CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Dana381]

Of course the BHP is a good gun, Raymond reddington uses one . I'll bet his has a little less wear on it the the ones in CAF stock.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

In the ASW config, with full fuel, weapon and stores load (2xMk46 + 22 Sonobuoy, CMs etc) the CH148 is pretty much taking off at Max GW. I think you are under estimating the weight of the ASW config. This is more or the less the with the MH-60R btw. An aircraft like the AW101 is really the size of aircraft you need to accomplish the mission with spare capacity. The RN Merlin Mk2 can be equipped with both a door mounted M134 or .50 (M3M?) while retaining the ASW kit.

The CH148 is funded, designed and will field two GPMG (C-6); one in the Cabin Door and one on the Ramp. The C-6s generally will be used for the all the previously mentioned mission sets (counter piracy, limited NEO missions, etc..) While it is technically possible to replace those weapons with miniguns or .50 cal there would be significant cost in resources to acquire, design, test and field them that really is the primary limiting factor. The way MH dets deploy you really couldn't practically deploy with two extra dedicated door gunners. If needed the crew would be adapted with the existing complement of SENSOs/TACCOs to fulfill the door gunner role when required. This is the common method amongst allies as well (USN, RN, RAN etc..).

As well , the MH community has a laundry list of capability deficiencies (which I believe improved ASuW weaponry is already on the list) that need to be addressed before it got to miniguns.

Finally, the RCN or larger RCAF has never been a big supporter of the requirement for an improved armed MH helo. For better or worse, the RCN/RCAF doesn't see it as a priority. Other the last 30+ years there have been various efforts to improve the armament of both the CH124 and CH148 that have largely failed due to lack of interest by the RCN/RCAF. At one time, this included arming the CH124 with the M134 and we even had a mock up of it. ASuW weapons were looked at for the CH124 at various times including a study to integrate the AGM-65 on the CH124. At one point, a feasibility study was conducted by industry looking at various armed helo approaches for the CH148 (this included common missiles AGM-114, AGM-65, AGM-119 etc). Everything is in the realm of possibility but none of these concept have ever reach the point where they were high enough priority to be actioned. Probably similar reasons why the CP140 was never armed with AGM-84 or 65.

Finally, (though I have been out of the loop for a couple years), in its current state the MH community doesn't have the capacity to take on any additional training, equipment or missions. Again I could be wrong but I think "treading water"/"staying afloat" would be an overly optimistic view of the current state of the community.

I might know the person who wrote the AGM-65 study…

 

[Kirkhill]

Is there a common thread here?

Regardless of the platform - land, sea or air - it seems to me that weapons fit comes at the tail end of the design requirements. One might have thought the range of possibilities might have pushed that discussion a little higher on the priority list.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Is there a common thread here?

Regardless of the platform - land, sea or air - it seems to me that weapons fit comes at the tail end of the design requirements. One might have thought the range of possibilities might have pushed that discussion a little higher on the priority list.

I would not say that is the case. It is a mugs game to design an aircraft to deliver a specific brand of ordinance.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I would not say that is the case. It is a mugs game to design an aircraft to deliver a specific brand of ordinance.

 

[Kirkhill]

While it may be a mug's game to design to a specific brand, shouldn't the design reflect the full range of capabilities resulting from employing all available ordnance options?

Especially if we are restricted in the number and variety of platforms and aspire to be a broadly useful multi-functional force?

 

[dapaterson]

OT&E is a limited capacity that undergoes regular prioritization. There are not resources to assess all possible loadouts.

And "let's just fire and see what happens" is not a viable CoA.

 

[KevinB]

OT&E is a limited capacity that undergoes regular prioritization. There are not resources to assess all possible loadouts.

And "let's just fire and see what happens" is not a viable CoA.

Clearly you haven't been at some SOCOM S&T events

 

[Kirkhill]

OT&E is a limited capacity that undergoes regular prioritization. There are not resources to assess all possible loadouts.

And "let's just fire and see what happens" is not a viable CoA.

Perhaps we could invite the manufacturer's rep to show up at the range with her full catalogue of options and let her do the trigger pulling. Then we could see what happens from a safe distance.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Perhaps we could invite the manufacturer's rep to show up at the range with her full catalogue of options and let her do the trigger pulling. Then we could see what happens from a safe distance.

If they use our helos to do so, they need to conform to our airworthiness regulations. Even if we decide to procure, we still need to integrate, certify and qualify the weapons.

 

[dapaterson]

Perhaps we could invite the manufacturer's rep to show up at the range with her full catalogue of options and let her do the trigger pulling. Then we could see what happens from a safe distance.

There's a material difference between a demo and OT&E.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair enough.

But why do we do things like buying the Carl Gustav to launch one round and then fail to exploit the range of rounds available? Similarly with 40mm grenades, 60 and 81mm bombs, 105 and 155mm shells? The full range of possibilities afforded by 70mm rockets?

It can't be a lack of time. Some of that kit has been in production for over 50 years.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

It was a Hornet with two Air-to-Air missiles and ultimately, the gun.

