CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Loachman]

Using CFB Downsview, or say, Dwyer Hill, as model for precedents, I think I know who will win the coin toss, eventually...

Although houses were built up along the eastern side of Downsview, and we did get a few complaints from some of those twits, that was not the reason for leaving it.

Infrastructure was crumbling and there was no money for repairs or replacement (Bombardier may have still owned our hangar), the base was being closed anyway, and we were a long way from areas where we could fly tactically any more. It wasn't the houses around the base, but the ever-increasing ring of horse farms around the GTA.

I was suggesting the acquisition of more Cyclones to replace the Comorants. I know many people consider the Cyclone to be an inferior aircraft but we would gain back fleet commonality and economies of scale that might have been part of the original plan. Fond as the Canadian Forces are of running diverse equipment fleets.

For how long would we have to operate additional CH148 in order for the "fleet commonality and economies of scale" to catch up to the cost of buying extra machines?

I always thought that we should get some commando variants to supplement the tac hel squadrons.

For what benefit? What could they do that we cannot do with Griffon and Chinook?

If we are to add another type to the Tac Hel mix, it needs to be attack and/or reconnaissance.

 

[Underway]

For what benefit? What could they do that we cannot do with Griffon and Chinook?

If we are to add another type to the Tac Hel mix, it needs to be attack and/or reconnaissance.

Just asking the question.  Why do you have blackhawks in other armies?  There's obviously a role for a medium helo in the mix as there is an itch that can't be scratched by Heavy and light general purpose helos.  Cyclone could fill that role perhaps.  It can carry a nice amount of pers (20sih)with equipment and could be deployed off any ship for arctic ops, disaster relief, SAR, SOF, resupply, cas evac.....  And do you really think that Griffons truely fit the bill for SOF with their light loads to carry and limited ability to evacuate casualties amoung other things.  More options isn't that bad of an idea, esp if we already have them in the inventory for the shipborne helo job, its not like the schools and supply system isn't already preparing to recieve them.

But I agree if the money on more helo's is to be spent it should probably be on more for the MH variant so we have more than the minimum required.  And then go out and get recce/attack variants.

 

[Loachman]

Black Hawk and Griffon both fall within the Utility category, but obviously not at the same ends of the scale. Griffon is inadequate in the utility role. UH1Y would be nice as a replacement, complimented by AH1Z for commonality. AH64 is still seen as the gold standard, though.

One can dream, but we're going to be stuck with Griffon for a bunch of years to come, with no significant upgrades likely.

 

[Baz]

I'm assuming that littoral maneuver type are the pic on the right side.

Would that even be useful to the RCAF?  Assuming no "littoral" manoeuver requirements would a mid lift helo be valuable for tac hel purposes?  Or just redundant with the Chinooks now online.

No, that is not a littoral maneuver config, that is an MH in the utility / administrative lift config.  We bought 28 of those (we bought the seat kits for all aircraft).

A littoral maneuver config would not have the radome under the nose, possibly have a nose mounted radome for a weather radar, move the EO/IR higher, possibly enhanced self defence, remove the torp racks for weight, remove the avionics rack at the front of the cabin, swap the ESM/RWR for just an RWR, possibly remove the haul down, upgrade the hoist and/or add a second, give consideration to limited CSAR, etc, etc, etc

Loachman has already covered your second question.

Commonality, in my opinion, is overrated; I'm not sure of where the savings come from as the mission sets need to be trained differently.  Especially in MH, flying the aircraft is much easier than being able to fight the aircraft.

In the last few months alone I've heard people mention once we get the Cyclones we can use them for:
SAR
CSAR
Coast Guard
Commando
ISR
Where do the training hours come from?  Where do the readiness hours come from?  We are already a "broad but shallow" skill set; is the RCN willing to accept that in our two primary roles (surface and sub-surface; ie enable the ship to deliberately go in harms way) we will be less capable?  The RCN doesn't seem able to provide the appropriate readiness and training opportunities now.

We need to get the MH Cyclone on the line and get started; at that point we will be in full regeneration mode, and it will take time.

 

[CycloneMech]

Baz - I was wondering the same thing myself especially regarding the "Commando" variant......How to rig a para-cable (like the Lab had), or would live para be only free fall.

Interesting question don't you think?

 

[Baz]

Baz - I was wondering the same thing myself especially regarding the "Commando" variant......How to rig a para-cable (like the Lab had), or would live para be only free fall.

Interesting question don't you think?

Theoretical question: sure.  What are the requirements for a Commando variant:
- para line down the center
- enhanced guns, on at least three sides
- extremely enhanced electronic self defence
- ... and a bunch of things I have no idea what they would be as it is so outside my lanes...

MH-60R is a Maritime Helicopter, for inner and outer zone defence, surface and subsurface (primary roles of the Cyclone), that can be striped out and do some littoral maneuver support (like the Cyclone) but is limited by all the expensive stuff hanging off it (like the Cyclone) (same for Merlin HAS).
MH-60S is a general fleet support helicopter (replacing the Navy CH-46s), including force SAR, that has some ability to do littoral maneuver support.
My understanding (as it is not my area of expertise):
- UH-1Y is a littoral maneuver utility helicopter
- Marine CH-46 is a littoral maneuver medium helicopter
- Osprey replaces the CH-46, but also has the ability to do deep insertion
- Marine CH-53 is a littoral maneuver heavy helicopter
- Air Force "Pave Lows" (either 60s or 47s) are Commando helicopters, but the Marines use their existing fleets to support that role

My point: again, the helicopter isn't the sole factor; arguable more importantly is how you train the crews.

