CH-148 Cyclone Progress
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
A
aesop081
Guest
Good2Golf said:
I can just imagine saying "There's a contact on the surface, about 5 miles at 18 o'clock" !!
- Reaction score
- 27,510
- Points
- 1,090
CDN Aviator said:
..but if you're off the coast of Newfoundland, it's at 18:30.
- Reaction score
- 4,265
- Points
- 1,260
.... from the DND Info-machine (also attached if link doesn't work):
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
I am just a MARS bar here, but perhaps one of you can just entertain me.
What do you need all those cabin windows, obviously inherited from the civilian passenger model, for?
Doesn't it reduce the amount of bulkhead interior space available for mission equipment to be set against or stowed?
What do you need all those cabin windows, obviously inherited from the civilian passenger model, for?
Doesn't it reduce the amount of bulkhead interior space available for mission equipment to be set against or stowed?
Windows in the Cabin serve two main purposes. Emergency exits, as previously mentioned, and windows for visual spotting.
Including the Cabin door there are a total of 5 emergency exits in the Cabin. Four are legacy from the S-92A. One is blocked by the Sonar Reeling Machine in the ASW config. One was added to the CH148, middle right side, to provide an exit for the TACCO and SENSO that did not require them to move across the entire cabin underwater.
None of three or so Cabin configurations has a great set-up for viusal spotting from the back. The passenger windows are relatively small for spotting and there is no seating that would allow for comfortable prolonged spotting in the back. The visual spotting requirement was a "Should" whereas other cabin requirements were written as a "Shall". This is a known deficiency but there is no appetite to revisit the Cabin configuration. As a side note, there is a list of upgrades/enhancements DND would like but none of these will be addressed until post-acquisition. This will probably be addressed as any other fleet SOCD once the aircraft is in service.
While I do not have a definitive answer, the main reason the remaining windows are there is because it was easier (aka cheaper) for Sikorsky to leave them than to redesign the Cabin Shell. There is one S-92A passenger window that is covered over on the left side to allow for the placement of a Circuit Breaker panel but other than that the remaining S-92A windows are present.
As for the weight, Sikorsky went through a pretty extensive weight reduction program a few years back. I have the feeling that if they could have saved considerable weight by removing the windows they would have.
Including the Cabin door there are a total of 5 emergency exits in the Cabin. Four are legacy from the S-92A. One is blocked by the Sonar Reeling Machine in the ASW config. One was added to the CH148, middle right side, to provide an exit for the TACCO and SENSO that did not require them to move across the entire cabin underwater.
None of three or so Cabin configurations has a great set-up for viusal spotting from the back. The passenger windows are relatively small for spotting and there is no seating that would allow for comfortable prolonged spotting in the back. The visual spotting requirement was a "Should" whereas other cabin requirements were written as a "Shall". This is a known deficiency but there is no appetite to revisit the Cabin configuration. As a side note, there is a list of upgrades/enhancements DND would like but none of these will be addressed until post-acquisition. This will probably be addressed as any other fleet SOCD once the aircraft is in service.
While I do not have a definitive answer, the main reason the remaining windows are there is because it was easier (aka cheaper) for Sikorsky to leave them than to redesign the Cabin Shell. There is one S-92A passenger window that is covered over on the left side to allow for the placement of a Circuit Breaker panel but other than that the remaining S-92A windows are present.
As for the weight, Sikorsky went through a pretty extensive weight reduction program a few years back. I have the feeling that if they could have saved considerable weight by removing the windows they would have.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Status update....
Entire history can be found here -> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4158
Entire history can be found here -> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4158
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
There are reports that Louis Chenevert, chairman of the corporation that owns Sikorsky, has conceded that the promised delivery of five Cyclone helicopters in 2012 and 19 more in 2013 (as part of the Defence Department’s maritime helicopter program) wont happen and, instead, Sikorsky is planning to deliver eight of the Cyclone helicopters in 2013.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Didn't the USAFs CSAR project have Sikorsky S92 as a contender as well and if so what does this mean for the RCAF if the USAF select it.
- Reaction score
- 27,510
- Points
- 1,090
This is the point where Sikorsky should have the contract cancelled, and be sued for a long, long list of damages. The original schedule called for delivery to be complete in 2011.
At the very least, the RCAF should start sending teams out to look at other aircraft - in a very public manner, to put some fear into Sikorsky.
At the very least, the RCAF should start sending teams out to look at other aircraft - in a very public manner, to put some fear into Sikorsky.
- Reaction score
- 22,046
- Points
- 1,360
GAP, not fundamentally. Sikorsky offered the H92 as the "base airframe" and this included a digital fly-by-wire flight control system, while the original civilian S92 'Helibus' had a conventional hydromechanical (pilot flight control levers physically connected to hydraulic actuators) flight control system. It is widely assessed that Sikorsky vastly underestimated the challenges of designing, developing, engineering and producing essentially a new (although visually similar) helicopter within the MHP required timeframe. Since Canada is the only H92 customer to date, whatever Sikorsky offered is the baseline design, not a customization.
The largest amount of 'Canadianization' that one could reasonably attribute to the project would actually be the on-board electronics of the mission system, itself a separate 'project-within-a-project' and contracted to General Dynamics, not Sikorsky.
The delays being discussed are for the raw airframe from Sikorsky, not including integration of General Dtnamics' mission system.
Regards
G2G
The largest amount of 'Canadianization' that one could reasonably attribute to the project would actually be the on-board electronics of the mission system, itself a separate 'project-within-a-project' and contracted to General Dynamics, not Sikorsky.
The delays being discussed are for the raw airframe from Sikorsky, not including integration of General Dtnamics' mission system.