Knew about the CF-18s strafing the target and the boat was later engaged by the door gunner on the Sea King. I thought I had a write-up about it, but can't find it.

Macht Nichts!

 

[dapaterson]

Time, space, funding, personnel availability...

Want new rounds? Ok. How many? Where can you fire them? Where can you store them? What's the shelf life? Where can you maintain them? What holdings do you require for training? What holdings for operations? Where does this particular capability land on the list of desired capabilities? What is the cost? Who has authority for that level of expenditure?

Off the top of my head ...

 

[KevinB]

Time, space, funding, personnel availability...

Want new rounds? Ok. How many? Where can you fire them? Where can you store them? What's the shelf life? Where can you maintain them? What holdings do you require for training? What holdings for operations? Where does this particular capability land on the list of desired capabilities? What is the cost? Who has authority for that level of expenditure?

Off the top of my head ...

Sounds like a missing G-8 (Force Mod) position or more...
9 times out of 10, in my experience the end users have not articulated any requirement.
I also think the CA does a poor job in the G-8 department, but not necessarily relevant to this thread.

If they use our helos to do so, they need to conform to our airworthiness regulations. Even if we decide to procure, we still need to integrate, certify and qualify the weapons.

Having dealt with some "minor" aspects to AWC's I can only imagine the headache of anything actually mounting and fired from the AC structure.
The RCAF having an orphan fleet (at this point in time) doesn't help.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Having dealt with some "minor" aspects to AWC's I can only imagine the headache of anything actually mounting and fired from the AC structure.
The RCAF having an orphan fleet (at this point in time) doesn't help.

It is a lot more than just structures. Do the guns impede egress? Do the shell casings safely separate from the helo? Do the vibrations translate into objectionable flying qualities? Do the guns, when fired at night, impede on NVIS? (And many other questions) A test campaign to answers those questions takes a lot of time and effort, Any deficiency will need to be assessed for its risk on airworthiness and/or survivability. If the risk is not within what we consider acceptable, a commander will need to accept the risk. If that risk is not worth the reward, they will simply not accept it.

 

[KevinB]

It is a lot more than just structures. Do the guns impede egress? Do the shell casings safely separate from the helo? Do the vibrations translate into objectionable flying qualities? Do the guns, when fired at night, impede on NVIS? (And many other questions) A test campaign to answers those questions takes a lot of time and effort, Any deficiency will need to be assessed for its risk on airworthiness and/or survivability. If the risk is not within what we consider acceptable, a commander will need to accept the risk. If that risk is not worth the reward, they will simply not accept it.

Agreed - but given the mounting system and weapon is already in use on some of the of CAF rotary wing assets -and for the sake of the 134, same caliber as weapon already certified, has an empty casing feed chute etc - some of those are fairly simple.

I was involved in one with a fighter ejection seat - and holy crap, you'd thought that one was proposing drunken brain surgery - so in the end, the stuff went in the box - as the box was already certified -- no one cared what the box weighted after - just that no size/form function had been altered - as apparently I could have filled the box with lead and it was still going to be within acceptable test parameters.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Agreed - but given the mounting system and weapon is already in use on some of the of CAF rotary wing assets -and for the sake of the 134, same caliber as weapon already certified, has an empty casing feed chute etc - some of those are fairly simple.

I was involved in one with a fighter ejection seat - and holy crap, you'd thought that one was proposing drunken brain surgery - so in the end, the stuff went in the box - as the box was already certified -- no one cared what the box weighted after - just that no size/form function had been altered - as apparently I could have filled the box with lead and it was still going to be within acceptable test parameters.

Even with a gun certified on other platforms, we run into unexpected issues. We can’t rely on certification based on similarities for different helo types. We can leverage the work that was done to guide the effort but you still need to do it. Feed chutes (and everything else) need to be adapted to the aircraft and its intricaties. Having been involved in some of those test programs, with weapons that were “previously certified on other helos,” I’d say it’s anything but simple.

 

[KevinB]

Even with a gun certified on other platforms, we run into unexpected issues. We can’t rely on certification based on similarities for different helo types. We can leverage the work that was done to guide the effort but you still need to do it. Feed chutes (and everything else) need to be adapted to the aircraft and its intricaties. Having been involved in some of those test programs, with weapons that were “previously certified on other helos,” I’d say it’s anything but simple.

The Port side "crew chief" window is the same as the UH-60, same with the rear (port and starboard) window areas.
- the weird one is the starboard door - as that is not a good spot based on door and winch location - I'd accept 3 window mounts and a ramp mount

Yes I agree you can't cut and paste from one AC to another, but it can make life easier.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

As well , the MH community has a laundry list of capability deficiencies (which I believe improved ASuW weaponry is already on the list) that need to be addressed before it got to miniguns.
Finally, (though I have been out of the loop for a couple years), in its current state the MH community doesn't have the capacity to take on any additional training, equipment or missions. Again I could be wrong but I think "treading water"/"staying afloat" would be an overly optimistic view of the current state of the community.

101% this.

I’d remain fixed on sorting out the MH in its current form before anything else. That is a big enough task for the near future (5 years or so).