CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Colin Parkinson]

Well the bonus would be to buy into a existing buy plus access to spare parts and a much faster learning curve for accidents and malfunction issues. However I have to ask why was this aircraft not considered for the last competition?

 

[CharlieCF]

A version of the Chinook already won that competition, though of course the losers have raised objections and they might re-open it.

They already re-opened it in 2007.  The new proposals are due May 27, and Sikorsky is bidding the same aircraft that they have for Canada--so that their new bid includes the FBW.

 

[jzaidi1]

LOL - I think I found our Cyclone replacement...too bad something like won't be coming out anytime soon for the private pilot.

Link:
http://gizmodo.com/385236/falx-promises-private-tilt+rotor-aircraft-verdict-improbable

J

 

[T.S.Rea]

SeaKings getting really old, Cormorants having maintenance problems, Griffons not powerful enough, Chinooks needed now, Cyclones delayed for years.

If used Chinooks can be bought reasonably quickly, why not buy two or three dozen used ones now to replace the SeaKing, Cormorant, and Cyclone, and develop a domestic rebuild/navalization program to begin reworking the airframes to bring them up to requirements.  Although it would raise a number of problems with integrating them to the frigates, would it not also solve multiple requirements in the longer run?  Even if it is a big and expensive aircraft to operate, a reduced airframe/UAV Griffon or some future V-UAV type would likely conserve on the use of the aircraft.

Aren't real helicopters better than paper helicopters?

And start looking to the future for an aircraft better than all of these types?

Just thinking outside the box.

 

[aesop081]

If used Chinooks can be bought reasonably quickly, why not buy two or three dozen used ones now to replace the SeaKing, Cormorant, and Cyclone,

You go try to fit a Chinook on a frigate. Once your done , come back here and let me know how you made out.  :

 

[peaches]

This is one area we certainly have problems in.  Again, too much with too little of the wrong helo.  The Cyclones will be a great machine when we finally get them.  This is all a result of AF leadership that has no idea they are running and AF, let alone how to run one.  I can say that, I am AF.

We need the right helos, COMBAT helos, not civy ones painted green.  I think the Cyclone was a good buy, but you need to fix Tac Hel and have them both work together along the lines of the British Joint Helo Force.  

Myself, I would tell the army, no, I cannot provide each brigade with a seperate helo unit, but I can provide the Army with real tac helos when and where they need them.  Buy 1 full Sqn of Chinook's, another full Sqn of "REAL" UTTH and finally a full Sqn of Attck helos.  Base them together on the same airfield so they can train to work together.  Army units can go to that base and conduct air assault training with the helos.  We have 3 CMBG's in Canada; reform 1 Cdn Div, and have 1 Wg their "Avn Brigade".  Train the Maritime helo guys to do troop insertions to augment 1 Wg.  Train 1Wg to operate helos off Navy ships.  A real combat Airforce........

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Even thinking outside of a box, there is not an ASW version of the 'hook. I am betting the cost would be too high to convert it to such a role. Please lets keep them in Heavy Lift where they will do the most good.

TS you would also have to add height, length and width to accomodate a chinook on a CPF, more money that could be spent elsewhere.

 

[peaches]

Chinooks on a frigate will not work, too big.  You might be able to put the army version on one of the new proposed supply ships, not sure of the deck dimensions.  But you can train the maritime helo guys to insert troops and their helos do fit on the boats.

 

[Sub_Guy]

This is one area we certainly have problems in.  Again, too much with too little of the wrong helo.  The Cyclones will be a great machine when we finally get them.  This is all a result of AF leadership that has no idea they are running and AF, let alone how to run one.  I can say that, I am AF.

How about an AF leadership who keeps getting screwed around by the government.  Leadership all across the CF are trying their best to upgrade their equipment, this has nothing to do with leadership not knowing what to do.  There is so much to do and a limited amount of resources the last thing the CF needs is a supplier demanding more money for a contract that has had so many problems getting off the ground, all of which due to government, not AF leadership.

 

[aesop081]

How about an AF leadership who keeps getting screwed around by the government. 

Exactly.

CP-140 AIMP was forced on the AF by the government

The AF would have had the Sea King replaced years ago when we bought the EH-101....government cancelled that

The CH-146 was a political purchase not a military choice

FWSAR......government again

Need i go on ?

