# Better roles for the CH-149



## QiioetSpike2020

As someone who does not agree that domestic SAR should be a huge focus or priority for the RCAF. I would like to hear some opinions on how the Cormorant could be utilized in more critical capacities than SAR throughout the forces. Could they be used for Army operations? It could alleviate the utility/transport role of the CH-146s so we could dedicate more Griffons to escort/close support roles? 

Just for context, I think the Canadian Coast Guard with its more capable Bell 412s could take on domestic SAR and drop some other capabilities.


----------



## Zoomie

If the CAF loses the SAR role to an outside agency (ie CCG) you can expect the aircraft and funding to go with it.  Yellow Cormorants get painted CCG red, RCAF aircrew become unionized CCG aircrew with overtime!


----------



## SupersonicMax

QuietSpike2020 said:
			
		

> Just for context, I think the Canadian Coast Guard with its more capable Bell 412s could take on domestic SAR and drop some other capabilities.



 ???


----------



## QiioetSpike2020

Ditch said:
			
		

> If the CAF loses the SAR role to an outside agency (ie CCG) you can expect the aircraft and funding to go with it.  Yellow Cormorants get painted CCG red, RCAF aircrew become unionized CCG aircrew with overtime!



That would depend on a lot of hypotheticals. I'm not convinced that would be the case.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ditch said:
			
		

> If the CAF loses the SAR role to an outside agency (ie CCG) you can expect the aircraft and funding to go with it.  Yellow Cormorants get painted CCG red, RCAF aircrew become unionized CCG aircrew with overtime!



Exactly what happened in 1964 when the RCAF Air-Sea Rescue bases were turned over to the new formed CCG, base, boats, equipment and crews.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile in Norway 








						Norway’s Ørland Air Force Base goes live with the new AW101-612
					

Norway’s Ørland Air Force Base has become the second search-and-rescue base to go-live with the new AW101-612.




					verticalmag-com.cdn.ampproject.org


----------



## CBH99

SupersonicMax said:


> ???


I THINK he’s referring to their recent buy of new 412’s?  🤷🏼‍♂️


Regardless - interesting question.  

If the CCG took over SAR, and the military was able to retain the aircraft.  I would say use that fleet to supplement the MH fleet.

Probably lots of better and more educated answers will find their way to you.  The government purchased the BARE MINIMUM (actually less than the bare minimum) - and we already lost one.  

Plus they have long legs, and are regularly used in demanding weather.


So that’s why I would say use them to supplement the MH fleet.


----------



## kev994

No 412 has anywhere near the capability of a 149. You’d need to put them everywhere (due to their lack of range) and still wouldn’t be able to go offshore.


----------



## CBH99

Oh absolutely.  It’s like comparing apples to bricks.  

I understood his suggestion to be that the 149s are retasked, and the CCG takes over SAR with their new 412’s.  

I didn’t mean to come across as suggesting a “new build 412 can do the job of a 149”.   No no no.  


interesting hypothetical question tho.   Kinda fun.  Curious to see what creative replies pop up here.  

(Original poster - a 412 doesn’t have the range for a lot of SAR missions, not the capacity to assist more than maybe a raft.  

The government is cheap as hell.  412’s are a LOT cheaper than Cormorants, and if they could buy more from Quebec while saving money, they would.   There is a reason we have a big bird with lots of cargo volume and range)


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> So that’s why I would say use them to supplement the MH fleet.


Those would need a lot of modification to be used for the same roles as the CH-148.  It's also based on a completely different airframe, and I'm not sure how feasible it is to have a two-fleet solution for MH.

Or are you suggesting those airframes should just be used as utility helicopters, thus forcing the ships/sqns to pick which helicopter to take on deployment?


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> Those would need a lot of modification to be used for the same roles as the CH-148.  It's also based on a completely different airframe, and I'm not sure how feasible it is to have a two-fleet solution for MH.
> 
> Or are you suggesting those airframes should just be used as utility helicopters, thus forcing the ships/sqns to pick which helicopter to take on deployment?


I have no idea tbh.  

I know very very well that it isn’t a great suggestion. 


In the context of the hypothetical question asked about re-rolling the Cormorants while the CCG took over SAR... I suggested that may be a good place to put them.  (Imaginary scenario land)

We have Chinooks to support heavy lift, and chinooks and griffons seem to be making a decent team so far.

And since our numbers of MH were lower then required when the contract was signed — if I HAD to retask the cormorants, it would be to support that fleet.  

genius suggestion?  Nope.  

But the Chinook is already doing the heavy lifting primarily for army.  I don’t think they would need Cormorants also.  Hence my suggestion to support the MH fleet.


What about you guys??   Just on the topic of this hypothetical, where would you guys plug the Cormorants?


----------



## Good2Golf

For nothing other than the protection of Godfather Chrétien’s decision-making legacy, 149s (aside from all the other practical reasons mentioned) will, for their lifetime, have nothing to do with MH...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> For nothing other than the protection of Godfather Chrétien’s decision-making legacy, 149s (aside from all the other practical reasons mentioned) will, for their lifetime, have nothing to do with MH...


Hypothetically, we could buy a couple AW101s per year and slowly replace the Cyclone.  Nobody would ever notice....


