- Reaction score
- 28,538
- Points
- 1,090
CloudCover said:
You wouldn't take your BMW to a Ford dealership for maintenance; maritime helicopters are the same, but more complex, doing that work at sea.
Helicopter/Cyclone discussion (split from HMCS Fredricton thread)
- Thread starter Baz
- Start date
You wouldn't take your BMW to a Ford dealership for maintenance; maritime helicopters are the same, but more complex, doing that work at sea.
Sikorsky's website says that the S-92 is transportable by a C-17. They must have procedures documented. How much different is the CH-148 to a S-92? could the same procedures be used as a starting point and reduce the time required?
This makes a case for in flight refueling on the Cyclone. I'm sure this isn't the only time it would come in handy.
This makes a case for in flight refueling on the Cyclone. I'm sure this isn't the only time it would come in handy.
Do you mean CH-149s? (149 = Cormorant, 148 = Cyclone)
No.
Ditch had mentioned that some contacts at IMP indicated the capability of moving a Cyclone via C-17 had expired. I was just wondering if someone could elaborate on that more, seeing as how we have both airframes in use.
It seems like if we've done it before, it could be done again fairly easily. But I don't have any first hand or technical knowledge of this, so was hoping someone could elaborate on why the capability may not exist anymore, when we still have the airframes to do it.
No.
Ditch had mentioned that some contacts at IMP indicated the capability of moving a Cyclone via C-17 had expired. I was just wondering if someone could elaborate on that more, seeing as how we have both airframes in use.
It seems like if we've done it before, it could be done again fairly easily. But I don't have any first hand or technical knowledge of this, so was hoping someone could elaborate on why the capability may not exist anymore, when we still have the airframes to do it.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
You might want to re-read the post by Ditch, I think he was talking about the CH-149. Cormorant, not Cyclone.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 1,771
- Points
- 1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
That's what I thought too. Hat's off to anyone that's done it though Halifax to wherever across the Atlantic would seem to be an exhausting trip and not very safe at all
- Reaction score
- 4,897
- Points
- 1,160
Live feed via RCAF Facebook of the ramp ceremony. https://www.facebook.com/61263506236/videos/816304812197469/
- Reaction score
- 22,785
- Points
- 1,360
Eye In The Sky said:
I had assumed he was talking about the only in-flight (albeit hover) refuelling that I'm aware of navy helicopters conducting, not special forces/operations/CSAR probe-and-drogue helos.
- Reaction score
- 2,277
- Points
- 1,160
dapaterson said:
That and a question of very limited number of air frames, spare parts, air crew, techs etc. Perhaps when the JSS comes online with the facilities for Cyclones there may be some improvement.
Good2golf I was talking about probe and drogue refueling. We were discussing transporting a Cyclone to HMCS Fredericton, the refueling your mentioned would not be suitable as you would need to be near a ship all the way.
Could a probe equipped helicopter paired with a C-130 refueling plane make the trip if it went via Reykjavik? I suppose the inherent risk may deem this an undesirable mission. I just thought it would be quicker than disassembling/reassembling a Cyclone. They would have to use an Italian base to do the reassembly and fly tools and technicians over with the helicopter. Unlike when the CAF took Griffons and Chinooks to Afganistan where we had a base and maintainers on site.
Could a probe equipped helicopter paired with a C-130 refueling plane make the trip if it went via Reykjavik? I suppose the inherent risk may deem this an undesirable mission. I just thought it would be quicker than disassembling/reassembling a Cyclone. They would have to use an Italian base to do the reassembly and fly tools and technicians over with the helicopter. Unlike when the CAF took Griffons and Chinooks to Afganistan where we had a base and maintainers on site.
- Reaction score
- 22,785
- Points
- 1,360
Probe and drogue refueling for helicopters requires: a) a refueling boom and associated equipment (which the CH-148 does not have, nor is it an easy add-on); b) has a significant training and currency cost that even for units with appropriately-equipped helicopters (MH-47G, MH/HH-60, CH-53, H225M, etc.) results in only a minority of the aircrew holding air-to-air refueling (AAR) qualifications; and c) needs proximal fixed-wing refueling aircraft, most likely KC-130s, which one does not often find on trans-oceanic routing, but rather in-theatre to support extended operations. What most people fail to appreciate, is what happens if you can’t ‘hook up’? It’s happened before, and crews have been lost because of that. Things become pretty stark when that gets added to the risk assessment matrix.
What would be more practical, would be fitting internally-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks to the CH-148 Cyclone as mission-specific equipment. Approximating (guessing?) a CH-148’s fuel burn at 1500 lbs/hr, and using an auxiliary internal fuel tank such as Robertson's ERFS 2 tank (used for CH/MH-47 Chinooks, they don’t have an S-92/H92 tank at the moment), you could get another ~3 hours endurance or about 400nm range.
All said, I don’t see Maritime Helicopter AAR being a practical effort, but I’m a green/black helo guy, not grey/navy guy, so I stand to be corrected.
Regards
G2G
What would be more practical, would be fitting internally-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks to the CH-148 Cyclone as mission-specific equipment. Approximating (guessing?) a CH-148’s fuel burn at 1500 lbs/hr, and using an auxiliary internal fuel tank such as Robertson's ERFS 2 tank (used for CH/MH-47 Chinooks, they don’t have an S-92/H92 tank at the moment), you could get another ~3 hours endurance or about 400nm range.
All said, I don’t see Maritime Helicopter AAR being a practical effort, but I’m a green/black helo guy, not grey/navy guy, so I stand to be corrected.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 4,897
- Points
- 1,160
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,561
- Points
- 1,160
Dana381 said:
Someone who knows more about Sea Lift will likely correct me, but I'm pretty sure you could contract a shipping firm and put a new aircraft one on a freighter to the Med.
From Halifax, I assume it would take a week or so to get there? My :2c:
- Reaction score
- 6,500
- Points
- 1,040
daftandbarmy said:
That would be the easiest way; if you can sea lift an entire ship, a single helicopter would be no problem. LAVs, TAPV and battle tanks have to get there somehow as well.
There are contract mechanisms to expedite the bidding process for a genuine operational need.
With the cause unknown though, probably too early to really think about that, and might also be kind of brutal for the crew. Tough call.
- Reaction score
- 28,538
- Points
- 1,090
The CAF has had bad experiences with contracted sealift...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Megaphone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Megaphone
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
Dana381 said:
I for one would not want to be on a ferry crew taking a helicopter from the East Coast to say, NAS Sigonella in Sicily (close to the AO). I've done more than a few transoceanic transits from the East Coast on Fixed Wing to places like Iceland, Scotland, Sigonella, Norway and also across the Pacific from the West coast. I would not want to do that, at all. I know those 'hops' from eastern Canada to Greenland to Iceland to the UK look 'small' on Google Earth but, having flown them in FW I would not want to do it RW. :2c:
- Reaction score
- 4,319
- Points
- 1,120
Understand from an open-source Fbook post today that FRE's HELAIRDET is RTU to Halifax.
No ferry flight to worry about.
No ferry flight to worry about.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,328
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=Eye In The Sky] I would not want to do that, at all. I know those 'hops' from eastern Canada to Greenland to Iceland to the UK look 'small' on Google Earth but, having flown them in FW I would not want to do it RW. :2c:
[/quote]
Is it really crappy conditions?
[/quote]
Is it really crappy conditions?
