CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Good2Golf]

The 412 is a civilian market evolution of the original Vietnam era Huey, not the Twin Huey, so there's almost nothing in common with the Yankee and Zulu, not even the engine (the 412 uses a single Whitney & Pratt Canada PT6 instead of twin GE T700s).

No, the 412 developed from the 212, itself a civilian version of the UH-1N Twin Huey. In the late-70s, Petroleum Helicopters Inc. (PHI) in Louisiana and some other smaller operators worked with Bell to produce a faster version of the 212 as the extra 20-30 knots would make their aircraft more productive in the Gulf of Mexico oil fields. PHI was Bell’s largest introductory 412 operator in 82/83. Norway procured some militarized SP-variants of the 412 shortly after PHI’s implementation and the 412 became regularly militarized in various models thereafter (SP, HP, CF, EP, EPI).

The 412 (as is the 212) is powered by a P&WC PT6T Twin Pac engine, which is a conjoined pair of PT6 turbo shaft engines. It technically is a single ‘power unit’ but it most definitely has two (twin) separate power sections. Many militarized 412s (including the CH146 Griffon) are powered the T400, a military variant of the PT6T.

The major point of the previous discussion was that the USMC performed a wee bit of prestidigitation with their old Twin Hueys…essentially keeping the data plate (and small folding cargo doors and tail pedals) and wrapping a ‘relatively new’ everything else around the data plate to align with the slightly less drastic AH-1W Super Cobra to AH-1Z Viper

 

[DBNSG]

No, the 412 developed from the 212, itself a civilian version of the UH-1N Twin Huey. In the late-70s, Petroleum Helicopters Inc. (PHI) in Louisiana and some other smaller operators worked with Bell to produce a faster version of the 212 as the extra 20-30 knots would make their aircraft more productive in the Gulf of Mexico oil fields. PHI was Bell’s largest introductory 412 operator in 82/83. Norway procured some militarized SP-variants of the 412 shortly after PHI’s implementation and the 412 became regularly militarized in various models thereafter (SP, HP, CF, EP, EPI).

The 412 (as is the 212) is powered by a P&WC PT6T Twin Pac engine, which is a conjoined pair of PT6 turbo shaft engines. It technically is a single ‘power unit’ but it most definitely has two (twin) separate power sections. Many militarized 412s (including the CH146 Griffon) are powered the T400, a military variant of the PT6T.

The major point of the previous discussion was that the USMC performed a wee bit of prestidigitation with their old Twin Hueys…essentially keeping the data plate (and small folding cargo doors and tail pedals) and wrapping a ‘relatively new’ everything else around the data plate to align with the slightly less drastic AH-1W Super Cobra to AH-1Z Viper

What do you think about the recently retired AH-1Z's and UH-1Y's that the Marines sent to Arizona. 30 and 27 respectively. Would that be a better policy option than the GLLE? Should the Government ask the Yanks for a deal like Obama's VH-101 giveaway? The Yankee at least looks like a Griffin.

 

[KevinB]

Two quick questions here, for those who know:

1) Is the line for the AW-101 still open? And,
2) How long is the US planning on continuing producing SH-60-R?

They seem like relevant question to me where cost is concerned and where any replacement plan can be contemplated (i.e. if the Americans are moving soon to another platform, no point in acquiring the old one and if the 101 line is closed, why be the ones paying the extra to restart it).

No idea on the 101.
Regarding the Hawk, now there are still open lines for at least 6 years for the Army BlackHawks, as well the Navy didn’t buy into the FLRAA either, (and the 280 won’t for into anything smaller than an Amphib) so I don’t expect Sik to shut that line down for a long time.
The 280 doesn’t fit the SOCOM mission criteria for 70+% it their roles, so there will be MH and UH-60 birds for a while there as well.

I believe that even best case scenario for the US Army transition has the UH-60 flying into 2045, so your going to see Sik support for at least 21 years, and likely (IMO) longer.

 

[suffolkowner]

Two quick questions here, for those who know:

1) Is the line for the AW-101 still open? And,
2) How long is the US planning on continuing producing SH-60-R?

They seem like relevant question to me where cost is concerned and where any replacement plan can be contemplated (i.e. if the Americans are moving soon to another platform, no point in acquiring the old one and if the 101 line is closed, why be the ones paying the extra to restart it).

Are we not getting 3 new 101s and the other 13 upgraded to the same standard? Not sure as that program has been all over the place too. Are the 3 really new or cobbled from the US ones we got

 

[Good2Golf]

What do you think about the recently retired AH-1Z's and UH-1Y's that the Marines sent to Arizona. 30 and 27 respectively. Would that be a better policy option than the GLLE? Should the Government ask the Yanks for a deal like Obama's VH-101 giveaway? The Yankee at least looks like a Griffin.

I don’t think the interim juice would be worth the squeeze, TBH. GLLE will take DND/RCAF into Next Generation Tactical Aviation capability (nTACS) decision space. Focusing just on platform capability marginal enhancement without appreciating all the other aspects like personnel re-training, and new supply chain pressures, won’t do the RCAF any favors in the next 10-12 years.