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> Hypothetically, we could buy a couple AW101s per year and slowly replace the Cyclone.  Nobody would ever notice....



As long as we keep sims on the east coast only.  If the folks out west no longer had to do Victoria - Vancouver - Calgary - Toronto - Fredericton - Halifax, returning Halifax - Montreal - Winnipeg - Edmonton - Vancouver - Victoria flights for recerts that could be written off during routine ops, someone would get suspicious.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> As long as we keep sims on the east coast only.  If the folks out west no longer had to do Victoria - Vancouver - Calgary - Toronto - Fredericton - Halifax, returning Halifax - Montreal - Winnipeg - Edmonton - Vancouver - Victoria flights for recerts that could be written off during routine ops, someone would get suspicious.


Yeah, that is an important feature: putting the sim some place inaccessible to at least half of your crews.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:


> Yeah, that is an important feature: putting the sim some place inaccessible to at least half of your crews.


As is tradition (e.g. LRP)


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> As is tradition (e.g. LRP)


...once they eventually got a sim...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG management hates SAR, the only reason we had a Rescue Specialist program was due to efforts of a few seaman and the Kits base Commanding Officer, is was a bottom up initiative. they didn`t want to spend the money to train us on IV's. Under the CCG, the SAR tech program would be a shadow of it's current self, plus CCG would find ways to get out of doing any interior SAR work, they don't even like doing the inshore rescue boat stations on the lakes.


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> CCG management hates SAR, the only reason we had a Rescue Specialist program was due to efforts of a few seaman and the Kits base Commanding Officer, is was a bottom up initiative. they didn`t want to spend the money to train us on IV's. Under the CCG, the SAR tech program would be a shadow of it's current self, plus CCG would find ways to get out of doing any interior SAR work, they don't even like doing the inshore rescue boat stations on the lakes.


It sounds like our Coast Guard is very much stuck in it's traditional role, and operating in a traditional way.  And I very much understand the nostalgia for history, traditions, etc etc in organizations like the CCG.

But maybe we need to give it a solid kick in the pants?  Grab it by the horns and make some VERY SIMPLE, yet VERY USEFUL changes.  Rescuing people who are in distress, right off the coast?  Nah, ya know what?  That doesn't sound like a job for the Coast Guard at all  🤦‍♂️ 



Colin, I'm genuinely curious to ask someone who has been in the CCG (I don't have any experience with, or interacting with, the CCG.)   In their fantasy world, what tasks would the CCG leadership ideally want the CCG to focus on?

(Quick question, sorry...don't mean to derail the thread.  Just asked because it came up.)


----------



## Dale Denton

CCG sounds like an organisation that lacks a long-term and strategic vision. If organisations don't evolve and constantly aim to air their usefulness to politicians (and public) then they are doomed to collapse. It's safe to say Canadians probably don't know we have a Coast Guard, or probably think of it as similar to the USCG (which it isn't). It's terrible but i'm right, look at the state of the CCG fleet if you want to know what happens when you're out of the public eye. Look at the state of the RCN and its capability gaps, or our artillery organisation.

Shove your face into the media, tell show them you're needed, and what you need to continue to function. Tell gov't you need XYZ fleet composition, and show them what you could do with additional support. 

1. Environmental law-enforcement agency mandate would fit with Liberal/NDP priorities.
2. Push to take a role off of RCMP, CBSA, Fisheries or even RCN shoulders with lightly armed OPVs or Inshore patrol vessels, sworn-law enforcement agency
3. A counter-narcotics role with RCMP partnership, take over Op Caribbe from the RCN and gain xp working with USCG.


----------



## Dale Denton

Back to the subject, I'm sure there's some internal thought as to what happens in 10 yrs when the Cyclone is matured and discussions need to be made regarding a refit or new fleet altogether. Im sure the cost of refitting an orphan fleet won't be worth the effort, and the muddled procurement process for the fleet would give any future gov't an excuse to blame it on the many gov'ts that touched this file. The last CSC will be in the water in 2040s, so there will be a capability bottleneck with them being too old to work on a shiny new ship. 

Is there a platform that can take a Cyclones existing systems and refit them onto? Strip them of the ASW equipment and use them as a medium-lift utility platform, Use them for SAR? Give the ASW parts to a Romeo? Use the Cyclones as a commando helicopter force for a pipe-dream LHD?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To be fair my experience is a bit dated, there might be different shifts going on. Most of the management is either not boat people or were big ship people and keeping enough big ships going to meet the needs of the icebreaking, buoy tending, science and Fisheries programs is what consumes them. When I was in SAR, it was always considered a secondary task by the big ships crew and officers, one that took them away from their fairly tight schedule. The crews were diligent in doing SAR when tasked, but very not in their mindset. The SAR cutters and Lifeboat stations saw maintaining navigation aids and other requests as secondary to their primary role of SAR. I would say the SAR assets were more willing to expand their roles, than the navaids people. Getting the bigger hovercraft also changed things as it can lift the smaller buoys and it does more nav aid work than when I was on the smaller SRN6's, where we could only change lights, bulbs and batteries.
In the 90's CCG management tried very hard to shut down Kitslano and Sea Island Hovercraft bases despite them being the two busiest SAR bases in Canada. It was very much a battle of funding and operational requirement creep. I was waist deep in the dive team fiasco where the senior management of the day lied to the Minister, who got caught out publicly in that lie by a well informed press. That same Minister was shocked that Rescue Specialists in the CCG were not paid extra for their extra work and risks, I made an extra $700 a year before taxes for being a diver doing capsized vessel entry. He started the process to get us compensated for that work.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of awesome people in the CCG and if given a clear mandate and funding, would get on with it, but they always be fighting the senior management to make sure standards are not whittled away to save money.

