# Anybody else feel we got ripped off on MHP deal?



## CBH99 (2 Nov 2004)

Something has been bothering me lately about the MHP...yes, I know - the infamous collection of failures on behalf of the Liberal government.

If anybody else can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.  But the numbers regarding the MHP simply don't add up to me.


1.  We purchased 100 Griffon helicopters for $1B.

2.  In the recent Defense Authorization Act, down in the US, congress approved $280M for 27 new black hawk helicopters.


How is it that 100 Griffons cost $1B....27 Black Hawks cost $280M,  and yet 15 "Cyclones" for $3B?  The Cyclones/EH-101 deal seems absurdly expensive when compared to the other examples I listed.

Even when taking inflation into account, 100 Griffons for $1-billion dollars is a far better deal then 15 Cyclones for $3-billion dollars.  And although the US Black Hawk procurement is in USD, even when converted into Canadian funds, they are paying far less per helicopter than we are.

I know the contract also includes lifetime maintence/warranty details - but does anybody else find the amount we're paying for 15 helicopters absurdly expensive when compared to other examples of helicopter procurement?


----------



## Inch (2 Nov 2004)

Before you start spouting off, you might want to get some of your facts straight. We're getting 28 CH148's, not 15 and the actual contract was for 1.3ish Billion with the remainder of the money going towards the 20 yr 3rd line maintenance contract.

Griffons don't have anywhere near the amount of sensors and equipment that a Cyclone has.   The Sonar ball alone is probably a few million, plus radars. Not to mention that the Cyclones are nearly 3 times the size of a Griffon, which means it's got bigger more powerful engines and a stronger main gearbox and rotor head. It's also 10 years newer than the Griffon so it's going to have far better avionics.

I'm going to drive the bloody things and I think they're a great deal.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Nov 2004)

Not to mention what they will have to do to the ships so we can embark the Cyclone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Nov 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Not to mention what they will have to do to the ships so we can embark the Cyclone.



It was always in the plan to make modifications to the ships for a new helo   (Ever notice the complete absence of proper storage for parts in a frigate hanger?) because we had no idea what helo we would end up with when we built the ships.   

Look for some flight deck mods, a new hauldown system, proper hanger storage and a better LSO compartment coming soon to a frigate near you!

For CBH99- No, sorry, don't agree that we were "ripped off" with MHP.   Without saying anything bad about EHI, I like Sikorsky and their products.   I have over 1000 Sea King hours (including about 350 decklandings in all sorts of nasty weather) and I can't say enough good things about that helo's toughness.   If our new helo is only half as well built, we will have done well.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Nov 2004)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have over 1000 Sea King hours (including about 350 decklandings in all sorts of nasty weather) and I can't say enough good things about that helo's toughness.   If our new helo is only half as well built, we will have done well.



What is it about the Sea King that has made it so durable compared to other aircraft? What makes it "tough?" .. is it the design, or the quality of the construction or the quality of the maintenance? The easy answer might be to say it's a combination of all three, but is there one item that can be distinguished from the others?

Cheers..


----------



## JBP (2 Nov 2004)

I myself was glad we attained new helicopters at all but the Cyclones seem pretty damn hot to me! Nice aircraft, maybe not as fancy smancy (warning for anal retentives: smancy isn't a word and I DO know this!) but also a lot cheaper and a very well rounded helicopter. Inch, congratulations for succeeding in your flight training and having the honor to fly one of the newest Canadian helicopters! In a way, it's people like you who are my hero, honestly. Now it's time to become my own hero when I get sworn in around November!!!

 > ---->  :warstory:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Nov 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> What is it about the Sea King that has made it so durable compared to other aircraft? What makes it "tough?" .. is it the design, or the quality of the construction or the quality of the maintenance? The easy answer might be to say it's a combination of all three, but is there one item that can be distinguished from the others?
> 
> Cheers..



Wow- you ask tough questions, W601.

I think that it is partly design.   The Sea King was designed in the days before computer modelling so (I'm told) the prevailing wisdom was that in that absence of actual data, a good engineer just increased the safety margin by factor of four.   The aircraft is so incredibly overbuilt it is beyond belief. 40 years of deck landings and life at sea are a testament to that.

We maintain Sea Kings to the point of overmaintenance.   We are hyper sensitive to corrosion-control (that's a good thing).   We have a vibration analysis progam that is really doing good things in making the helo fly smoother and detecting problems before they get big.   We have alot of really diligent techs who spend alot of time and effort making sure the maintenance is done right. If we are in doubt, we don't go flying.

Where the Sea King is running into serious issues is with an antique avionics suite (I'm thinking primarily of the ADF and Gyro heading and Reference System (GHARS)) , an electrical system that provides only "dirty power" that modern avionics do not like, sensors that are all past their prime, and alot of older parts that require alot of maintenance hours just to monitor because they are getting old. I like the old gal, but she is not up to the rigours of modern, link-driven, sensor-to-shooter warfare.   She is a classic that belongs to another time.

To any techs- if I'm talking out of my hat on the maintenance stuff- feel free to correct me!


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Nov 2004)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I think that it is partly design.   The Sea King was designed in the days before computer modelling so (I'm told) the prevailing wisdom was that in that absence of actual data, a good engineer just increased the safety margin by factor of four.   The aircraft is so incredibly overbuilt it is beyond belief.



Thats a good post SeaKing Tacco. There's a tech lurking here as we speak.
WRT the above quote, would the safety margin therefore be engineered to nil +1 in today's models, since the entire design would be tested by computer modelling?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Nov 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Thats a good post SeaKing Tacco. There's a tech lurking here as we speak.
> WRT the above quote, would the safety margin therefore be engineered to nil +1 in today's models, since the entire design would be tested by computer modelling?



Trying to trap me, eh?     

My personal opinion only- 
Today's aircraft are safer than ever before because they have multiply redundant systems that try to prevent aircrew from breaking the laws of physics (or flying into the ground, unplanned).  The airframes are designed to be far more protective in an accident. What I don't think we have a handle on yet is the full life cycle of composite materials.   Things today are engineered to an extremely high tolerance to save weight and cost.   The parts are strong and durable and have a built in safety factor.   There are built-in monitoring systems that tell you what is about to go wrong before a part fails. But, how will the entire airframe age (I'm speaking of any new generation aircraft here) over a service life of 30-40 years?   I think that is anyone's guess.

