CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Kirkhill]

What are the alternatives?

Cyclone
AW-101
NH-90

MH-60R is a bit on the lighter side than those three.

Still lighter is the Lynx Wildcat.

MH-60R and lighter don't have the troop carrying and logistics potential of the first three.

As for which one is better..... Google any of the above and add the word "problems" to the search field.

 

[Haletown]

What are the alternatives?

Cyclone
AW-101
NH-90

MH-60R is a bit on the lighter side than those three.

Still lighter is the Lynx Wildcat.

MH-60R and lighter don't have the troop carrying and logistics potential of the first three.

As for which one is better..... Google any of the above and add the word "problems" to the search field.

Agreed on the "problems" bit. 

The only one that  is designed to function within the RCN operational concept is the Cyclone. If we were to switch ponies now and adopt any of the others, we would  have extensive changes to the way operations are conducted, the selection and training of crews etc . . .  Big deals all around.

More and more this looks to be negotiating via media leaks.  The government and Sikorsky are at the table and it  looks like pressure application  on Sikorsky.

Time will tell

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Hi Haletown,

Was hoping you could elaborate on the "RCN Operational Concepts" and how equipment which appear extremely similar to a non-expert such as myself may not in fact be easily subtitutible?


Thanks in advance, Matthew.

 

[observor 69]

Yes I also would be interested in what difficulties there would be in purchasing the AW-101 and integrating it into our ASW world.
And what contractual problems might there be in freeing ourselves from Sikorsky.

Cheers

 

[h3tacco]

In 2004 there were two compliant bids the EH-101 and the Cyclone. Of all the truly off-the-shelf aircraft the RN's Merlin HM Mk2 would most closely meet our operational needs. The Cyclone was selected over the EH-101 because Sikorsky's bid was lower.

If the GoC decides to go with the EH-101 there will  be a some developmental work to be done. To maintain an OTS purchase the aircraft would have to be purchased with the RN's mission system. While not trivial, the only development would be the integration of the MK-46 Torpedo and the integration with Canadian ships.

The billion dollar question is whether staying with the Cyclone will be quicker and cheaper than cutting bait and switching vendors. The fact that this is even open for debate some 9 years after contract award likely provides some insight to just how far Sikorsky is behind. One way or another the decision will be made by the GoC.

 

[Baz]

Here's a couple of links.

The Original SOR, almost exactly the same:
http://www.aero.polimi.it/~rolando/bacheca/imprimatur/canadian-naval-helicopter.pdf
It has a good discussion of how a Canadian MH is intended to be used.

The MHRS, some changes, but nothing major:
http://www.aero.polimi.it/~rolando/bacheca/imprimatur/canadian-naval-helicopter.pdf

Look at para 4.1.2.5.7.1 of the SOR for the mission system "boxes."

I don't know what Haletown means by putting out current system (paraphrasing) on the AW101.  If you mean the Sea King, its no where near the requirement.  The Sea King currently has:
- a non-pulse Doppler radar
- a slightly modded AQS-13B sonar
- FLIR-2000 (IR only)
- AIS (not in the MH SOR)
- an emerging Full Motion Video and plot link, but the plot is not Link 11, 16, or 22
The CH-124 is remarkably un-integrated with Canadian Ships.  The Canadian Concept is independent ops, full Surface and Sub-Surface spectrum, 4 crew.

If, on the other hand, you mean the mission system from the Cyclone, that would be a considerable effort, and is a big part of the reason we are were we are with the Cyclone.

However, the MH project includes better integration with the ship through MPAS pre and post flight... implementing that would be harder for an OTS buy.  The airborne integration is easier at it uses STANAG compliant datalink.

Look at page 21 of this http://www.nhindustries.com/site/docs_wsw/PDF/NH90_brochure.pdf, its near the SOR.  The Merlin is similar except no FLIR, but they can put a MX-15 on a weapon station pod.  Either *could* be made to fit the Canadian model.

The 60R does not fit the Canadian model, it is less capable of independent ops.

 

[Haletown]

Ahhhh sorry . .  . Slower morning after a single malt event last night.

The point I was trying to make is there are two options when buying complex military kit.

Buy COTS and then adapt your operational concept and ILS systems to what the vendor has built.

Buy custom and get the vendor's engineers to build what you want so you can operate it and maintain it the way you want.


We went the custom route with the Cyclone, we are now talking about going the COTS route with XXXXX.

There is the in-between option, buy COTS and then do some customization.  The Victoria class subs went this route and the burn is still lingering.


Agreed  . . . Nine years in and this is in the GCF category of procurements.

 

[Baz]

Absolutely agree with your two options.

At the time that the MH project was starting, Canada believed its only option was to buy custom in order to get what it needed.  Or maybe more correctly, it tried to write a spec that defined what it felt it needed, which led down the road of building custom.  However, time has ticked on.

Although its on oversimplification, there are on three operational concepts for surface and subsurface warfare helicopters:
- capable, multirole, varied sensors aircraft with normally four person crews that operate independently: Cyclone, Merlin (without some capabilities, like EO, as they also have the Lynx), Aussie S-70, and NH-90 in full config.  This was developed by the British and Canadians with their respective Sea Kings, but ours has been steadily falling behind since the 80's and now is way out back.
- capable, multirole, varies sensors, but less capable crew and "somewhat" tied to its mother ship.  US Lamps I, Lamps III (60B), and 60R.  However, even they have considered intermittently moving to the fist concept.
- less capable, multirole but usually focused on one or the other, less sensors, smaller crew: Lynx, Huey's, 60F, Sea Sprite, etc

As we are in the first concept, the integration to the ship is "easier."  Over time, those other airframes have proven that they are also capable in that concept as well.