To the subject, CCG did operate one Sikorsky that was fitted with a lifting winch, an initiative also driven by the operational level who prior had to beg the Alaskan CG to send one of their helo's down to save Canadians and often could not.


----------



## Dale Denton

CCG is probably suffering from a driven-in mindset from decades of scraping by with what they had just to do the job. If they had some slack in enough pers and vessels, things would be different.

Would have been smarter to have a larger fleet of CH-149s from the get-go doing ASW and Utility jobs. Would've been great during Afg in conjunction with Chinooks, lightened the load from the Griffon fleet too.


----------



## Loachman

I can't see the Griffon's load having been lightened in Afghanistan as it was used for escort and CCA etcetera.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LoboCanada said:


> CCG is probably suffering from a driven-in mindset from decades of scraping by with what they had just to do the job. If they had some slack in enough pers and vessels, things would be different.
> 
> Would have been smarter to have a larger fleet of CH-149s from the get-go doing ASW and Utility jobs. Would've been great during Afg in conjunction with Chinooks, lightened the load from the Griffon fleet too.


Technically all the CCG aircraft and crew belong to Transport Canada, what can be done is that TC is given funds to purchase a few more helicopters, painting them gray and provide support to the AOP's/AOR's  for domestic ops and humanitarian ops. That would allow the Cyclones to focus on primary tasks like ASW.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

things are not going to well


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ch-149-cormorant-helicopters-search-rescue-1.6090353?fbclid=IwAR3kCO6oLzyMp1brMSslmg05JVhRH8WUJLumjG7w6jf5CK5FaL2QlWrSNw8


----------



## Good2Golf

So now if you add up the CH-149 Cormorant acquisition and to-date maintenance and support and add the projected upgrade and future maintenance costs and then also add in the CH-148 Cyclone acquisition costs to design a paper aircraft and turn it into a unique (world-wide, Canada is the only operator of an H92) helicopter and project future maintenance and support costs, it makes an interesting comparison with the original EH-101 plan for a single main helicopter with two very similar variants that would benefit from a consolidated fleet for economies of scale in maintenance and support, with only specific mission-specific equipment (eg. dipping sonar for Navy and rescue hoist and FLIR for rescue helicopter).  Perhaps a consolidated procurement would have also provided a more robust crew training package that might have mitigated the crashes and loss of lives from both CH149914 and CH148822?

But, “No new ‘elicopters! Zip! Zero! Nada!” ruled the day…


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> So now if you add up the CH-149 Cormorant acquisition and to-date maintenance and support and add the projected upgrade and future maintenance costs and then also add in the CH-148 Cyclone acquisition costs to design a paper aircraft and turn it into a unique (world-wide, Canada is the only operator of an H92) helicopter and project future maintenance and support costs, it makes an interesting comparison with the original EH-101 plan for a single main helicopter with two very similar variants that would benefit from a consolidated fleet for economies of scale in maintenance and support, with only specific mission-specific equipment (eg. dipping sonar for Navy and rescue hoist and FLIR for rescue helicopter).  Perhaps a consolidated procurement would have also provided a more robust crew training package that might have mitigated the crashes and loss of lives from both CH149914 and CH148822?
> 
> But, “No new ‘elicopters! Zip! Zero! Nada!” ruled the day…



I thought Cadillac was supposed to provide us with a helicopter?


----------



## blacktriangle

daftandbarmy said:


> I thought Cadillac was supposed to provide us with a helicopter?


Right after they figure out how to provide people with working cars.


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:


> I thought Cadillac was supposed to provide us with a helicopter?


Yeah, gotta hate it when politicians intentionally misuse labels to justify their decisions. A Chevy cam work, but if you force the Chevy to be used on a short budget, even a ‘Solid As A Rock’ Chevy will have issues.


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> So now if you add up the CH-149 Cormorant acquisition and to-date maintenance and support and add the projected upgrade and future maintenance costs and then also add in the CH-148 Cyclone acquisition costs to design a paper aircraft and turn it into a unique (world-wide, Canada is the only operator of an H92) helicopter and project future maintenance and support costs, it makes an interesting comparison with the original EH-101 plan for a single main helicopter with two very similar variants that would benefit from a consolidated fleet for economies of scale in maintenance and support, with only specific mission-specific equipment (eg. dipping sonar for Navy and rescue hoist and FLIR for rescue helicopter).  Perhaps a consolidated procurement would have also provided a more robust crew training package that might have mitigated the crashes and loss of lives from both CH149914 and CH148822?
> 
> But, “No new ‘elicopters! Zip! Zero! Nada!” ruled the day…


So we spend $500 million in cancellation fees for a contract that’s already done.