The nice thing about a metal airfame like the Sea King's is that if you bend it accidentally, mostly you can just straighten it again (I realize that I am grossly over-simplifying).   I think that it is a bunch more complicated with composite materials.   It is going to change the way our AVN (Airframes) techs do business.   It is going to change the way we do damage control on ships (because of the danger of carbon fibres if there is ever an accident).   It is going to change a bunch of other stuff we have not even thought of yet.

Again- I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2004)

While the Cyclone may be a great helicopter, it is absurd it took so long to get them, and of course, we could have gotten EH 101's and had a common pool of spare parts, training, maintainence etc with the SAR Cormorant (EH 101) fleet. (and back in 1993, of course)

I think CBH may be refering to the fact we now have two mini fleets of very similar helicopters to do almost the same job, so now have two supply chains, two training streams....economy of scale is a very real bonus when dealing with multi-million to billion dollar contracts. 

There is a very real monetary cost in never having to admit an error or say "I'n sorry", and we the taxpayers are being stuck with it. (again)


----------



## Gunnerlove (3 Nov 2004)

When you stress composite components to the point of material failure you remove and discard them. When you stress aluminum components to the point that they are distorted you remove them and discard them. Contrary to popular belief metals are not homogeneous hence when you start distorting things you start destroying the crystalline structure of the material. Aluminum will flex a suprising amount without taking a memory and becoming sprung. Once it has though you run the increased risk of intergranular corrosion if you try to force it back into its original shape. This is why a great deal of components are fabricated/formed out of "O" temper aluminum before it is sent off to be heat treated. 

Composite airframes are only going to become more common as they continue to improve based on info gathered from some composite structured aircraft which are approaching 30 years of service. It is important to remember that many of the problems related to composites stem from a lack of training and understanding of the materials on the part of "old school" techs. Yes it will change life for the techs but so did aluminum. If we fail to accept the risk that comes with change we will miss out on all of the benefits as well. Another thing to consider is that if a military is operating 40 year old aircraft something is very wrong with that military.    

Another interesting thing is that after aluminum is heat treated it continues to grow stiffer and more brittle as it ages (which is one reason why aircraft shops must keep track of material manufacture dates). This is a contributing factor to metal fatigue and the development of cracks. 


What danger of carbon fibers are you concerned about? I figured the flailing rotor blades and the fuel tanks would be enough of a hazard when a chopper beats itself to death on board a ship?

Sorry for the rant but no one wants to talk about structural materials at the bar.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2004)

Unfortunatly because most of us have little understanding of anything more complicated than the structure of the glass mug sitting right in front of us!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Nov 2004)

Good post, Gunnerlove.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Storm (3 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Unfortunatly because most of us have little understanding of anything more complicated than the structure of the glass mug sitting right in front of us!



Well, if you want to change that, just take a look at files at the links below (you can take the whole course without paying... you just don't get credit for it   ;D):

http://www.mmat.ubc.ca/courses/apsc278/default.htm
http://www.mmat.ubc.ca/courses/mmat380/default.htm


----------



## Inch (3 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> While the Cyclone may be a great helicopter, it is absurd it took so long to get them, and of course, we could have gotten EH 101's and had a common pool of spare parts, training, maintainence etc with the SAR Cormorant (EH 101) fleet. (and back in 1993, of course)
> 
> I think CBH may be refering to the fact we now have two mini fleets of very similar helicopters to do almost the same job, so now have two supply chains, two training streams....economy of scale is a very real bonus when dealing with multi-million to billion dollar contracts.
> 
> There is a very real monetary cost in never having to admit an error or say "I'n sorry", and we the taxpayers are being stuck with it. (again)



I'm going to disagree with you on the cost benefits of similar aircraft. I've posted my views on this before but I'll save you the search and state them again.  

SAR and MH are two very different jobs and have different systems on board, not to mention that the Cormorant maintenance is done entirely by civilian contractor, which doesn't work too well for MH since the Navy won't allow civvies on ship.  So you're going to need to train maintenance pers anyway.  Back to the techs, an MH has sonar, radar, and defensive capabilities (chaff, flares, and a GPMG to name a few), these are all different from the SAR birds and you'd need to train the techs separately to maintain them. 

For the aircrew, the only common denominator are the pilots.  SAR birds don't have TACCOs or AESOps, and MH birds don't have Flight Engineers or SAR Techs. No common training for the backenders.  As for the pilots, aside from the basic flying of the machine which is only 18 flights to make you a qualified co-pilot, your operational qualifications are far different. We both do hoisting but that can be learned in about 2 hrs.  SAR crews don't do sonar dips, they don't drop sonobuoys, they don't sling much and of course they don't do shipborne ops. So you'd need an additional school to do that. You could probably send them to our school to learn the basics, but as I said, it's only 18 flights and the cost savings aren't going to be enough to shock anybody, in fact they're probably negligible.

For parts, the Cormorants are having a hell of a time getting parts out of Italy, I don't think it'd be any easier, in fact I think it'd be harder, to get spare parts for 28 more aircraft. Serviceability is another problem facing the Cormorant/EH101/Merlin platform, this is just hearsay, but a RN pilot that we have on exchange here told me that their Sea Kings have _better_ serviceability than the Merlins. I personally think that getting parts out of the USA will be a whole lot faster and cheaper than the 10,000km supply chain for the Cormorants.

As my cohort in MH stated already, Sikorsky builds some bloody good helicopters. I'm in full support of the decision to get Cyclones.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Nov 2004)

I think though we should have ordered more. 36-42 would have covered what we need plus what we would embark on the JSS and the Common Surface Combatant, like the Air Force types here the Navy is pleased with selection.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Nov 2004)

Personaly, i'm glad they selected the cyclone.  When i graduate from BAC, i may just wind up in the MH world.  As far as comonality with the cormorant is concerned , i think the air force made a good choice with the cyclone. Parts are a problem for the cormorant fleet and if MH was flying them as well, who do you think would get priority ??  MH or SAR ??

Anyways, Inch & Seaking Tacco..........maybe i see you guys in a few months......or maybe not !!  

(Go west coast)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Nov 2004)

So what is the status of the order now that the EH people have challenged the purchase?