Regards
G2G
A couple points.
First just a slight clarification. There is not a separate contact between Canada and GDC for the mission system. Sikorsky has the entire contract for the full-up aircraft and mission system. Sikorsky, as a result of IRBs, has sub-contracted the mission system to GDC. The contract for the mission system is between Sikorsky and GDC. GDC does most of the work but the deliverables to Canada for the mission system are from Sik not GDC.
Sikorsky bid a modified S-92 in the original contract. In the first year of the contract, Sikorsky proposed moving forward with a Fly-by-wire variant of the S-92 which Sikorsky has referred to over the years as a S-92F, S-92X and H-92. Sikorsky came to Canada and said we are going to put fly-by-wire into your aircraft and the cost of development will be covered by Sikorsky. This is around the same time Sikorsky was fairly confident they were going to win the USN VXX project (the presidential helo that the EH-101 eventually won and then was later cancelled) and the USAF CSAR-X (which was won by the CH-47 but was later overruled after LM and Sik protested). The idea was that the MHP project would be the lead-in to VXX and CSAR-X. To note Canada did agree to move forward with Fly-by-wire.
CSAR-X has been restarted as the Combat Rescue Helicopter. Sikorsky and LM are teamed together for this competition. However, all the other competitors have declined on submitting bids. This means if the project moves forward Sikorsky will win by default. However, most people suspect that the RFP is heavily weight for an H-60 size aircraft and it is unlikely Sikorsky will bid an S-92/H-92 variant.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_11_2012_p0-527012.xml
The VXX project is in the process of starting up again. Sikorsky is teamed with LM which is a little strange as Augusta-Westland was team with LM when they won the original contract with the EH-101. The size of aircraft for this mission most likely means it will be a competition between the 101 and the 92. Presumably Sik would bid the fly-by-wire H-92 and if it won would be significantly beneficial for DND.
The primary reason for the delays is Canada set this project up as an Off-the-self purchase and then went ahead a signed a contract for a developmental aircraft. Sikorsky understated the difficulty and Canada over estimated Sikorsky's capability. As a side note, AW sued the Government immediately after Sik won the contract saying Sik's bid should have been non-compliant as there was no way they could complete the amount of work in 4 years. AW eventually dropped their lawsuit.
First just a slight clarification. There is not a separate contact between Canada and GDC for the mission system. Sikorsky has the entire contract for the full-up aircraft and mission system. Sikorsky, as a result of IRBs, has sub-contracted the mission system to GDC. The contract for the mission system is between Sikorsky and GDC. GDC does most of the work but the deliverables to Canada for the mission system are from Sik not GDC.
Sikorsky bid a modified S-92 in the original contract. In the first year of the contract, Sikorsky proposed moving forward with a Fly-by-wire variant of the S-92 which Sikorsky has referred to over the years as a S-92F, S-92X and H-92. Sikorsky came to Canada and said we are going to put fly-by-wire into your aircraft and the cost of development will be covered by Sikorsky. This is around the same time Sikorsky was fairly confident they were going to win the USN VXX project (the presidential helo that the EH-101 eventually won and then was later cancelled) and the USAF CSAR-X (which was won by the CH-47 but was later overruled after LM and Sik protested). The idea was that the MHP project would be the lead-in to VXX and CSAR-X. To note Canada did agree to move forward with Fly-by-wire.
CSAR-X has been restarted as the Combat Rescue Helicopter. Sikorsky and LM are teamed together for this competition. However, all the other competitors have declined on submitting bids. This means if the project moves forward Sikorsky will win by default. However, most people suspect that the RFP is heavily weight for an H-60 size aircraft and it is unlikely Sikorsky will bid an S-92/H-92 variant.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_11_2012_p0-527012.xml
The VXX project is in the process of starting up again. Sikorsky is teamed with LM which is a little strange as Augusta-Westland was team with LM when they won the original contract with the EH-101. The size of aircraft for this mission most likely means it will be a competition between the 101 and the 92. Presumably Sik would bid the fly-by-wire H-92 and if it won would be significantly beneficial for DND.
The primary reason for the delays is Canada set this project up as an Off-the-self purchase and then went ahead a signed a contract for a developmental aircraft. Sikorsky understated the difficulty and Canada over estimated Sikorsky's capability. As a side note, AW sued the Government immediately after Sik won the contract saying Sik's bid should have been non-compliant as there was no way they could complete the amount of work in 4 years. AW eventually dropped their lawsuit.
- Reaction score
- 22,046
- Points
- 1,360
Kirkhill said:
Kirkhill, yes and no.
Yes, in that there are two specially-modified UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters being operated as a US Army test program (started in ~2007, IIRC) to assess whether fly-by-wire (FBW) should be retrofitted to the existing UH-60M utility fleet.
No, in the sense that these two helicopters are prototypes (and have been for the last five years), not production aircraft.
The Comanche advanced scout helicopter (prior to its cancelation in 2004) was the only Sikorsky helicopter prior to the Cyclone that had implemented a full FBW flight control system (FCS). It's technology was clearly leveraged into the trial UH-60M program as well as the H-92 (Cyclone) program, with both the UH-60M FBW prototypes and the first H-92 aircraft flying with FBW FCS in 2007.
Sikorsky's CH-53K advanced Super Stallion will also have a FBW FCS. The first prototype CH-53K (called the Ground Test Vehicle - GTV) is scheduled to commence powered ground testing in early 2013.
So, that makes 2 x UH-60M FBW test prototypes and the Canadian CH-148 aircraft as the only existing flying FBW products from Sikorsky at the moment.
Regards
G2G
Similar threads