 

[Good2Golf]

The most cost-effective and pan-AF supportable solution in the big picture for the AF would have been a fleet of EH-101 variants providing: SAR, Maritime and Heavy-lift Transport, each with reasonable and appropriate alterations to tweak them to the missions, absolutely doable.  Chinook for heavy list isn't a bad thing, and definitely gets the "right arc" of fire for lifting in extremis.  The H92, IMO, was born of a two-fold reason: 1) the Libs wanted anything other than an EH-101 so as to keep Chretien's "legacy"  ??? intact, and 2) the navigator mafia were quite vocal about not liking the NH-90 because they couldn't stand up in the thing (even though the NH-90 is arguably a very, nice MH machine by many accounts.)  Folding rotors and tail and new FBW should most surely have been portents of the troubles to come on H92/CH148.  There is so much legacy pressure on anything "helicopter" in Canada, I am astounded.  What is it with helicopters that successive governments feel compelled to screw the Departement over on?  ???

G2G

 

[Haletown]

and we still don't know why the 92's are late and over budget . . . . 

The government side has gone public, we need to hear from Sikorski.  Wouldn't be the first time in contracting history that Change Orders have changed dates & budgets so much finger pointing has resulted. 


A fleet of 92's would also fit the bill for single type medium lift helicopter for both Navy & Army use, with a heavy lift squadron of Chinooks for the big stuff and squadron of Griffon's for light/utility.  We just need a government with a majority and the will to make the $$'s happen.

Assuming the 92's do what Sikorski advertising says they will do.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

2) the navigator mafia were quite vocal about not liking the NH-90 because they couldn't stand up in the thing (even though the NH-90 is arguably a very, nice MH machine by many accounts.)

Tell you what- you go move 200lb stokes litters around or load sonobuoys hunched over or on your knees in the back of bouncing helicopter with a cabin just over 5 feet high.  Let me know how it works out for you.  Even the Sea King is a pain for taller AES Ops and Navigators to work in. 

As you well know, NH-90 is a nice machine- but it fell out of the running for the same reasons as another nice machine (the Seahawk).  It is just too small for the manner in which we operate Maritime Helicopters in Canada.  Sadly, we are forced to be all things to all people, because we are only going to get one airframe type.  That implies a larger aircraft.

Time will tell how this is going to all play out.  In the mean time, Sea King serviceability has never been better.  There will be a near record amount of Dets on simultaneous deployment this summer.

 

[Good2Golf]

Tell you what- you go move 200lb stokes litters around or load sonobuoys hunched over or on your knees in the back of bouncing helicopter with a cabin just over 5 feet high.  Let me know how it works out for you.  Even the Sea King is a pain for taller AES Ops and Navigators to work in. 

SKT, that's also busting some chops, I know.  Honestly, though, you should get the AESOP to do all the hard work, so you don't mess up your manicure.  :-*

Seriously though, if you had your take of 101 (with Ti half-hub), H-92 or NH-90 tomorrow (as in 2009-2010ish), which would you go for?

Cheers, bro.
G2G

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can't believe I'm actually saying this but-

EH-101 with the new tail rotor.  There. said it.

*disclaimer- my comments are mine alone and do not represent Canadian Govt, CF or Air Force Policy.

 

[Good2Golf]

Can't believe I'm actually saying this but-

EH-101 with the new tail rotor.  There. said it.

*disclaimer- my comments are mine alone and do not represent Canadian Govt, CF or Air Force Policy.

Dude, come on...that's not nearly as bad as me saying 101 for heavy-lift!  I'm going straight to "Chez Beelzebub" for that one!  ;D

 

[KJK]

One good thing about a fleet of EH 101's to do everything, it sure would simplify maintenance and training.

KJK

 

[h3tacco]

The frigate version of the NH90 is not in service and is having multiple development delays with the undercarriage and mission system. If we had ordered the NH90 we would not have them on time.

 

[beenthere]

It's not a great idea to put all of your eggs in one basket. Just imagine the problems that could be created if all of your helicopters developed the same major problem at the same time. Something like a structural failure that required an immediate fix involving a lot of engineering and work. Most of the helicopters that have been around for some time have already gone through their growing pains and problem areas have been identified.

 

[CBH99]

Hey guys,

Been reading through the thread, but I didn't see anything on this idea yet.  If I missed it, sorry.

What about going with a smaller aircraft, like the S-70B Seahawk (Or whatever the modern version is) - instead of the CH-148??

I know it was discussed earlier that we need a larger, more versatile aircraft due to a single aircraft-type fleet, and limited numbers.  But since the Seahawk would undoubtedly have a lower price tag, could we not purchase more airframes for the same cost as we're paying for the CH-148?

Both are built by the same manufacturer.  The Seahawk is already in service, and any growing pains have been worked out.  There is a steady stream of them on the production line.  And as mentioned before, would we not be able to purchase additional airframes due to lower cost??

*I'm totally outside my lane here, I know.  Just curious to hear what you AF guys think about the concept*