Helicopter/Cyclone discussion (split from HMCS Fredricton thread)

[Baz]

FRE is going to head back to sea in a few days.  I would imagine that the RCAF and MH community are going to be starting to think about how to get another helo over to that part of the world.  The ship is far less capable without an embarked helo.  I would imagine thought has been given to this already.

It's late in the deployment, and you would have to C-17 it over.

And 12 Wing isn't particularly fat on aircrew.

But maybe.

*Sarcasm on*  The ship never seems to think this when your their *Sarcasm off*

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It's late in the deployment, and you would have to C-17 it over.

And 12 Wing isn't particularly fat on aircrew.

But maybe.

*Sarcasm on*  The ship never seems to think this when your their *Sarcasm off*

We do not yet have an approved method of air transporting a Cyclone by C17. It is still on the “to do list”.

 

[MilEME09]

We do not yet have an approved method of air transporting a Cyclone by C17. It is still on the “to do list”.

Life sometimes has a way of moving things on the to do list, to the do now list,or maybe that's just what having a wife does. However I am not going to speculate on the RCN/RCAF next move as I have zero experience on those matters.

 

[Good2Golf]

C-17 can airlift CH-147F Chinooks and CH-149 Cormorants, both larger than the CH-148 Cyclone, so I’d think it may become a ‘prioritized effort’, as MilEME09 notes above.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

C-17 can airlift CH-147F Chinooks and CH-149 Cormorants, both larger than the CH-148 Cyclone, so I’d think it may become a ‘prioritized effort’, as MilEME09 notes above.

I agree, it is not rocket surgery, but it does take effort to get a Cyclone to Trenton; do the load trials; document it; get Sikorsky engineering to sign off on the procedure; publish it all and fabricate/procure any specialized handling equipment. There is a huge laundry list of thing that all need doing- this is just one item.

 

[dapaterson]

I agree, it is not rocket surgery, but it does take effort to get a Cyclone to Trenton; do the load trials; document it; get Sikorsky engineering to sign off on the procedure; publish it all and fabricate/procure any specialized handling equipment. There is a huge laundry list of thing that all need doing- this is just one item.

Wouldn't it be easier to send a C17 with crew to Halifax?  (Non-pilot, non-ATC, non-aircrew here).

 

[tomahawk6]

What about a NATO chopper and aircrew to fill in ?

 

[Baz]

What about a NATO chopper and aircrew to fill in ?

It's quite easy for a helicopter to cross-deck, that is land and get fuel (and maybe something to eat).

It's harder to operate from the other ship for a couple of days.  You'd need some maintainers and a fly-away kit (a small pack up of spares, tools, etc).

It's actually quite difficult to deploy a det.  The det comes onboard with aircraft specific maintainers, tools,, support equipment; and not to mention procedures.  This pack-up is actually specific to ship type and needs to be stowed specifically.

So probably no.

 

[Baz]

Wouldn't it be easier to send a C17 with crew to Halifax?  (Non-pilot, non-ATC, non-aircrew here).

That's how we normally did it with the Sea King.  Doesn't solve all the other problems SKT listed.

Not to mention knitting some aircrew.  There are other deployments coming up as well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What about a NATO chopper and aircrew to fill in ?

If they do, and it's a British crew, you'll never get rid of them after they hit the galley

 

[Cloud Cover]

It's quite easy for a helicopter to cross-deck, that is land and get fuel (and maybe something to eat).

It's harder to operate from the other ship for a couple of days.  You'd need some maintainers and a fly-away kit (a small pack up of spares, tools, etc).

It's actually quite difficult to deploy a det.  The det comes onboard with aircraft specific maintainers, tools,, support equipment; and not to mention procedures.  This pack-up is actually specific to ship type and needs to be stowed specifically.

So probably no.

They need to work on that, maybe...

 

[dapaterson]

If they do, and it's a British crew, you'll never get rid of them after they hit the galley

Don't forget, Canadian ships are dry at sea now.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I agree, it is not rocket surgery, but it does take effort to get a Cyclone to Trenton; do the load trials; document it; get Sikorsky engineering to sign off on the procedure; publish it all and fabricate/procure any specialized handling equipment. There is a huge laundry list of thing that all need doing- this is just one item.

Unless things are different with the Cyclone, the WSM can authorize such activity.  It took 1 day to get the load trial done for the Hornet.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Unless things are different with the Cyclone, the WSM can authorize such activity.  It took 1 day to get the load trial done for the Hornet.

Perhaps leveraged heavily from USN/USAF procedures? We are the only operator of the Cyclone. There is nobody else to leverage technique off of.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Don't forget, Canadian ships are dry at sea now.

No. Way. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Perhaps leveraged heavily from USN/USAF procedures? We are the only operator of the Cyclone. There is nobody else to leverage technique off of.

Not that I know of.  We used standard CFTOs procedures to remove and crate wings, reduce pressure in the oleos and then found a way to pull the aircraft into the C-17.  When there is a will there is a way.

 

[Zoomie]

Cormorant has been put into the back of a C-17 at least once - it flew down to South America.

Contacts at IMP divulge that the capability to do it again has expired and substantial effort would be required to make it happen.

 

[CBH99]

Not to sound cheeky, but how did the capability expire?

We still have CH-148's in the inventory.  We still have C-17's. 

??

 

[Baz]

They need to work on that, maybe...

Possibly... but it's worked fine for decades.  A helairdet is not an independent entity, it's meant to work with a certain class of ship, which is how most if not all other countries do it as well.

When we had tankers and 280s the dets were different as well.  Plus high readiness and low readiness dets (PUKs) are different.

I'm not convinced that spending the effort to make them more flexible wrt ship they can deploy to is woth it, esp when there is so much other important work to be done.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not to sound cheeky, but how did the capability expire?

We still have CH-148's in the inventory.  We still have C-17's. 

??

Do you mean CH-149s?  (149 = Cormorant, 148 = Cyclone)