$500 million paid to a company to literally produce nothing.

Only to turn around and start the process over again, and buy a very similar helicopter (at least to the uneducated observer.)


How is wasting that much taxpayer money not illegal again?  🤦🏼‍♂️


----------



## Jarnhamar

Multi-role platform right here.


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> things are not going to well
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ch-149-cormorant-helicopters-search-rescue-1.6090353?fbclid=IwAR3kCO6oLzyMp1brMSslmg05JVhRH8WUJLumjG7w6jf5CK5FaL2QlWrSNw8


I've read through a few of the articles about this matter, but I'm having a hard time 'pin pointing' in my mind exactly what is driving the costs up past $1.3B.  Could someone summarize what the issue is?

Is it just a service life extension, to keep them going until the early 2040's?  Is it the modification of the 2 additional airframes?  Is it fancy equipment being added as part of the life extension?  Or are they just big, heavy duty, expensive birds that are expensive to overhaul?  🤷‍♂️


----------



## dapaterson

My understanding: Yes to all.  Two new airframes plus overhaul plus new sensors and capability integration, with a prime contractor who owns the IP, plus contingency funding in case additional issues arise like foreign exchange fluctuations, plus staff to run the project...


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> I've read through a few of the articles about this matter, but I'm having a hard time 'pin pointing' in my mind exactly what is driving the costs up past $1.3B.  Could someone summarize what the issue is?
> 
> Is it just a service life extension, to keep them going until the early 2040's?  Is it the modification of the 2 additional airframes?  Is it fancy equipment being added as part of the life extension?  Or are they just big, heavy duty, expensive birds that are expensive to overhaul?  🤷‍♂️


…yes.

Original project in 1996 CAD was $650M Vote 5 (capital acquisition) to buy 15 airframes and type-specific support equipment.

25 years later, modify 14 aircraft, add a flight simulator and additional systems (like EO/IR sensors, health usage management system, etc) significantly modify two additional VH-71 airframes to add ramps and turn them into CH-149A (or whatever the upgraded Cormorants will be designated) and inflation of value over those 25 years…then $1.3B doesn’t seem out of line….it’s just that politicians get antsy with ‘B’s, but not ‘M’s for military projects.


----------



## suffolkowner

What a disaster the CH148/149 situation is. I thought this was a done deal! It sounds like Leonardo was unable to provide everything specified under the approved budget. So budget needs to be adjusted or request adjusted. How commited are whoever to delivering this project? Will we ever see 2 additional helicopters?


----------



## CBH99

suffolkowner said:


> Will we ever see 2 additional helicopters?


The fact that we even have to ask that question is absurd, and speaks volumes as to how defense projects are handled.  Two helicopters?  Two...

The fact that we couldn't order a single additional airframe after losing one, is discouraging.  Even if it happens to be slightly different than the ones in service, as long as the basics are there, we could have had the SAR capability a bit more robust even by one aircraft.  


Is the Cormorant life-extension a disaster though?  Pricey for sure, but it makes sense now that it was explained upthread.  But other than the higher than expected cost, is there anything that is a disaster though?


----------



## suffolkowner

The disaster began with PM Chretien when he cancelled the original project in 1993 for 28 Petrels/15 Chimos for $4.4 B and paying $500M(maybe just $197M) in cancellation fees. It actually began earlier when PM Campbell reduced the order from 35/15 for $5.8B.

It continued when the 15 scaled down CH-149 were purchased.

In 2004 the 28 CH-148 were purchased

So in my mind it's just one long never ending story, that is bound to get worse once we have to start paying for maintaining the Cyclone fleet as well


----------



## Loachman

suffolkowner said:


> 15 Chimos



Thank F that that name was not adopted.



suffolkowner said:


> for $4.4 B and paying $500M(maybe just $197M) in cancellation fees.



Plus the always-forgotten $800M that had already been spent on the programme.

And the 2000 (if memory serves me correctly) jobs that were instantaneously lost, and many more that never started, because of petty politics by somebody who campaigned on "Jobs, jobs, jobs".


----------



## suffolkowner

Loachman said:


> Plus the always-forgotten $800M that had already been spent on the programme.


I honestly think we spend an order of magnitude more on the risk abatement part (project management) than the actual risk.

If it was $800M in 1993 I wonder what the running total would be up to today


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:


> The disaster began with PM Chretien when he cancelled the original project in 1993 for 28 Petrels/15 Chimos for $4.4 B and paying $500M(maybe just $197M) in cancellation fees. It actually began earlier when PM Campbell reduced the order from 35/15 for $5.8B.
> 
> It continued when the 15 scaled down CH-149 were purchased.
> 
> In 2004 the 28 CH-148 were purchased
> 
> So in my mind it's just one long never ending story, that is bound to get worse once we have to start paying for maintaining the Cyclone fleet as well


How about replacing the Cormorants with dedicated SAR versions of the Cyclones?


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin Parkinson said:


> How about replacing the Cormorants with dedicated SAR versions of the Cyclones?



Would they be S-92's or H-92's or actual Cyclones without the mission kit I wonder? It's my understanding that Sikorsky offerred something like that instead of upgrading the Comorants. 