----------



## Bean (4 Nov 2004)

The challenge hasn't been scheduled for a hearing yet as far as I can tell.  If you want to follow it, the link below is for the board that handles these things for the GoC

http://www.citt.gc.ca/index_e.asp


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Nov 2004)

It's a go, I think the legal stuff is an action for damages. They have no real basis to get an injunction to stop the purchase, but they could conceivably recover their costs, plus damages for lost profit and loss of economic opportunity amongst various causes of action. That doesn't mean they won't try and stop the purchase,   but they would overturn a decade of jurisprudence if they did. That would be quite a feat.

Bean: is CITT the proper forum for this action? I understand it is an international bid, but the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement seems to oust it's jurisdiction in this matter:

" General exceptions applicable to all Parties
Article XXIII of the GPA refers to the exceptions the Parties may apply to its own
procurement when imposing or enforcing measures necessary to protect public morals,
order or safety, human, animal or plant life or health or intellectual property, or
relating to handicapped persons, philanthropic institutions or prison labour.
There is a general exception for procurement necessary for the protection of essential
security interest relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition and war material or
procurement indispensable for national security or national defence."

I believe the proper forum will the FCTD, unless there is a jurisdiction clause in the tendering contract.

Cheers.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Nov 2004)

Notwithstanding the delay which was unforgivable, I'm quite happy with the purchase.

In particular, I think any time we can add hi-tech industrial manufacturing capacity as off-shoot of a procurement plan (as opposed to paying to add hi-tech industrial manufacturing capacity in Italy), I think it's a good idea.

That being said, the key override is that the bird must perform to spec.




Matthew.


----------



## Storm (4 Nov 2004)

The ability for EH to sue just doesn't sit right with me. If you're shopping for clothes and go into a store and say "hey, I like that blue shirt" to the salesperson, but then after trying it on in the changeroom say "actually, I don't like it so much afterall, I'll go get the green shirt at that other store" the company can't sue you. Nothing against the blue shirt, but the customer just likes the green one better. We're a customer here. It is our right to spend our money wherever we damn well please and for whatever reason. If money does get wasted, then it is the job of the Canadian people to object, not some foreign corporation. If EH doesn't like the fact that the customer is always right, and that you don't get every contract, then they should get out of sales.

For the record, I was very much in favour of the EH-101 for our MH. However, the decision was made, and a helicopter was selected that can do the job extremely well, so that should be the end of it IMO.


----------



## Bean (4 Nov 2004)

You are probably correct on that one whiskey, but its where I was directed initially when speaking to a few folks in Ottawa.  I may have just been off base, along with my source.  Thanks for the reference though.  I have seen a number of DND/CF bid at CITT over the years but it is possible other forums take precedence in this case.


----------



## Inch (4 Nov 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So what is the status of the order now that the EH people have challenged the purchase?



The word here at 12 Wing is that we're expecting the contract to be signed any day now, the end of Nov at the latest. We're expecting the construction contractors to show up not too long after.  


Cheers


----------



## Sheerin (4 Nov 2004)

Has this legal hiccup affected the slated delivery date?

Also, do you think Sikorsky will be able to deliver them on time?


----------



## Inch (4 Nov 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Has this legal hiccup affected the slated delivery date?
> 
> Also, do you think Sikorsky will be able to deliver them on time?



The delivery date will be 48 months from the time the contract is signed, that hasn't changed.

Sikorsky has a solid reputation in the helicopter business, I have not doubt that they'll deliver a quality product on time. That's just my opinion though.

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Nov 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think though we should have ordered more. 36-42 would have covered what we need plus what we would embark on the JSS and the Common Surface Combatant, like the Air Force types here the Navy is pleased with selection.



I have to wonder if the Cyclone in it's MH configuration is the best platform for the JSS. It seems to me that ship will require a cargo/troop carrying version of the Cyclone. Or, is the air element on the JSS supposed to be a mirror capability of what is on the AOR right now.     Is there any chance the Griffon is being contemplated for that role? I know it's a POS, but it is highly unlikely the Navy Air Force will get extra helo's.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2004)

Is there a "follow on" option in the contract to get more Cyclones for troop lift/medium lift or Navy duties?


----------



## CBH99 (5 Nov 2004)

Ah yes...

My wires were crossed on that one.  I somehow had the Cormorant and MHP mixed together in this head of mine, your right.


----------



## Inch (5 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Is there a "follow on" option in the contract to get more Cyclones for troop lift/medium lift or Navy duties?



I don't think that info has been made public, the contract hasn't been signed yet. As to the feasibility of using an MH for troop lift, etc, I'm not sure that'd work as well as you think. There are some parts of an MH that remain, even if you can roll off the ASW kit.  Stuff like sonobuoy tubes and the hole for the sonar dome that are built right into the airframe. It all depends on the layout, and as of now, I don't think anyone really knows what the final cabin layout is going to be.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Nov 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> As to the feasibility of using an MH for troop lift, etc, I'm not sure that'd work as well as you think. There are some parts of an MH that remain, even if you can roll off the ASW kit.   Stuff like sonobuoy tubes and the hole for the sonar dome that are built right into the airframe. It all depends on the layout, and as of now, I don't think anyone really knows what the final cabin layout is going to be.



Yep. That's what I was getting at ... probably better to buy the non ASW version, but that is asking a lot right now. This is why i was getting at the rear ramp idea awhile ago, vis my comment on the EC130 and the ability to remove gear in a hurry and the pain in the but to get it back in place ad recalibrated for ops. Anyway, that won't happen with the MH, for the reasons you point out above. The machine appears to be primarily a sensor and weapons platform, which is what is required anyway. Is the Griffon maritime ops capable for protracted periods, and can it be configured to be hauled down and rolled around if required?


----------



## Inch (5 Nov 2004)

The primary problem with the Griffon is the lack of a folding rotor and tail pylon. I'm not an expert on hauldown by any stretch of the imagination, I know the Sea King system but that's about it. I don't imagine it'd be a major concern, just the need for a probe for the bear trap to hold onto and a way to wheel the machine out of the hangar since it's on skids. Of course ditching wouldn't be my idea of fun in a Griffon, it'd probably turtle in a matter of seconds.  

Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2004)

The Griffon is not hauldown capable without major mods to the airframe.   In any case, the JSS won't have a hauldown system any way (just like our current AORs).

