- Reaction score
- 22,366
- Points
- 1,260
Agreed, and Bell has been doing it best to distance themselves from the Osprey debacles.
But when Congress sees a tilt rotor - the visual is apparent, and the distinction lost of the vast majority.
Future Helicopters
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
But when Congress sees a tilt rotor - the visual is apparent, and the distinction lost of the vast majority.
Not the version of the study I've read which was mostly just a survey laying out what is currently developing to help inform some requirements and doctrine development. I'd say we're pretty far away from considering unmanned rotorcraft outside of some specific surveillance roles given the horizons involved. The Griffon replacement needs to be entering service by 2035. That doesn't leave a ton of room for broad implementation of unmanned rotorcraft for large payloads and long distances.
I'm not sure this "emphasis" on range is particularly special to Canada. The very nature of next-generation rotorcraft is that they are longer ranged and faster. The Chinook has a range of 400 nmi and a speed of 170 knots. The V-280 Valor can do at least 500 nmi and 280 knots.
- Reaction score
- 6,312
- Points
- 1,090
Who said rotorcraft? next Tactical Aviation Capability... doesn't restrict you to just rotorcraft.
As one doesn't replace a platform, one replaces a capability, I expect them to replace all the capabilities of the Griffon and add more capabilites. To do that we're going to need more than one type of platform. Some of which will be fixed wing.
Also, former CO of 450 sqn stated in an interview "We're going to replace the Griffon with a system of systems, its probably multiple fleets and probably a mix of manned and unmanned systems"
Also there is a focus on lethal effects (probably a variety of them), range, interoperability with allies and survivabiilty. There was also discussion that airbases may get consolidated if the range increases for these systems, alowing for a refocus on infrastructure. Not sure how that would work...
According to the link below, the range is actually somewhat higher (1200 KMs, or about 650 NM). I think ours have the larger tanks and from what I have heard quite a number of features that were subsequently incorporated into the Block 2 versions.
CH-147F Chinook - Aircraft - Royal Canadian Air Force - Canada.ca
Description of the CH-147F Chinook
- Reaction score
- 22,366
- Points
- 1,260
Bell’s literature.
- Reaction score
- 22,366
- Points
- 1,260
Ospreys having issues. Military pauses Osprey flights again after near crash
armrdsoul77
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 477
- Points
- 930
AP deep dive on Osprey:
Osprey's safety issues spiked over five years and caused deaths. Pilots still want to fly it
"It’s an aircraft with a huge amount of performance packed into a very compact space. What that means is that it’s a real hot rod to fly,” said Richard Brown, a rotorcraft specialist at Sophrodyne Aerospace. “But it also has these foibles which are baked into the design.”
Osprey's safety issues spiked over five years and caused deaths. Pilots still want to fly it
"It’s an aircraft with a huge amount of performance packed into a very compact space. What that means is that it’s a real hot rod to fly,” said Richard Brown, a rotorcraft specialist at Sophrodyne Aerospace. “But it also has these foibles which are baked into the design.”
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,160
Need to separate passenger pilots from cargo pilots based on the Maverick pathology.
....the need for speed.
To be clear. Was using combat radius from Wiki to make a straight comparison. Obviously, different versions with aux fuel will have longer ranges. That will be true with future rotorcraft too. The takeaway here is that a V-280, which is a tad larger than a Blackhawk has speed and range on par or better than a Chinook. That's a paradigm shift in what vertical lift means.
- Reaction score
- 22,787
- Points
- 1,360
I would have used the figures @calculus used for the actual Canadian variant, since those are known and published. V-280 is ‘just’ a faster, longer-range UH. It isn’t a CH. Run the performance numbers and you’ll see it has to significantly trade payload for endurance and to get the speed and range that makes it a ‘paradigm shift’ (I’m less generous than calling it a paradigm shift, perhaps a performance multiplier?) it will end up transporting the two squads/section(+) and their kit, but not much more. This will notably increase the time&space factor in an air assault scenario, but for moving more than light forces quickly, sustainment or transporting med/govt forces and support will still require a CH capability. Quad-tilt rotor CH would be closer to a paradigm shift, and that’s further away than V-280.
As an aside, NATO NGRC has a way to go before it’s more than a Eurocentric push for slightly tweaked existing industry offerings.
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,160
In the current Border Force scenario I figured that to secure the border using the Alberta model would require the entire fleet of RCAF Griffons, about 90 of them.
I am guessing that a Flight of V280s could cover the same turf as a Squadron of Griffons in that role.
So a fleet of 30 or so.