I think I would have preferrd that PM Harper cancelled the Sikorsky contract in 2013 and went back to the EH-101. Cancellation fees notwithstanding


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> How about replacing the Cormorants with dedicated SAR versions of the Cyclones?


It would actually make more sense to buy more CH-147Fs as they were derived from the USAF CSAR-X HH-47 - includes unparalleled hot and high performance with rock-solid tandem-rotor stability, an advanced multi-spectral EO/IR sensor, far greater range and endurance than any other CAF helicopter, advanced operationally-proven multi-mode autopilot, just add a hoist and you have a super-Labrador on steroids that already has an established in-service support program that has options to scale up.  

It would be the best “new helicopter” option for what the RCAF/CAF and Canadian government would need, but I do think that “new helicopter” is not a better option than sorting out the CH-149.

$0.02

G2G


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> It would actually make more sense to buy more CH-147Fs as they were derived from the USAF CSAR-X HH-47 - includes unparalleled hot and high performance with rock-solid tandem-rotor stability, an advanced multi-spectral EO/IR sensor, far greater range and endurance than any other CAF helicopter, advanced operationally-proven multi-mode autopilot, just add a hoist and you have a super-Labrador on steroids that already has an established in-service support program that has options to scale up.
> 
> It would be the best “new helicopter” option for what the RCAF/CAF and Canadian government would need, but I do think that “new helicopter” is not a better option than sorting out the CH-149.
> 
> $0.02
> 
> G2G


What do you think the end result is here. Do we settle on the upgrade minus the new helicopters to get the project under budget and maybe look to acquire the new ones later or go back and seek more money?


----------



## Good2Golf

Personally, I think the compromise will be to keep current fleet size, and pare back the scope of the upgrade content of the remaining 14.  This will also mean the CH-146 will likely stay at Trenton.


----------



## dapaterson

Or, hear me out, they'll scrub down requirements and simultaneously seek additional funding, and come up with a compromise to deliver an affordable upgrade and increased fleet size.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> It would actually make more sense to buy more CH-147Fs as they were derived from the USAF CSAR-X HH-47 - includes unparalleled hot and high performance with rock-solid tandem-rotor stability, an advanced multi-spectral EO/IR sensor, far greater range and endurance than any other CAF helicopter, advanced operationally-proven multi-mode autopilot, just add a hoist and you have a super-Labrador on steroids that already has an established in-service support program that has options to scale up.
> 
> It would be the best “new helicopter” option for what the RCAF/CAF and Canadian government would need, but I do think that “new helicopter” is not a better option than sorting out the CH-149.
> 
> $0.02
> 
> G2G


I would not want to be wounded and hoisted aboard a Chinook!  Quite the downdraft!!

Why not get the Blackhawk-series (Jayhawk to replace Cormorant/SAR Griffon, Seahawk for maritime helos, Pavehawk to replace SOF Griffons and Blackhawk to replace the Tac Hel Griffons)?  Seems like we could have some economy of efforts with such a concept??


----------



## Loachman

suffolkowner said:


> I honestly think we spend an order of magnitude more on the risk abatement part (project management) than the actual risk.
> 
> If it was $800M in 1993 I wonder what the running total would be up to today



I'm not sure what "risk abatement" has to do with wasting $1.3B just to gain more votes.

I note that the forced-confiscation-of-private-property-with-partial-financial-"compensation", or what this current corrupt and power-seeking-at-all-cost (to us, not them) Liberal government euphemistically and dishonestly calls a "buy-back", has been estimated by the PBO to cost $756M.

That amount of money - which ignores the huge budgetary bloat of the last Lieberal attack on legal gunowners and a similar inevitable one this time - would pay for a good chunk of the CH149 upgrade and fleet augmentation.

"If it only saves just one life it's worth it" was their constant chorus used to tout the Firearms Act.

What would be the most-life-saving use of that $756M?

Which will most likely be given the priority?

"The SAR community is asking for more than we can give..."


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> Personally, I think the compromise will be to keep current fleet size, and pare back the scope of the upgrade content of the remaining 14.  This will also mean the CH-146 will likely stay at Trenton.





Loachman said:


> I'm not sure what "risk abatement" has to do with wasting $1.3B just to gain more votes.
> 
> I note that the forced-confiscation-of-private-property-with-partial-financial-"compensation", or what this current corrupt and power-seeking-at-all-cost (to us, not them) Liberal government euphemistically and dishonestly calls a "buy-back", has been estimated by the PBO to cost $756M.
> 
> That amount of money - which ignores the huge budgetary bloat of the last Lieberal attack on legal gunowners and a similar inevitable one this time - would pay for a good chunk of the CH149 upgrade and fleet augmentation.
> 
> "If it only saves just one life it's worth it" was their constant chorus used to tout the Firearms Act.
> 
> What would be the most-life-saving use of that $756M?
> 
> Which will most likely be given the priority?
> 
> "The SAR community is asking for more than we can give..."