It is theoretically possible for Griffons to operate from any of our ships now.   The problems are (in no particular order):

1. A rotor head that doesn't easily fold (if at all- can't remember- you may have to remove the baldes to get them in the hanger.)
2. Skids.   A dangerous thing on ships.   You have to a cart to move the helo; you have to put rubber on the skids to help dampen vibration and you have to be extremely careful to avoid "deck resonance" which can quickly lead to the helo overturning on deck.
3. Aircrew training.   Landing-on/Launching from a ship is tougher than it looks.   Untrained pilots tend to "follow" the motion of the ship and not wait for the ship's steady period.   Mess that up and you go swimming (if you are lucky...).   They also don't know navy flight procedures, which is a whole other language that tac hel guys aren't taught.
4. Technician Training and Aircrew training (Pt 2).   Operating from a ship means, like it or not, being part of the ship's damage control organization, which means a couple of weeks of initial trg plus work-ups.   
5.   The Griffon is not especially "Sea-proofed", which means that corrision control procedures would have to be developed on the fly.

None of the above by itself is a show stopper (except maybe the rotorhead part) and can all be fixed with training, but the skills are perishable.

The training issues can be dealt with of course, but at what cost?

I think that is good to begin to have the debate about what, exactly, we intend to fly off of the JSS, apart from Cyclones.

I once, tongue-in-cheek, suggested that we keep a bunch of Sea Kings as troop lifters (gutted interiors, Self-Defence suites, door guns front and back) but was told to STFU and get back in my box.

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Nov 2004)

LOL .. ok, lets talk about JSS helo's. I think the choice should be a cargo variant of the H-92, just to keep things simple. Not a heavy lifter, and I'm not really sure how to measure the adequacy of a sea borne cargo/troop helo, so lets start there. What qualities are desirable in this type of helicopter?


----------



## Inch (5 Nov 2004)

Good points on the Griffon SKTacco.

For a JSS helo, since it will for the most part be shipborne, I'd say you're going to want a lot of the same features that the Cyclone is going to have, minus of course the ASW kit/sono/sono tubes/etc.  A second cargo door would be handy for troop lift, either that or a ramp but not a necessity. 

H-92 in a utility version has my vote, since you can only carry so many parts on a tanker, having the same airframe would be a big advantage in maintenance of the helos.

Cheers


----------



## canuck101 (5 Nov 2004)

If we got the H-92 in a utility version for the JSS how many do you think would we need. I don't think we need more than ten.


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2004)

It depends on whether or not you want to be able to send all 3 JSS's to sea with a full complement of helos and still be able to maintain the training system on shore.  I believe they're each supposed to carry 4, so that would mean 12 for the fleet, you would want a few for attrition as well as serviceability, so 15 to 18 I would think should work well. The pilots can be trained at the MH school on the Cyclones.

Cheers


----------



## Bograt (6 Nov 2004)

Currious question,

Is the ASW info collected by Sea Kings and their replacement linked up with Auroras and the ships? What I mean to say is, can they all see what each other has on their sensors?

Inch, is there a naval range where Sea King and Aurora crews can launch live torpedoes? Does it happen during the normal course of pilot/crew training?


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2004)

The Aurora and the ships are connected with a Datalink, the Sea King doesn't have this capability but the Cyclone will. The Datalink works just like you said, it allows the ships (and anyone on the datalink) to see what the Cyclone sees and vice versa. There are some restrictions on the system though, it's not perfect. I'm not too sure on the limitations of it, but I think line of sight is one of them since the system is based on UHF, though that may be remedied with sat comms now. Someone else may be able to clarify.

We don't fire torpedoes as part of the Sea King OTU, we go through the motions but we never actually drop a live or practice torp. Not sure about on Sqn, it's not a regular occurrence if it even happens at all, SeaKingTacco could probably confirm that.

Cheers


----------



## Zoomie (6 Nov 2004)

Inch and I were typing our responses at the same time - I will leave my response "as-is". 



			
				Bograt said:
			
		

> Is the ASW info collected by Sea Kings and their replacement linked up with Auroras and the ships? What I mean to say is, can they all see what each other has on their sensors?



Sorry, I could answer this question, but then I would have to kill everyone that read the answer.   The world of Sub-killing and its tactics are very much in the realm of OPSEC.   If you and I were talking in person and I was showing you around the CP-140, that would be another story, but Osama might be reading this and you can't be too careful.   :blotto:



> ... is there a naval range where Sea King and Aurora crews can launch live torpedoes? Does it happen during the normal course of pilot/crew training?



Yes .. and.. yes - most torps that are dropped are of the recoverable type (ie inert warhead and no OTTO fuel onboard) - Launching a live warhead torpedo against a target is rare and not done (as far as I know) in Canadian waters.   I am sure TACCO might be able to shed a little bit of non-sensitive information about this.


----------



## Bograt (6 Nov 2004)

Thanks guys for the answer. Dad was a TacNav on Auroras during the eighties. I believe there is/was a range in BC where they would make runs. I don't believe however that they ever dropped one. There was an anti military campaign by some in the area to have the range closed. I vaguely remember people from Demon Island (sp) complaining about chaff drops in their "medicinal gardens.'

Just curious again, do Auroras and Sea Kings have EW capability? Beyong chaff/flares do either have jamming capability? I would think that their radar signature is pretty big....


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2004)

Ref the Datalink, the specifics will violate OPSEC, but Grumman has a bit of info on their systems online so the basics won't violate OPSEC.

http://www.ms.northropgrumman.com/markets/MDC4ISR.html

Our radar signature isn't all that big, plus we fly low. We're fairly sneaky. Also, jamming requires Rules of Engagement so it's not a common practice.

Cheers


----------



## DJL (6 Nov 2004)

> The Datalink works just like you said, it allows the ships (and anyone on the datalink) to see what the Cyclone sees and vice versa.



Will this be similar to LAMPS?


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2004)

I don't know what LAMPS is.


----------



## DJL (6 Nov 2004)

The data link used within the USN


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2004)

Are you sure? I was under the impression they used Link 16 or Link 11.


----------



## DJL (6 Nov 2004)

I apologise, LAMPS is the "all encompassing system" in which the Data link is a part of.  :blotto:

To rephrase my question, will our new data link allow for greater intergration with the USN's ships and Seahawks?


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2004)

Seen, I don't know a whole lot about the system, we don't have it in the Sea King and I've only learned a bit about it on my Maritime Warfare course so I'll leave that question for someone in the know.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Nov 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Currious question,
> 
> Is the ASW info collected by Sea Kings and their replacement linked up with Auroras and the ships? What I mean to say is, can they all see what each other has on their sensors?
> 
> Inch, is there a naval range where Sea King and Aurora crews can launch live torpedoes? Does it happen during the normal course of pilot/crew training?