I just think we should get on with making the Cyclone work, but it is really being driven by the politics of procurement, which is way above my pay grade.

 

[Infanteer]

When you say "independent", is the term used to describe a helo that can conduct all of its tasks without having to rely on the more powerful weapons/sensors of its parent ship?

 

[Good2Golf]

If we got the EH-101, at least we would have some spare parts (major components), having procured the residual VH-71 fleet...

 

[Baz]

When you say "independent", is the term used to describe a helo that can conduct all of its tasks without having to rely on the more powerful weapons/sensors of its parent ship?

Yes and no:

Independence in surface warfare is being able to detect, identify, track and correlate the plot within the platform.  Its the difference between making your own decisions on searches, etc, and just running around wherever the ops room tells you.  In my experience, it is much more effective to have a thinking crew.  The heavy weapon will be the ships Harpoons or equivalent in any case.

For ASW, its being able to prosecute the sub by yourself, or as a dip gang of two, maybe with an MPA; in the best case, the ships are going in the other direction while this is happening.  In reality, the ASW weapon is the helicopter, the ships ASW weapons are really only for self defense.  If a ship is close enough to use its torps on a sub it is probably already subject to being no longer afloat.  Historically, the Brits and us  (them better than us) went out and prosecuted our discretion; the Americans remained firmly under the control of the ship ( a good example, although completely unrealistic, is where the torp was destroyed in "The Hunt For Rad October" by the ship).

For ASW, in the "older" days, what made an independent helicopter was a sonar, a radar, and a weapon.  This gave you the ability to search, detect, localize, track, and attack by yourself, and the ability to work as a dip gang of two very effectively.  The radar allowed the two helos to coordinate, and to do vectored attacks.  Now, you also want ESM, EO, and Link (primarily for surface warfare), and maybe sonobuoy acoustics.

 

[rathawk]

In early 2012 I briefly checked into this forum as a guest and divulged some inside information pointing out that there might be a serious problem or two with the Cyclone.  There was some bully reaction to my info so I went back into my shell.

H3 TACCO reported a few entries ago :

In 2004 there were two compliant bids the EH-101 and the Cyclone. Of all the truly off-the-shelf aircraft the RN's Merlin HM Mk2 would most closely meet our operational needs. The Cyclone was selected over the EH-101 because Sikorsky's bid was lower. 


This is not exactly correct.  Yes, it is true that the MHPMO declared that there were two compliant bidders following the MH Pre-Qualification evaluation that was conducted between May and October 2003; however, there was actually only one compliant PQ bidder.  The S92 was evaluated by the PQ evaluators to be non-compliant with a number of the key MHRS (MH Requirement Speciifications) requirements but was given a "pass".  If not for this PQ "pass", the only bidder to advance to the RFP stage would have been the politically dreadful 101.  Everyone will recall that MHP was a "lowest cost compliant" competition.  As H3 TACCO correctly reports, the Sikorsky bid was the lowest cost of the two ... to guarantee an outcome, the solution Sikorsky proposed was merely pencil whipped as "compliant" but it remains to this day quite otherwise.

This is why the MH procurement is in such a mess.

 

[Haletown]

Well that has Jean Chretien's political legacy fingerprints all over it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Leaving all the politics aside, I have two questions:

    1. Is the Merlin available for sale in a reasonable time frame? and

    2. Can the Cyclone be made compliant at a reasonable cost and in an equally reasonable time frame?

 

[MilEME09]

Well that has Jean Chretien's political legacy fingerprints all over it.

that mans prints will come back at the CF for decades to come.

As for the Merlin it really depends on what work or modifications need to be done with it to make it ready for our service. An Issue with making the cyclone compliant is we've gone back and change requirements and then get mad when they cant meet targets. I've heard that we might not see them till 2015, now the question becomes, can we trust that delivery window? If so is it better to wait out and not get an interim solution?

 

[Kirkhill]

A dozen Indian VIP Merlins are hanging fire just now, pending the outcome of an Italian corruption trial.

Delivery rate seems to be about one a month

Yeovil is just delivering upgraded RN maritime Merlins.

 

[h3tacco]

An Issue with making the cyclone compliant is we've gone back and change requirements and then get mad when they cant meet targets.

This is incorrect. The requirements are unchanged since 2004.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: In addition the Indians have a forex problem

Rupee's Falling Value Hurts India's Defense Budget
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130906/DEFREG03/309060011

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Baz]

Leaving all the politics aside, I have two questions:

    1. Is the Merlin available for sale in a reasonable time frame? and

    2. Can the Cyclone be made compliant at a reasonable cost and in an equally reasonable time frame?

I have no idea of the answer to your first question.

For your second, I'll quote the Hitachi report, available here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/09/05/pol-sikorsky-cyclone-helicopters-sea-kings-contract-public-works.html

<Quote>
Government should recognize that they will be required to sacrifice less import MHRS requirements to delvier relevant capability to the RCAF.
This would require the Government, Sikorsky, and GDC to negotiate within a defined "trade space" over the next 45-90 days to meet RCAF operational needs within a valiated contractor approach.
Through this effort, a viable MHP could be achieived which would be relevant to the RCAF and which may not fundamentally violate the SOI, however this must be validated by the government.
<Unquote>

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, Baz; so am I correct in reading "could be achieived which would be relevant to the RCAF and which may not fundamentally violate the SOI" as meaning that an acceptable aircraft is possible, and that "acceptable" ≈ compliant?

(I suppose I'm asking if it is close enough for government work.  :camo: )