The risk abatement is the cost the government forces on itself to make sure these procurements go smoothly and correctly. Which would be fine except these projects haven't been going smoothly or correctly and instead drag on for 15, 20 years or more, imperiling the actual purpose for which they exist. It's not an insignificant thing at all if you start with $800M back in 1996 we have to be well over $2B if not $3B by now to purchase 42 helicopters over lets say 30 years. Then its questionable if the process even generates the right result, witness the Oshkosh decision versus the government on the MSVS-SMP. Or take the FWSAR process. In all these procurements I think its debatable whether theres anyone in the broader civil service that can even distinguish between the different contenders. Even after decisions have been made, I've never seen any of the metrics published that informed or determined that decision. Look at the upcoming F-18 replacement, we know that 60% is performance, 20% cost and 20% industrial benefits, but we don't know how those numbers are going to be arrived at, awarded, or judged. Are they going by simple rank system, are they weighted, ?  

My point is simply that we are wasting Billions of dollars running a procurement system that doesn't work in any way, simply because someone is afraid giving the option of sole sourcing to the CAF because they might pick a C-27 instead of a C-295, eventhough they can't tell the difference between them or why one is better  even after the fact.  With the state of our equipment and procurement personel we should just be sole sourcing all of our major equipment purchases untill the procurement system has shown that it can manage effectively.

As an aside I don't think Chretien's or Trudeau's comments on the AW-101 or the F-35 made any difference on the election outcome it was just stupid politiking.

I also find it hard to believe that it is only going to cost $756 million for all the semi automatics out there


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:


> I would not want to be wounded and hoisted aboard a Chinook!  Quite the downdraft!!
> 
> Why not get the Blackhawk-series (Jayhawk to replace Cormorant/SAR Griffon, Seahawk for maritime helos, Pavehawk to replace SOF Griffons and Blackhawk to replace the Tac Hel Griffons)?  Seems like we could have some economy of efforts with such a concept??


As much as the "breathing cargo" would love that, I'm willing to bet we're stuck with the Griffom for the next 20 years until we start looking at the winner of the US Army's future assault helicopter program.


----------



## FJAG

PuckChaser said:


> As much as the "breathing cargo" would love that, I'm willing to bet we're stuck with the Griffom for the next 20 years until we start looking at the winner of the US Army's future assault helicopter program.


And then - like the Blackhawk - we'll buy something different.

🍻


----------



## GR66

SupersonicMax said:


> I would not want to be wounded and hoisted aboard a Chinook!  Quite the downdraft!!
> 
> Why not get the Blackhawk-series (Jayhawk to replace Cormorant/SAR Griffon, Seahawk for maritime helos, Pavehawk to replace SOF Griffons and Blackhawk to replace the Tac Hel Griffons)?  Seems like we could have some economy of efforts with such a concept??


That's a great idea...all those used Blackhawk variants will be available at a bargoon price when the US starts replacing them all with the new Future Vertical Lift helicopters.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> I would not want to be wounded and hoisted aboard a Chinook!  Quite the downdraft!!



An often bandied about misinformation. 

Volume ≠ velocity.

A Chinook’s down wash was measured and fell within the USAF specs for SAR ops.



A RAF friend having flown both EH-101 and HC.2/3/6 Chinnies described the aircraft as sitting atop either a tornado (EH-101) or a Typhoon (Chinook), one more intense in a smaller area, the other disrupting a larger area but with less intensity.  Interestingly, the RAF put the EH-101 only in Iraq, close to sea level, while the Chinook is quite at home in the mountains in challenging airflow.  There are few (if any?) 113-qualified SAR pilots left, but those I spoke with at the time lamented losing the tandem rotor capability in the mountains. Anyway, if RW SAR folks wouldn’t want to fly a 147F, that’s their prerogative.



SupersonicMax said:


> Why not get the Blackhawk-series (Jayhawk to replace Cormorant/SAR Griffon, Seahawk for maritime helos, Pavehawk to replace SOF Griffons and Blackhawk to replace the Tac Hel Griffons)?  Seems like we could have some economy of efforts with such a concept??


That ship sailed on April 29, 1992…the day that Marcel Masse announced the Griffon acquisition.   We’ll see V-280s to replace the Griffon in the 2030s before we ever see H60 type helos replacing the 146.

$0.02

Regards
G2G


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> An often bandied about misinformation.
> 
> Volume ≠ velocity.
> 
> A Chinook’s down wash was measured and fell within the USAF specs for SAR ops.
> 
> View attachment 65721
> 
> A RAF friend having flown both EH-101 and HC.2/3/6 Chinnies described the aircraft as sitting atop either a tornado (EH-101) or a Typhoon (Chinook), one more intense in a smaller area, the other disrupting a larger area but with less intensity.  Interestingly, the RAF put the EH-101 only in Iraq, close to sea level, while the Chinook is quite at home in the mountains in challenging airflow.  There are few (if any?) 113-qualified SAR pilots left, but those I spoke with at the time lamented losing the tandem rotor capability in the mountains. Anyway, if RW SAR folks wouldn’t want to fly a 147F, that’s their prerogative.
> 
> 
> That ship sailed on April 29, 1992…the day that Marcel Masse announced the Griffon acquisition.   We’ll see V-280s to replace the Griffon in the 2030s before we ever see H60 type helos replacing the 146.
> 
> $0.02
> 
> Regards
> G2G


Not meaning this in a cheeky way, but also they (Blackhawk family) aren’t manufactured by Bell.  For economic and political reasons, Bell will have a solid lead on any of those competitions.  