Our Sea Kings are not data-link equipped, which is partly why we are getting a new helo.   I only know what I snipe off of the "ASW Action net" (voice) and what my AESOP can find (plus a big dose of "gut-feel"- I have out-guessed a few submariners.   On the other hand, I've also had my ass handed to me on a platter...).   The ships and Aurora only know what I tell them over the same voice net.   We have procedures in place to keep things simple and good crews only use the radios a bare minimum (you can tell you are how swept up another crew is by how few words are actually said).   Bad crews plug the net with garbage and confuse the situation.

There is a range near Naniamo, BC called CFMETR Nanoose where the west coast ships and aircraft go to drop weapons on targets (I think the East Coasters have to go to AUTEC near Puerto Rico for their drops).   I have personnally dropped two torpedos (the first time is pretty scary.   The second time, you could care less if you are actually lugging a live weapon or not).   We track a Mk30 target, which is essentially an old torpedo which drives around the range for hours and hours pretending that it is a submarine.   The torpedos that we drop (Mk46 mod 5 ASW) are exactly like warshots, except no warhead (they carry a detachable weight in place of the explosives so we can recover them) and a lot less OTTO fuel to shorten the run time (we don't want the torp running off the range and we can't do much else on the range while a torp is running, so it would just waste game time to have a full torp fuel load).   The range is fully instrumented so that the staff can assess the accuracy of our drops and the relative success of our tactics.   I should also add that all of this training happens only while on an Operational Squadron- we don't have the time or resources to give everyone a go at this sort of thing during their initial aircrew training

We get accused of doing all sorts of nasty things on the range by the local anti-war and environmental types (It doesn't help that a local tourist map labels the range as "The Nanoose Bay Nuclear Test Range").   The truth is always less exciting-   West Coast aircraft and ships (along with some US Navy assets) use the range to fire exercise weapons like Mk46 and Mk48 torpedos (which are explosive free and ALWAYS recovered) and practise ASW tactics in a fully instrumented environment- pure and simple.   

Don't think that that I have violated any OPSEC with the above.   If I have, I'm sure that W601 will PM me!    

Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Nov 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Thanks guys for the answer. Dad was a TacNav on Auroras during the eighties. I believe there is/was a range in BC where they would make runs. I don't believe however that they ever dropped one. There was an anti military campaign by some in the area to have the range closed. I vaguely remember people from Demon Island (sp) complaining about chaff drops in their "medicinal gardens.'
> 
> Just curious again, do Auroras and Sea Kings have EW capability? Beyong chaff/flares do either have jamming capability? I would think that their radar signature is pretty big....



I won't talk in too many specifics, but we have a Self-defence suite (SDS) kit that can be added to the Sea King.  It consists of a Missile Approach Warning System, an Infrared jammer, a countermeasures dispenser, a C6 door gun, plus armoured seats and kevlar blankets.  I have used most of the elements of the system in the Gulf and generally like it because it is pretty easy to use (not to mention that firing a door gun is so much fun that it should be illegal!).  the trouble is, it weighs so much that you pretty much have to pull the sonar out to allow yourself any kind of useful fuel load.  Another reason we are getting a new helo...


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Nov 2004)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Don't think that that I have violated any OPSEC with the above.   If I have, I'm sure that W601 will PM me!



I'm not in the Navy anymore, so I really don't know what to say about that. If you are confirming open source information, available off a DND website, you are probably ok, but if it is found somewhere on spec or by way of product advertising, that's right in hte grey area, which we all should avoid. Thats my take on it, anyway.  But I must say, the data link discussion has gone about as far as it should go, IMO. 
Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Nov 2004)

No the converationis ok no warning bells yet.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Nov 2004)

Whoops- swapped Ex-D and W601 in my head.  Sorry guys!


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Nov 2004)

No worries.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Nov 2004)

i might be mistaken but LAMPS stands for "light airborne multi-purpose system"

LAMPS II was the SH-2 seasprite
LAMPS III is the SH-60 Seahawk

We had a brief on the cyclone not too long ago and as far as the back end is concerned, the future sounds good....more slots at HOTEF for us !!! Now if they could only add an anti-ship missile...........


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Nov 2004)

Aesop's is spot on for LAMPS.- the LAMPS III system was part of a package of systems rolled out in the early to mid 80's with the OHP frigates. Twenty years ago, I was posted to my first ship, and when I went in the EW shack all the talk was about how we would be scrapping the steamers, and mass producing the OHP's in our own yards, and acquiring the LAMPS helo's and a whole bunch of new sensor gear. I was cross polled to HMAS Darwin for a RIMPAC, as were many others to other OHP ships, and ended up doing almost 5 months on that ship. Then, the CPF contract was issued with a radical new design, and the proposed fleet size was for 22 new FFG hulls, plus the possibility of picking the Kidd Class destroyers. The Shads were supposed to get the CSEV. Within 3 years, the CPF design won out over all others, the fleet size was reduced to 18 (as opposed to 12 today), TRUMP came out of the skies and landed straight in the shipyards, CFEV was scrapped, we were supposed to get a Nuke boat fleet, a nuclear powered breaker for the coast guard with navy weapons crews, and the MH program pushed the LAMPS proposal to the side. 

Well, the nukes and the breaker sunk on politics, the Kidds were just a rumour, LAMPS was only a dream, the CSEV proposal was deleted, TRUMP delivered about 70% of what is supposed to, and the CPF program was cut to 12, and the MH was awarded then cancelled.    

What a whirlwind!!   Anyway, enough reminiscing about the past, the Navy still seemed to come out light years ahead of where they were in 1984. By the time the new helo's arrive, the first FFG should be emerging from the HM program, and all will be right in the world of FFG's again. Cheers.


----------



## jmacleod (11 Nov 2004)

As of 11 November 2004, the Government of Canada has not signed the contract for the
MHP replacement for the CH124 "Sea King". Does anyone within reader range know why
this is? MacLeod


----------



## aesop081 (11 Nov 2004)

No.  But as a hopeful cyclone AESOp, i must say that i am not impressed.


----------



## Sam69 (11 Nov 2004)

I would think it reasonable to expect that a contract of this complexity would take some time to finalize. Rest assured that work continues on the contract and I would expect an announcement by the end of the month and almost certainly by the end of the year.

Patience guys, it took 26 years to get to this point, a few more days won't hurt.

