# CF Helicopters (From: Replace the Herc!)



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2005)

Again I find myself agreeing with you Art.

The only thing I would add, is that I think the service should also include Helicopters -  Especially helicopters that could be carried inside the Aircraft (When I was a kid Thunderbird 2 was always my favourite - sometimes you never grow up).

Half-a-dozen Aircraft (at least) capable of lifting something like 4 Cormorants or Cyclones and a 6-pack of Griffons at once.  Helos ready to lift in 1-4 hours of landing.

Think of the possibilities for Domestic operations in the Arctic as well as the possibilities if coupled with pre-positioned ships.  (This solves the problem of under-utilized, under-maintained helos sitting idle in ships while supplying capabilities and flexibility and speed).

When do we go into business?  Anybody got the cash on hand they wish to contribute?

Chris.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2005)

> The EH 101 was the only game in town for a decade, but the government stalled until there was a semi-viable alternative (prototype) helicopter available just to "save face")



Careful some of the air types have here have seen the Cyclone even flown in it and seem to pretty hapy about it. Unless you know something more about this helicopter then they do.....


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Careful some of the air types have here have seen the Cyclone even flown in it and seem to pretty hapy about it. Unless you know something more about this helicopter then they do.....



This thread is about replacing the C-130 right ? Ex-D's comment is bang on.  Unless a-majoor is willing to remuster to pilot, nav or aesop, and be willing to continue flying sea kings for another 10 years..... We have (the air types) expressed our feelings on the matter since we are the ones who will have to fly the thing. We are buying a good aircraft made by a more than reputable manufacturer, period!


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2005)

Glad you are happy Aesop.  And I have no reason to doubt that the Cyclone will do the job you guys need to do and get you back on deck.  As you say Sikorsky has a long and good track record.  I think though that a-majoor's point stands.  At the time Mulroney and Campbell were pimping the EH-101 it was the only game in town.  It remained the only game in town until the Cyclone came along.  

The competition extended, fortuitously or not I don't know, past the point where the Cyclone was finally air certified.  It is still not in series production and there are no (to my knowledge) pre-existing military operators - both preconditions for the competition winner at one point.  Both conditions appear to have been dropped.  Or maybe I am just recollecting the history of the competition poorly. 

I don't think the reference was as much a slam at the Cyclone as a slam at the competition and the Government.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2005)

I agree with Kirkhill - I think the snipe was at the politics of the issue (just as there will be politics with a Herc replacement) rather then at the airframe.   As far as I am concerned, Inch has given the Cyclone the thumbs up, so it looks like we managed to salvage something sweet out of a shitty political deal....too bad we couldn't have done that with the LSVW, the Iltis, etc, etc.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Jan 2005)

Maybe but my problem was with "semi viable alternative" which to me means second rate or crap.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2005)

By semi-viable alternative, I was reffering to the fact the Cyclone is not yet in series production, wheras the EH 101 has been in service for many years. I am all for the Sea King drivers; why not get them the kit they need right away (available since the 1990's), rather than having to wait an additional five or more years to get the Cyclones in service?

The same logic applies to the air transport idea. If some smart operators get on this right away, the capability will exist very soon, whereas if we wait for Ottawa, by the time some decisions are made and some hardware purchased, at least a decade will have passed. Do we want to look at the same headlines about a disaster or deployment in 2015 because no one is willing to take action?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Jan 2005)

> By semi-viable alternative, I was reffering to the fact the Cyclone is not yet in series production, wheras the EH 101 has been in service for many years. I am all for the Sea King drivers; why not get them the kit they need right away (available since the 1990's), rather than having to wait an additional five or more years to get the Cyclones in service?



From what Inch and the other have said they are willing to wait for the Cycclone because they view it as a much better unit. So in that regards I will go with the SME.


----------



## Inch (6 Jan 2005)

Actually guys, we would have had to wait for the Cormorant too. Part of the bid said that the first helo must be delivered 48 months from the signing of the contract. Cormorant may have been able to get them to us quicker, but we're talking about months here, not years. So that really wouldn't have been a big factor in the decision.

The Cyclone (H92) is not in production yet, however, the S92, the civilian version of the H92, is in production. In fact, I've flown it and it's a bloody nice piece of kit. No one on the planet has flown an operational H92 so there's no real experience with what it can do. I have faith in Sikorsky, they build some damn fine helos and there's no reason to think that this one will be any different.


----------