Mind you, I could be wrong.  Neither the Cormorant or Cyclone was manufactured locally - so who knows.  

Either way, we won’t see any of the Blackhawk series in Canadian service.  Even if it does make sense in _some_ ways.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:


> Why not get the Blackhawk-series (Jayhawk to replace Cormorant/SAR Griffon, Seahawk for maritime helos, Pavehawk to replace SOF Griffons and Blackhawk to replace the Tac Hel Griffons)? Seems like we could have some economy of efforts with such a concept??


Can't speak to the others, but the SH-60 series runs a different crew composition than the Sea King/Cyclone.  3 (Pilot and ACSO in the front seats, AESOP in the middle) vs our 4.

We can change the crew composition to match, but from what I've heard is that the SH-60s push a significant portion of the processing tasks that a SK/Cyclone would perform to the ship.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> How about replacing the Cormorants with dedicated SAR versions of the Cyclones?


There are no more Cyclones. We own the entire world supply of 27.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect they be happy to restart the line, how much commonality with the S-92 or VH-92? The S92 is in SAR service elsewhere.


----------



## MJP

SeaKingTacco said:


> There are no more Cyclones. We own the entire world supply of 27.


ADATS of the sky!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MJP said:


> ADATS of the sky!


At least that was 36, then (40, if you counted the Thai shelter versions…) and most of the equipment was pretty much off the shelf, someplace else…


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> I suspect they be happy to restart the line, how much commonality with the S-92 or VH-92? The S92 is in SAR service elsewhere.


You would be entirely wrong about them wanting to re-start the line…


----------



## CBH99

SeaKingTacco said:


> There are no more Cyclones. We own the entire world supply of 27.


Kind of like how we also own the entire world supply of 14 Cormorants 😏

We give special a whole new meaning, don't we?


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> Kind of like how we also own the entire world supply of 14 Cormorants 😏
> 
> *We give special a whole new meaning, don't we?*



Yes, yes we do....









						Adapting With the Times: A Look at the TAPV as an Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle
					

Seeking the best methods for maximizing capabilities on the modern battlefield. Matthew Sherlock-Hubbard discusses the potential limitations, technical advantages, and overall benefit of the Canadian Army’s new Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles (TAPV).




					natoassociation.ca


----------



## Rifleman62

Enjoy This Walkaround Tour Of The New HH-60W Jolly Green II Combat Rescue Helicopter
					

Capt. White introduces the HH-60W Jolly Green II during the walkaround tour. (Photo: Screenshot from the YouTube video below) Following the tour of the HH-60G Pave Hawk, we now have the chance to see its successor, the HH-60W, up close and learn some more details about it. About two weeks ago we...




					zephyrnet.com
				



Enjoy This Walkaround Tour Of The New HH-60W Jolly Green II Combat Rescue Helicopter - 10 Jul 21​
Could be used as a SAR?


----------



## dimsum

Rifleman62 said:


> Enjoy This Walkaround Tour Of The New HH-60W Jolly Green II Combat Rescue Helicopter
> 
> 
> Capt. White introduces the HH-60W Jolly Green II during the walkaround tour. (Photo: Screenshot from the YouTube video below) Following the tour of the HH-60G Pave Hawk, we now have the chance to see its successor, the HH-60W, up close and learn some more details about it. About two weeks ago we...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyrnet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy This Walkaround Tour Of The New HH-60W Jolly Green II Combat Rescue Helicopter - 10 Jul 21​
> Could be used as a SAR?


Sure, but that's overkill for Canada as we don't have a Combat SAR capability.  Our SAR Techs are domestic only.  

I'm also surprised that they "just" have an MX-10 camera.  I would have thought they'd have at least an MX-15 (which is what our Griffons have).


----------



## Good2Golf

…or ‘underkill’ for a domestic National SAR helicopter for a massive country/AOR, if you’re thinking of outright replacing the CH-149.  There was a solid group of reasons why the ‘MapleHawk’ wasn’t selected for CSH back in the 90s…this is lipstick on the old UH-60A based HH-60G.  I kind of chuckled a bit hearing it called a Jolly Green II…I know a ‘Nam-era HH-3 bubba who shook his head when the 60W name was announced…


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

dimsum said:


> Sure, but that's overkill for Canada as we don't have a Combat SAR capability.  Our SAR Techs are domestic only.
> 
> I'm also surprised that they "just" have an MX-10 camera.  I would have thought they'd have at least an MX-15 (which is what our Griffons have).


Maybe based on weight restriction. New gen MX-10 are 10x better than older gen MX-15. Used one with WPS helo and I was impressed.


----------



## Dale Denton

We should just jump into the UK New Medium Helicopter project. Project is to replace Bell 212, 412 and their Dauphins. Jump into it now and in 10-15yrs you could start replacing the Cormorants and Griffons.