Nobody was expecting the V-280 to replace a Chinook. The contest was specifically for a medium transport helicopter (FVL-Medium). The point here is that you now have a platform with the reach and speed of a Chinook. Your medium rotorcraft can actually keep up with a Chinook. That is gamechanging in how planners will think. The ability to air assault 400 km in an hour is something that will give a lot of adversaries some major headaches. Imagine the AOI and AOO the adversary commander now has to consider. If Ukraine had this today, they could assault from safe garrisons in Western Ukraine right into Donbas for example. Read the learnings from the recent operational experimentation in the US:
Army Already Preparing For V-280 Valor To Dramatically Transform Air Assaults
The V-280 will "deliver one Brigade Combat Team in one period of darkness, over 500 miles, arriving behind enemy lines, and be able to conduct sustained combat operations.” The Army is busy working on its concept of Large-Scale, Long-Range Air Assault, which will be enabled by the arrival of the...
www.twz.com
When it comes to the CAF specifically, it will hopefully get us past the current use of the Griffon as largely a light utility platform that is mostly about lifting slightly heavy things and putting them somewhere else a bit further away. We can actually develop an over the horizon air assault capability. How we use this kind of lift, in conjunction with drones, will be transformative. Looking forward to how tactical aviation evolves in Canada, as these capabilities eventually come online. And this effect will be multiplied if we can standardize several current help fleets with the Griffon replacement.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,877
- Points
- 1,160
I can't remember your calculations in the other thread, but you do realize manned airborne surveillance would have to be 24/7. You could also realistically eliminate a lot of the Great Lakes and mountainous areas out west. Nobody is paddling across Lake Superior.
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,160
The Alberta model was predicated on 10 UAVs to supply 24/7 surveillance. They were backed by 10 analysts, 4 drug sniffer dogs and 4 detectors.
In addition there was a uniformed force of 51.
The border frontage was just shy of 300 km.
I assumed the reaction team, one of five, would be delivered by air. Only one team would be on shift at a time.
- Reaction score
- 22,787
- Points
- 1,360
got it, agree. I misinterpreted your previous post as V-280 replacing the Hook. Definite time and space mobility increase will be a significant increase in capability. While a few CV-22s were out there, longer range mobility has to date happened on a smaller, low-density scale, like MH-47s, so FVL-M/280 will really help things. I think Canadian tactical aviation is set to advance decently (nTACS, not platform but capability focused, likely to deliver a range of crewed and *uncrewed capabilities) and move out of its ‘making the silkiest purse out of a sow’s ear’ (CH-146) that was the mindset for the past 30 years. Was always funny listening to some aviators describe the AFG mission primarily as ‘taking the dog for a walk’ (ie. The Griffon escorting the Chinook around the AO) as though the Hook was the limiting factor. Truth is, for as much as the Griffon crew did the best they could to escort, and as effective close in their CCA (close combat attack) were in short range (particularly with overhead small/medium arms suppression (high fire rate award to the M134D Dillon mini-guns!!
) they were not AH escorts with well integrated sensor/fire control systems and layered weapons heavy arms, rockets and PG missiles. The Chinooks were for the most past limited by their escorts, both in speed and range, by the slower, shorter endurance Griffons. Back then it was what it was, but future aviation needs to have a holistically-capable sense-shoot-move-communicate (data/info/comms) layered capability in order to most effectively integrate into and support the supported elements in the digitized battle space.
Last edited:
So should we be buying more Chinooks then? Is the present 14 enough?
I think Canadian tactical aviation is set to advance decently (nTACS, not platform but capability focused, likely to deliver a range of crewed and in crewed capabilities) and move out of its ‘making the silkiest purse out of a sow’s ear’ (CH-146) that was the mindset for the past 30 years. Was always funny listening to some aviators describe the AFG mission primarily as ‘taking the dog for a walk’ (ie. The Griffon escorting the Chinook around the AO) as though the Hook was the limiting factor. Truth is, for as much as the Griffon crew did the best they could to escort, and as effective close in their CCA (close combat attack) were in short range (particularly with overhead small/medium arms suppression (high fire rate award to the M134D Dillon mini-guns!!
- Reaction score
- 28,550
- Points
- 1,090
Some of us would love to see three sqns plus an OTU, but before we can start significantly increasing the number of airframes, the RCAF needs to grow its pilot training capacity.
To say nothing of the need to grow the CAF writ large...
So we should give up 16 Griffons for 16 more Hooks.
- Reaction score
- 28,550
- Points
- 1,090
I'm advocating for more platforms, not the same number.