Sam


----------



## Sam69 (23 Nov 2004)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> I would think it reasonable to expect that a contract of this complexity would take some time to finalize. Rest assured that work continues on the contract and I would expect an announcement by the end of the month and almost certainly by the end of the year.



_As expected:_

*Government of Canada Awards Contracts to Sikorsky for New Canadian Forces Maritime Helicopter*

NRâ â€œ04.090 - November 23, 2004

OTTAWA â â€ The Government of Canada today announced the signing of two separate but interrelated contracts with Sikorsky International Operations Inc. for the Maritime Helicopter Project.

The first contract, worth $1.8 billion, covers the acquisition of 28 fully integrated, certified and qualified helicopters with their mission systems installed.

The second contract, valued at $3.2 billion, is for the 20-year in-service support for the helicopters, and includes the construction of a training facility, as well as a simulation and training suite.

â Å“The CH-148 Cyclone will provide our men and women in uniform with a helicopter that can perform the diverse and difficult roles required in today's global security environment,â ? said Defence Minister Bill Graham. â Å“This acquisition is one that will provide significant economic benefits to Canadian companies from coast to coast for decades to come.â ?

â Å“The awarding of these contracts marks the end of an extremely rigorous procurement process, through which Canada has purchased the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians,â ? said the Honourable Scott Brison, Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

â Å“The Canadian Forces are increasingly called upon to respond to challenging and complex operations throughout the world,â ? said General Ray Henault, Chief of the Defence Staff. â Å“The CH-148 Cyclone provides us with a robust, multi-role helicopter that will support our maritime operations well into the future.â ?

Delivery of the first helicopter, to be called the CH-148 Cyclone, is required to be no later than November 2008, with the remaining helicopters to be delivered at a rate of one per month thereafter. The contract has a series of bonuses for early delivery but also imposes penalties for late delivery, making it very much in the company's interest to deliver the helicopters as soon as possible.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 Feb 2005)

Airforce SMEs,

Sorry to dredge up an old thread but I have some questions on the "Cyclone."  Some of the answers in the thread allude to it, but what is the estimated troop lift and slung-load capacity (if any) of the version that we are buying?  I've hit the wed looking but its pretty thin (just some nice pictures and vague specs).  I'm thinking on the JSS concept and I wanted to look at some of the basic assumptions.  What else could go on a JSS (that is in the realm of the possible)?  A slung load of 4500 kg for a short distance would be outstanding (I have some vehicles in mind), but I understand that this may not be feasible.

Thoughts?

2B


----------



## Inch (11 Feb 2005)

I have my doubts you'd be slinging 10,000 lbs, I'd say 6000-8000lbs would be more realistic.  I can't seem to find the technical requirements for the MHP on the internet, I know they're on the DIN so I'll have to look them up for you on Mon.  When Sikorsky briefed us in the fall I was under the impression that the Cyclones would not have ramps, though we had a briefing this morning that said they would have rear ramps, so I guess that remains to be seen. There's still talk about being able to roll off the consoles in about an hour, but I still have my doubts that that would work all that well since you're still going to have hardware like sonobuoy tubes and the sonar well that are hard mounted to the airframe. Then again, I'm not an engineer so that's only my opinion after seeing all the stuff in the back of the Sea King.

As for how many troops, the numbers I've heard are 22 troops.

For the JSS, you'd need a maritime helo with folding rotor and pylon since storage space is at a premium on a ship. The Cyclone could do the job, but we'd have to get more of them, the 28 we're getting will only be enough to outfit the fleets as well as a few for training and maintenance.

Here's a thread related to the subject.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17798.0.html


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Feb 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> .   When Sikorsky briefed us in the fall I was under the impression that the Cyclones would not have ramps, though we had a briefing this morning that said they would have rear ramps, so I guess that remains to be seen. There's still talk about being able to roll off the consoles in about an hour, but I still have my doubts that that would work all that well since you're still going to have hardware like sonobuoy tubes and the sonar well that are hard mounted to the airframe.



I don't know what i did with it, but I could have sworn last fall I sent you an e-mail right from the guy in charge of the subject of ramps etc. Did you keep it?


----------



## Inch (11 Feb 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> I don't know what i did with it, but I could have sworn last fall I sent you an e-mail right from the guy in charge of the subject of ramps etc. Did you keep it?



You did, I don't recall where it went. Did it say it would have a ramp? I've heard from Sikorsky that it won't and then today they said it would so I guess we'll find out in a couple years when the first one is built.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Feb 2005)

No ramp. Oversized side cargo door. Thats all i remember. Cheers.


----------



## Inch (11 Feb 2005)

Almost forgot, we saw a floor plan for the new Maritime Helicopter Training Centre, pretty slick I must say. 3 stories, 2 full motion sims, mockups for the techs, 6 briefing rooms, 2 flight planning rooms, and of course lockers for our flying gear among other rooms.   It'll be 406 Sqn and Wing Ops in the building and possibly HOTEF, 423 Sqn will be moved to a renovated D Hangar. The building will be classed as Secret, so basically security passes will be needed to go everywhere, including the washroom. They're supposed to start construction on it in the fall.

We're also getting a new O's mess and I think they're building a new hangar for 12 Air Maintenance Sqn. 

The place is definitely going to look different when you get back here Sam.



			
				whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> No ramp. Oversized side cargo door. Thats all i remember. Cheers.



That's right, they told us this morning that it would have a ramp, they even had a cabin layout diagram for the helo, the GIBs will be at the back, in front of the ramp facing forward.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Feb 2005)

> That's right, they told us this morning that it would have a ramp, they even had a cabin layout diagram for the helo, the GIBs will be at the back, in front of the ramp facing forward.



Yeh, but do I get a window?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2005)

Only if you are equivilant rank to a GS3 in the Public Service....  ;D

GW


----------



## Inch (13 Feb 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Yeh, but do I get a window?



There's no pleasing you guys is there?  ;D

They said there'd be a few windows/emergency exits but I wouldn't expect a bright and sunny work station.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Feb 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> ...  in front of the ramp facing forward.



LOL .. the ramp faces forward?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Feb 2005)

> There's no pleasing you guys is there?
> 
> They said there'd be a few windows/emergency exits but I wouldn't expect a bright and sunny work station.



Just for once I would like a workstation that I did not have to do gymnastics to egress from.