I think Airbus and Bell have considerable presence here for existing aircraft and offer their own - new - aircraft.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:


> …or ‘underkill’ for a domestic National SAR helicopter for a massive country/AOR, if you’re thinking of outright replacing the CH-149.  There was a solid group of reasons why the ‘MapleHawk’ wasn’t selected for CSH back in the 90s…this is lipstick on the old UH-60A based HH-60G.  I kind of chuckled a bit hearing it called a Jolly Green II…I know a ‘Nam-era HH-3 bubba who shook his head when the 60W name was announced…


Go big or go home Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion - Wikipedia


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> Go big or go home Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion - Wikipedia


CH-53K…

Extremely expensive.  Maintenance intensive.  Small fleet/orphan fleet.  I imagine a hefty operating cost.  

Ya know what?  This couldn’t be a more Canadian helicopter if we tried!!  


Count us in please.  For 4 airframes less than what we say is our minimum.


----------



## dapaterson

Take the article with a gain of salt, since it asserts that all the Cyclones are on the East Coast.

Most RCAF Cyclone helicopters undergoing repairs after cracks discovered​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcaf-grounds-cyclone-helicopters-cracks-1.6273953


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> Take the article with a gain of salt, since it asserts that all the Cyclones are on the East Coast.
> 
> Most RCAF Cyclone helicopters undergoing repairs after cracks discovered​
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcaf-grounds-cyclone-helicopters-cracks-1.6273953


Well, all Cyclones are from 12 Wing. It’s just that one of the Wing’s Squadron is on the West coast.


----------



## Good2Golf

Like the Hawks from 4 Wing that actually operate at 15 Wing.


----------



## Ostrozac

And 2 Wing, which is located at 3 Wing.

The RCAF term ‘Wing’ sometimes refers to a geographically dispersed formation, sometimes to a specific garrison, and sometimes to both at the same time. This can confuse outsiders, it certainly confuses me.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ostrozac said:


> And 2 Wing, which is located at 3 Wing.
> 
> The RCAF term ‘Wing’ sometimes refers to a geographically dispersed formation, sometimes to a specific garrison, and sometimes to both at the same time. This can confuse outsiders, it certainly confuses me.


Absolutely.  Back in the day, it was clear.  An RCAF Station was a base, and an RCAF Wing was an operational entity.  Now it is definitely blurred.


----------



## dimsum

Ostrozac said:


> And 2 Wing, which is located at 3 Wing.
> 
> The RCAF term ‘Wing’ sometimes refers to a geographically dispersed formation, sometimes to a specific garrison, and sometimes to both at the same time. This can confuse outsiders, it certainly confuses me.


Don't forget 1 Wing, which is all over the place.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Like the Hawks from 4 Wing that actually operate at 15 Wing.


You mean the 15 Wing Hawks operated by 419 Sqn at CFB Cold Lake?



Ostrozac said:


> And 2 Wing, which is located at 3 Wing.
> 
> The RCAF term ‘Wing’ sometimes refers to a geographically dispersed formation, sometimes to a specific garrison, and sometimes to both at the same time. This can confuse outsiders, it certainly confuses me.


Both 2 and 3 Wing are lodged at CFB Bagotville. 2 Wing is not located at 3 Wing.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Don't forget 1 Wing, which is all over the place.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Back in the day, it was clear.  An RCAF Station was a base, and an RCAF Wing was an operational entity.


Sounds like a proposal that can firewall someone's "leading change" bubbles to the right   

ETA:  The change (I guess?) could be even easier.  Just get rid of the "XX Wing" designations for locations, and call it "CFB Whatever".  So, for example, the 2 Wing Commander would work with the BComd of CFB Bagotville.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> You mean the 15 Wing Hawks operated by 419 Sqn at CFB Cold Lake?


Dang it, I knew it was one way or the other.


----------



## kev994

435 in Winnipeg is part of 19 Wing Comox. Also the 149 is the cormorant so we’ve got this discussion in the wrong thread.


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> 435 in Winnipeg is part of 19 Wing Comox. Also the 149 is the cormorant so we’ve got this discussion in the wrong thread.


Ah yes.  17 Wing, the base with aircraft which don't fall under the WComd.

435 - 19 Wing
402 - 2 CAD


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> Ah yes.  17 Wing, the base with aircraft which don't fall under the WComd.
> 
> 435 - 19 Wing
> 402 - 2 CAD


Yeah, but that has the advantage of staffing the command with non-aircrew. Though I doubt that was ever the reasoning.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> Ah yes.  17 Wing, the base with aircraft which don't fall under the WComd.
> 
> 435 - 19 Wing
> 402 - 2 CAD


----------



## dapaterson

kev994 said:


> 435 in Winnipeg is part of 19 Wing Comox. Also the 149 is the cormorant so we’ve got this discussion in the wrong thread.


So this would be my embarrassed face


----------



## Spencer100

Republic of Korea One. 









						Check Out South Korea’s Own VH-92 Presidential Helicopter
					

The next 'Marine One' helicopter might be delayed, but South Korea already operates its own version of the VH-92. The next U.S. presidential transport helicopter might be delayed, but South Korea already operates its own version of the VH-92.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Republic of Korea One.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check Out South Korea’s Own VH-92 Presidential Helicopter
> 
> 
> The next 'Marine One' helicopter might be delayed, but South Korea already operates its own version of the VH-92. The next U.S. presidential transport helicopter might be delayed, but South Korea already operates its own version of the VH-92.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com


So you’re saying there is a market for a slightly used fleet?


----------