 

[CycloneMech]

<----------Quotes T'ealc fromStargate  "INDEED"

Para-cable.....I was thinking more likely down the left side of the helo.....going out the center or right puts one close to that nasty whirly thingy called a tail rotor 

"Enhanced guns"...oooooooooo.....careful....there's a SENSO  or two that'll make a mess of themselves over THAT!!!

"Enhanced electronics".....hmmm.... have a feeling that the ACSOs and SENSOs are going to have their hands full for the next 7 - years.

 

[Loachman]

Commonality, in my opinion, is overrated

I share your opinion.

It was one of the (many) lies told during the Griffon acquisition programme.

Baz - I was wondering the same thing myself especially regarding the "Commando" variant......How to rig a para-cable (like the Lab had), or would live para be only free fall.

Griffon has a ring which mounts on the cabin floor. This is for training purposes only (ie, when Hercs and C17s are unavailable). There is no tactical situation that I can see where any sane person would advocate para from a helicopter into a real live operation. Such would do nought but guarantee a fiery death for all.

And loads of posthumous medals.

 

[Baz]

<----------Quotes T'ealc fromStargate  "INDEED"

Para-cable.....I was thinking more likely down the left side of the helo.....going out the center or right puts one close to that nasty whirly thingy called a tail rotor 

"Enhanced guns"...oooooooooo.....careful....there's a SENSO  or two that'll make a mess of themselves over THAT!!!

"Enhanced electronics".....hmmm.... have a feeling that the ACSOs and SENSOs are going to have their hands full for the next 7 - years.

Thing is, if it was a Commando version, I would expect that there would be no TACCO (ACSO) or SENSO (AESOP) on board... but there would be FEs as crew chiefs and (somebody?) as gunners.

Editted to add: I am an ACSO, and I see no reason why we'd need me or a sensor operator on a special forces lift aircraft (which at the end of the day is what a "commando" helicopter is).  Using an ISR or Airborne Battle Management platform to support those lift platforms is a different story...

 

[CycloneMech]

I doubt FEs.........chances are if that scenario would occur, the lads in black would probably stage from a FF or DD, maybe an AOR.

Pretty well bet an ACSO or SENSO........

 

[Baz]

I doubt FEs.........chances are if that scenario would occur, the lads in black would probably stage from a FF or DD, maybe an AOR.

Pretty well bet an ACSO or SENSO........

Right, but that isn't exactly what we are talking about:
- if it was configuring the Cyclone in the administrative lift config to support the "commando" role "come as you are," then it would be the normal crew, and only those ad hoc modifications we could do and approve quickly.  Emphasis on "come as you are:" we are not trained or equipped for it
- but if it is acquiring or modifying Cyclones to de facto be "commando" aircraft, then it wouldn't be ACSOs or AESOPs

Edited to add: and if it was using the latest Sea King or Cyclone as a "come as you are" "overwatch" (ISR and/or Battle Management) I would bet there is a good chance we would politely be asked to vacate our two seats in favour of an "operator" liaison on the radios and an "analyst" also provided by them.

 

[CycloneMech]

True that.........Maybe I misunderstood your point.

Using the default "Utility" configuration would work for that, and then utilize whomever would be designated as cabin crew to watch over the pax.

As far as the training for the other.......that will probably come in time as we all figure out the capabilities and limitations.

Anyway....GREAT chat........gotta jet for le souper.

Cheers All!!

 

[Infanteer]

(somebody?) as gunners.

Army soldiers with long term taskings to a THS.

 

[Loachman]

Not likely for shipborne helicopters, methinks. The Sea Kings did not have such in Somalia.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks all, Baz, especially, for an informative discussion. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Not likely for shipborne helicopters, methinks. The Sea Kings did not have such in Somalia.

...meh...before AFG, Tac Hel didn't have dedicated door gunners either...if there's a requirement, I'm certain that some of the Bos'ns on a NBP can get the requisite training to operate the C6.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

...meh...before AFG, Tac Hel didn't have dedicated door gunners either...if there's a requirement, I'm certain that some of the Bos'ns on a NBP can get the requisite training to operate the C6.

Good God, man! Have you ever met a bosun?

I joke, I joke...

Actually, if we ever get in a situation where we need more door gunners than the standard one , ship trades trained in a secondary role might not be a bad fit on Cyclone. Bosuns can generally be trusted with firearms...

 

[Baz]

Actually, if we ever get in a situation where we need more door gunners than the standard one , ship trades trained in a secondary role might not be a bad fit on Cyclone. Bosuns can generally be trusted with firearms...

I don't think it will come to that.  If we are in come as you are admin lift config then our console will be out, and we'll do it.

If we acquire dedicated commando mods (which I'm not advocating, we already have them, they're called Chinooks) it wouldn't be part of the ship or manned anyway the same.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Baz- just treating this whole thing like a thought experiment. You can never predict what things will look like, 25 years down the road....

 

[Infanteer]

Question:  When a Maritime Helicopter guy says "Commando" variant, in Army speak is that a "Troop/Cargo" variant or a "SOF" variant?