This is a decent open source article in CDR that includes some information on nTACS and GLLe, etc.

Featured content

Featured content

www.canadiandefencereview.com

 

[suffolkowner]

Two quick questions here, for those who know:

1) Is the line for the AW-101 still open? And,
2) How long is the US planning on continuing producing SH-60-R?

They seem like relevant question to me where cost is concerned and where any replacement plan can be contemplated (i.e. if the Americans are moving soon to another platform, no point in acquiring the old one and if the 101 line is closed, why be the ones paying the extra to restart it).

sure seems like the line is open

RCAF Cormorant to be similar to Norwegian AW101-612; some capability will differ - Skies Mag

As part of the Cormorant upgrade project, plans call for the CH-149 airframe to be identical to Norway's AW101-612 platform, but some avionics will differ.

skiesmag.com

a bit of downgrading to get everything under budget I guess for this on again off again mid life upgrade plus new helos to get up to 16

 

[armrdsoul77]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopters-defence-air-force-1.7088390

Lifetime cost of military's Cyclone choppers set to soar past $14B, government document reveals​

 

[Maxman1]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopters-defence-air-force-1.7088390

Lifetime cost of military's Cyclone choppers set to soar past $14B, government document reveals​

Good thing we didn't buy the Cadillacs.

 

[Maxman1]

An excellent point was brought up here on why Sea Hawks aren't suitable for our needs. Namely, they're built around US Navy doctrine, which is very different from ours and would require major changes and ship upgrades to support an aircraft that is much more reliant on the host ship.

How Canada uses their naval helicopters is different from how the Americans use their Seahawks.

Basically, we operate our naval helicopters as an independent asset from the ship; it has the ability to detect, track and attack a target by itself, without the assistance of the host ship. This practice is mostly done by Canada and the British.

US Navy practice is to use the helicopter as an extension of the host ship; the helicopter is just there to provide a secondary sensor position, and to carry a weapon to the target. All decisions about what the helicopter did, when to shoot, plus any analysis of any sensor input, was done from the host ship, not in the helicopter; the helicopter was in effect tethered to the host ship via radios and data links. Any sensor information gathered by the helicopter is sent back to the host ship for analysis.

While the MH-60R adds some capability for the helicopter to do some of the sensor analysis and decision making back on the helicopter, it's fairly limited. The MH-60R is just way too small and lacks the internal volume for the additional computers, sensors and extra crew members to really allow it to fight as an independent asset.

To switch to the MH-60R would mean we would have to ditch decades of existing practices, and modify our ships to add in extra equipment needed to handle a helicopter that is far more reliant on the surface ship to process data and to make decisions. In fact, this is the reason why the MH-60R was considered, but eliminated from contention; it's too much of a change to how we operate naval helicopters to really make sense for us when you consider the whole package. We need a much larger, more capable helicopter to begin with, which is why the AW101 has always been considered as an option; it was purpose built as an full blown Sea King replacement and can largely do the same things a Sea King could do, but in a more modern and capable platform.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

An excellent point was brought up here on why Sea Hawks aren't suitable for our needs. Namely, they're built around US Navy doctrine, which is very different from ours and would require major changes and ship upgrades to support an aircraft that is much more reliant on the host ship.

Not correct.

Maybe was once correct- not correct anymore.

 

[Maxman1]

Not correct.

Maybe was once correct- not correct anymore.

In regards to how we operate maritime helicopters, or how the US operates maritime helicopters and how the MH-60R is equipped?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

In regards to how we operate maritime helicopters, or how the US operates maritime helicopters and how the MH-60R is equipped?

In regards to the MH-60R.

 

[calculus]

Latest "problem", as reported by CBC, related to blade debonding:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-sikorsky-debonding-1.7101677

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am glad the manufacturer is at least on top of the issue and has sent out a notice to inspect. Better than finding out after a crash investigation.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Latest "problem", as reported by CBC, related to blade debonding:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-sikorsky-debonding-1.7101677

This isn’t really new. Or as breathlessly serious as Murray Brewster makes it out to be.

Ambushing the MND with a RARM that he would never be involved in, in the first place, makes for good TV drama but otherwise is pointless.

 

[Navy_Pete]

This isn’t really new. Or as breathlessly serious as Murray Brewster makes it out to be.

Ambushing the MND with a RARM that he would never be involved in, in the first place, makes for good TV drama but otherwise is pointless.

That coin tap test sounds tedious, but having done something similar on miles of piping with a ballpein hammer, surprising how effective it is at finding cracked welds (and really worn pipe)

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That coin tap test sounds tedious, but having done something similar on miles of piping with a ballpein hammer, surprising how effective it is at finding cracked welds (and really worn pipe)

I am no tech, but apparently it works…

 

[PuckChaser]

Is there replacement blades on the way or are we going to be running these inspections every 50 hours for the life of the helicopter?

 

[DBNSG]

Is there replacement blades on the way or are we going to be running these inspections every 50 hours for the life of the helicopter?

Would these blades be the same for the U.S. Presidents new ride?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Would these blades be the same for the U.S. Presidents new ride?

My memory fails, but I don’t believe that these blades are bespoke to the Cyclone fleet, no.