are currently no holes.

Years, if not a decade(s) test and evaluation.

Integration of systems never before integrated. Bring a big cheque book.

Need I go on?

Quit trying to McGyver shit and buy off the shelf. If you want a Merlin, buy a Merlin. Don’t Frankenstein something
 
Anyone have thoughts on the suitability of the MH-60R for the ASW and SAR roles?
I'm pretty sure it's been discussed in another thread before, but my understanding is that the Sea Hawk was built around the US Navy's ASW doctrine, where the helicopter is more of an extension of the ship and all the sensors and equipment are effectively wirelessly tethered to the ship to relay all information back and they require explicit authorization to fire the torpedoes, for example, whereas RCN doctrine has the helicopter fully autonomous and conducts missions independently of the ship. So it would require retrofitting new equipment to our ships to receive and process the information from the helicopter.

Although I've also heard the MH-60R and SH-60 are different, though I don't know whether the MH-60R functions the same as our Cyclones or the Merlin.
 
Give me a hungover VanDoo jumpmaster and even a T10 from 500' anyday.
Not trying to derail the thread, this thought just came to me upon reading this...

But if there was ever a straightforward project that would improve morale in the jump companies, probably save VAC a ton of knee injury claims, is justifiable, and wouldn't cost billions of dollars....replacing those damn chutes with something that has even just a bit more surface area would be it!



I did precisely...was it 6 jumps for the basic Para course? Never hit anything so hard in my life as I hit the ground with that flimsy little thing KINDA SORTA slowing me down...bloody hell...

When I was a kid I jumped off the roof of our house using my sister's baby blanket as a Parachute...Nintendo games left me with a slightly unrealistic appreciation for physics at the age of 8...

I hit the ground like a bag of bricks. Can't say the basic parachute course felt all that different... 🤦‍♂️

(You learn pretty darn quick not to land on straight legs & just to literally roll with it!)
 
It's my understanding (quite possibly wrong) that the ASW suite on the Cyclone can be removed so it can be used as a utility helicopter. If so, could the ASW suite be modified to work with a Cormorant? The AH/EH-101 for both the SAR and ASW roles and the Blackhawk as the Griffon replacement?
The EH101 does have a maritime equivalent, we were going to buy them. I would think with a few upgrades things could work (the parts/ wiring may already be present). . It would depend in the mission equipment specifically fitting the actual space. .
 
The EH101 does have a maritime equivalent, we were going to buy them. I would think with a few upgrades things could work (the parts/ wiring may already be present). . It would depend in the mission equipment specifically fitting the actual space. .
Or just buy the purpose built Merlin instead of adding random things on and hoping for the best.
 
Or just buy the purpose built Merlin instead of adding random things on and hoping for the best.
Not really hoping for the best, originally we were buying EH101 in two variants, 1 Sar and 1 Maritime. It appears from their website it was built to be multirole and may not take much to convert over. Unless your Canada who needs to create a defense committee to research if the platform is even able to be switched over. Even though other countries use them.
 
Not really hoping for the best, originally we were buying EH101 in two variants, 1 Sar and 1 Maritime. It appears from their website it was built to be multirole and may not take much to convert over. Unless your Canada who needs to create a defense committee to research if the platform is even able to be switched over. Even though other countries use them.
Literally mate...

One guy. Just get one guy from the PMO to spend a day or two on the phone calling the actual manufacturer of the aircraft with the relevant questions on hand - and another day or so calling some senior maintenance staff in air forces that operate the thing.

Ask the relevant questions. Get the relevant answers. See what the manufacturer says, and see what the end user says. Be prudent and quick about it...




I literally have a hard time believing that these committee's are even a real thing sometimes...
 
Literally mate...

One guy. Just get one guy from the PMO to spend a day or two on the phone calling the actual manufacturer of the aircraft with the relevant questions on hand - and another day or so calling some senior maintenance staff in air forces that operate the thing.

Ask the relevant questions. Get the relevant answers. See what the manufacturer says, and see what the end user says. Be prudent and quick about it...




I literally have a hard time believing that these committee's are even a real thing sometimes...
PMO as in Prime Minister’s Office or Project Management Office? Because I can assure you that the second one has had those conversations in long and sleep-inducing detail.

Also, I wouldn’t trust a company’s claims as far as I can throw them. Never trust the glossy brochure. I’d also take the allied use cases with a grain of salt bc not all of us use our equipment the same way.
 
I'm pretty sure it's been discussed in another thread before, but my understanding is that the Sea Hawk was built around the US Navy's ASW doctrine, where the helicopter is more of an extension of the ship and all the sensors and equipment are effectively wirelessly tethered to the ship to relay all information back and they require explicit authorization to fire the torpedoes, for example, whereas RCN doctrine has the helicopter fully autonomous and conducts missions independently of the ship. So it would require retrofitting new equipment to our ships to receive and process the information from the helicopter.

Although I've also heard the MH-60R and SH-60 are different, though I don't know whether the MH-60R functions the same as our Cyclones or the Merlin.
It hasn’t really been that way for decades.
 
Back
Top