Facing forward while flying will be weird.   I'm so used to sitting sideways, I'll probably get airsick... :-X


----------



## STONEY (14 Feb 2005)

I see where the US have picked the EH101 to to replace the Presidents flight . Imagine getting 23 helo' s just to fly one man around. This buy suprised all the pundits since it is very rare the US military buys foreign kit especially such a visible item and in competition with Sikorsky's VH-92.  The EH-101 was said to have been picked because it was by far the superior a/c. Maybe spare parts will be easier to get after all as these a/c will be built by Bell  Textron in the US. 

Other points to ponder. Army helo's of all shapes and sizes routinely operate from ships in other Navy's , without their pilots receiving any specialized training , since it is usually done from ship to shore in reasonable weather close to land.  There are several navy's in the world that operate ASW helo's equipped with skids not wheels, from  frigate sized ships ,granted not in the north atlantic in sea states we encounter but it can be done. The NH-90 which was in the running for MHP is now touted to be the front runner to replace troop lift Sea Kings in the Royal Navy. The NH-90 can lift 22 fully equiped troops & has a rear ramp and side doors in the utility version. The Aussies have also bought NH-90's similar to the German Army's version except with folding rotor bladesto operate as troop lift from their navy vessels & they will be flown by Army pilots. Are we being left behind by the rest of the world. Do you remember when Canada led the world in inovation . People thought we were crazy to operate a large helo from a frigate, but we did it and now everyone does it.  Well enough stirring for one post.

Ready , Aye Ready.


----------



## Inch (14 Feb 2005)

STONEY said:
			
		

> I see where the US have picked the EH101 to to replace the Presidents flight . Imagine getting 23 helo' s just to fly one man around. This buy suprised all the pundits since it is very rare the US military buys foreign kit especially such a visible item and in competition with Sikorsky's VH-92.   The EH-101 was said to have been picked because it was by far the superior a/c. Maybe spare parts will be easier to get after all as these a/c will be built by Bell   Textron in the US.
> 
> Other points to ponder. Army helo's of all shapes and sizes routinely operate from ships in other Navy's , without their pilots receiving any specialized training , since it is usually done from ship to shore in reasonable weather close to land.   There are several navy's in the world that operate ASW helo's equipped with skids not wheels, from   frigate sized ships ,granted not in the north atlantic in sea states we encounter but it can be done. The NH-90 which was in the running for MHP is now touted to be the front runner to replace troop lift Sea Kings in the Royal Navy. The NH-90 can lift 22 fully equiped troops & has a rear ramp and side doors in the utility version. The Aussies have also bought NH-90's similar to the German Army's version except with folding rotor bladesto operate as troop lift from their navy vessels & they will be flown by Army pilots. Are we being left behind by the rest of the world. Do you remember when Canada led the world in inovation . People thought we were crazy to operate a large helo from a frigate, but we did it and now everyone does it.   Well enough stirring for one post.
> 
> Ready , Aye Ready.



The 23 helos aren't just for Dubya, they're for all the White House staff including the the VP.

How exactly do you know that these army pilots don't have special training? I can't imagine landing on a rolling ship without any training. A pilot is a pilot, no matter what uniform he wears as long as he's trained to do the job, he can do it. I don't know why there's such a hang up about "army, navy or air force" pilots when we'd be doing the same job we are now except with a different uniform on.

How about some examples of these army helos with skids operating from ships. I can't seem to think of any. Royal Navy Lynx's have wheels as opposed to the army versions with skids and to my knowledge the army Lynx's don't operate from RN ships, Cougars have wheels as do Sea Hawks, NH90s, EH101s, H92s, Sea Sprites, etc. Suspension is a very nice thing to have when landing on a ship, not to mention the mobility that wheels offer you both embarked and ashore. Thanks, but you can keep your skids, I'll take wheels any day of the week.

Yes, NH90s are nice, but they didn't meet the requirements for the MHP, I believe cabin size and height were the limiting factors but I can't say for sure.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Feb 2005)

> Quote from: Inch on February 11, 2005, 22:48:12
> ...  in front of the ramp facing forward.
> 
> 
> LOL .. the ramp faces forward?



I was wondering what the ride was like BEHIND the ramp. ;D


----------



## Sam69 (14 Feb 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> How about some examples of these army helos with skids operating from ships. I can't seem to think of any. Royal Navy Lynx's have wheels as opposed to the army versions with skids and to my knowledge the army Lynx's don't operate from RN ships, Cougars have wheels as do Sea Hawks, NH90s, EH101s, H92s, Sea Sprites, etc. Suspension is a very nice thing to have when landing on a ship, not to mention the mobility that wheels offer you both embarked and ashore. Thanks, but you can keep your skids, I'll take wheels any day of the week.



As far as I can recall, I think the Italian AB-212s (ASW), the USMC Cobras (AH), and the USMC Twins (UH-1N?) are about the only military skid-equipped helos still operating from ships but I am sure that I am forgetting or missing something. We also used our 212s out of Vu-32 to fly-off the tankers a long time ago (pre-1990).

But I agree, skids are for the weeds not for the deck. Just because you can do something really should not be construed to mean that you should do something.

Sam


----------



## Inch (14 Feb 2005)

Thanks Sam, I do recall hearing about Vu-32 flying Twins off the tankers now that you mention it. I didn't think it was all that common, skids are too touchy on hard surfaces, the worst part about basic helo school was coming back and landing on the ramp, on the grass it was a lot easier.


----------



## Sam69 (14 Feb 2005)

Here's a little bit of history, probably taken mid 80s (433 is still in the old grey):







You are right though Inch, I don't remember it having been very common and I seem to remember that the limits were 2 and 5 (pitch and roll) for recovery of the Twin.

Sam


----------



## Sam69 (14 Feb 2005)

One more, the Italian AB-212 (ASW):






I seem to remember that it had a pretty restrictive deck envelope as well.

Sam


----------



## STONEY (15 Feb 2005)

Hey INCH no need to get your shorts in a knot i didn't mean to get you so excited. I think you misunderstood the whole point of my post.  Re the EH101 i was simply making the comparison that Canada bought 15 for the very important job of SAR while the US are buying 23 for VIP transport and it would be nice if we had gotten more airframes. 

As to how i knew that the army pilots didn't have special training , they said so. In after action reports & lessons learned articles they said that most of them had no experience operation from naval ships and it would be advantagious to do so in future. I didn't mention rolling decks , i said they flew in good weather in sheltered waters close to land. Earlier in this thread people were discussing if the new Cyclone could carry many troops and it was stated it would be difficult to remove all the sensors to carry a big load , so i was just pointing out that if Canada in the future ever conducted any sort of amphib ops that we could in a pinch use army optimized helo's under certain circumstances as it had been done before. You'll get no argument from me that naval helo's with wheels are far superior for naval ops, and i certainly don't have any hang ups about army,navy or air force pilots as i have always thought they were interchangeable between elements after specialist training.

Some examples of helo's with skids operating from naval ships  AB212- operate in the Italian, Greek, Turkish, Spanish, Thai and venezuelian navy. The AS350 in Aussie & Brazilan navy.  AS555sn  in the Argie, Columbian, Brazilan & malaysian navy. The BO105 in the Mexican, Indonesian navy & Canadian Coast Guard. The OH58, 500MD, UH1, AH1 from US vessels to name a few. Once again my point was simply that army optimized helo's can if needed flown from naval ships, i also include army helo's with wheels. The RAF as you are aware even operate fighter bombers off container vessels & various naval platforms.

My point in mentioning the EH-90 was not that i thought it should have won the MHP competition but i thought people reading this thread might,  if they hadn't already heard , be interested that the Aussies & possibly the Brits were interested in this a/c in its trooplift/utility version. In light of statements recently by CDS i think we might be in the market for a a/c in this category such as Chinook, EH101, Cyclone or EH-90 the debate will begin again.

Salude.


----------



## Inch (15 Feb 2005)

Ah, I see, my shorts weren't in a knot, just curious about what you based some of your statements on, point taken. Thanks for the info. 

I agree that 15 for SAR isn't nearly enough considering we're the second largest country in the world. Did you know there's no SAR helos between Trenton and Comox? Pretty sad really, there's a TacHel Sqn in Edmonton and a Combat Support Sqn in Cold lake but that's about the extent of it.

I don't think there's a helo pilot out there that would argue about getting NH90s. I've never flown one but the specs I think speak for themselves. It's a sports car, very nimble and maneuverable. I'd love to see us get them, but the back end wasn't high enough for the SAR or MH role and I can't see us getting a 3rd airframe for the medium to heavy lift role.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Feb 2005)

I don't think the S-92 is a bad deal, Sikorsky makes a nice machine and I think the boys will be very happy with it.

Some guys keep metioning the JSS helicopter...there is no such thing as a "JSS helicopter".  There are helicopters that can can be embarked/disembarked as well operate from the JSS.  Some helos will be the Cyclone and some will not.  The Cyclone should be reasonably expected to operated fully from JSS, i.e. hauled down if so equipped, stored in hangars, etc...anything the SK does now on the AORs.  Other helso will be expected to land-on and depart under certain conditions, taking into account a variety of factors.  Some Canadian "army" pilots have in the past, and can now operate from ships under certain conditions.  They would use the same techniques that they use operating to planes, trains, 18-wheelers, etc... we don't rock back and forth trying to match the motion of a heaving deck, although more likely we'd conduct a spies-rig extract or insert.  The US Army and Navy conducted a trial of all the army's in-service helos operating from a range of US Navy ships from frigates and destroyers up to CVNs.  The Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process (JSHIP) trialled all the combinations of ships and helos and how to best help them operate on board when (not if) they did.  The trials included OH-58/KW, UH-60, C/MH-47, A/MH-6J, etc...

Intersetingly, the pic shown earlier of the Twin and SK shows CH135144, one of VU-32's Twins that made it's way to 450 Sqn that we flew with the Horseymen and the lads.  144 was the Twin that some of us flew off a CG icebreaker as a trial in the early 90's to work out some TTPs on operating to vessels at anchor...and we trialled a bit of "underway" stuff as well.  The teetering head of the Twin made  landing not too bad (on a thick knotted rope/mat thing.)  

p.s.  The Griffy can fold its blades but it's not pretty...needs a premium blade folding kit and the locking pins weren't made to be used repetatively...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Feb 2005)

I know Haze Gray and Sandy don't like deep linking, but if you got wwww.hazegray.org, then go to the Canadian Navy page and scroll down to the Cyclone pics, ... it could be the angle of the shots, but the machine seems to sit a little low for a safe rear ramp to be installed anyway.


----------



## Inch (18 Feb 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> I have my doubts you'd be slinging 10,000 lbs, I'd say 6000-8000lbs would be more realistic.



My bad, I just looked up the stats on Sikorsky's website and the H92 will sling 10,000 lbs. I underestimated a bit.  :-[


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Mar 2005)

Is it still the case that all of these machines will have the same mission kits, or has the thinking changed on this?


----------



## Sam69 (31 Mar 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Is it still the case that all of these machines will have the same mission kits, or has the thinking changed on this?



The contract has been written for 28 aircraft with the same mission kit as originally specified (focussed largely on ASW and ASuW). So, to answer your question directly, no the thinking has not changed. And I think it unlikely to change now that the contract has been let. We will have to get the aircraft and iterate the mission suite from there.


----------



## X-Rigger (31 Mar 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Where the Sea King is running into serious issues is with an antique avionics suite (I'm thinking primarily of the ADF and Gyro heading and Reference System (GHARS)) , an electrical system that provides only "dirty power" that modern avionics do not like, sensors that are all past their prime, and a lot of older parts that require a lot of maintenance hours just to monitor because they are getting old. I like the old gal, but she is not up to the rigours of modern, link-driven, sensor-to-shooter warfare.   She is a classic that belongs to another time.
> 
> To any techs- if I'm talking out of my hat on the maintenance stuff- feel free to correct me!



Not far off there SeaKingTacco.   I spent 6 years maintaining them and even made a few cross-countries, so I'm a firm believer it is one of the best helos ever built.   Sturdy airframe?  You betcha.  Problematic avionics?   Oh yeah, but I've always thought that we could fly this thing for 30 more years with a new mission suite.   And don't forget it has been modified so many times that it can no longer lift a full weapons load or even a really big AESOP.   Otherwise a grand 'ol gal, wouldn't you say?.  As far as the interface with the CPF goes, the S-92 is nearly the same size as the Sea Thing, so hangar and deck mods should be minimal.

Cheers, 

X-Rigger


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2005)

X-Rigger said:
			
		

> ... a really big AESOP.



Now i know you are not refering to me  ;D


----------



## X-Rigger (1 Apr 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Now i know you are not refering to me   ;D



As long as you're lighter than a MK46...


----------

