# Liberals announce $1.24B sole-sourced deal to upgrade search and rescue helicopter fleet



## Weinie (5 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ch-149-cormorant-helicopters-search-rescue-1.6090353
> 
> 
> 
> While not saying how much the plan would cost, sky high by DND standards must be really high.


SAR helicopter *CAF Insert here* upgrade hits snag due to costs​
FTFY.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2021)

Am I the only one here thinking that if you set aside one billion dollars to refurbish and extend the lives of fourteen  20 years old helicopters by another 20 years and buy two new ones is insufficient by a large margin, then perhaps the economical solution (I Know, that's un-Canadian) is to buy 16 new SAR helicopters further to a quick bidding process.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jul 2021)

The Brits are paying $3B USD (call it $3.7B CAD) to update 55 helicopters; doing a linear comparison that would be $940M CAD - but that doesn't procure two new to Canada aircraft. (Britains AW101 Merlin Helicopters: Upgrading the Fleet)

I doubt that a purchase would save any money - once you pay for new infra; new training including simulators; new tooling and sparing; dispose of current holdings; and pay integration costs for the fleet (need to communicate with CCG and RCN vessels, need to be part of the common operating picture for all SAR systems, need to communicate with US SAR partners...) I doubt that a billion would get you anywhere close to what you need.

EDIT to add: Fifteen Chinooks were $1.2B in 2009.  Add inflation and that would be over $1.5B today. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/faq-how-canada-procured-new-military-helicopters-1.940250


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jul 2021)

You can’t do a pure airframe comparison, you need to compare the incremental capabilities with costs.  Unless we know what the Merlin’s upgrade are and whenthey bring to the Brits in terms of capabilities, along with what the Cormoran upgrades will be and what they mean for the CAF, this isn’t a fair or valid comparison.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jul 2021)

The numbers will always differ; my intent was to illustrate that aircraft are expensive to obtain, operate and maintain - and armchair quarterbacks simplistically postulating that "it should be enough money" or "we should just buy new instead" have no context for their claims.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> You can’t do a pure airframe comparison, you need to compare the incremental capabilities with costs.  Unless we know what the Merlin’s upgrade are and whenthey bring to the Brits in terms of capabilities, along with what the Cormoran upgrades will be and what they mean for the CAF, this isn’t a fair or valid comparison.


Ours were petty stripped down because someone put a cap on the CSH project…hence why no FLIR, FSim(s), etc., so I’m not surprised the budget for CMLU is notably more than the original acquisition budget.  One could look at the increase incrementally as getting capability that should have been provided originally, but wasn’t, because the program was heavily constrained to keep the higher levels of Government from being embarrassed at having to pay at a level that would have been near identical to what the previous government’s plan had been.  In the end, the budget stayed below the public survey/poll noise level, so the government of the day was happy with doing the bare minimum (or less, many a SAR practitioner would say).

The irony is that there would have been more money available in the fiscal framework if the current government hadn’t come up with the “Buy used Aussie Hornets” stupid plan to cover for the previous stupid plan to buy Super Hornets to cover for the time prior it would take for the Canadian electorate to forget about the stupid campaign promise to stop another acquisition program that will eventually go ahead, but that created a capability gap of the government’s own doing that they figured the best idea was eventually to buy other, older, less capable aircraft models of the same type that would need to be updated to Canadian standard to provide more aircraft than the significantly undermanned fighter force will be able to resiliently fly until pretty much after we receive the original aircraft that should have been bought by the previous government, but that wasn’t due to a failure to properly assess whether doing so or not, would substantively influence the 2015 election…oh, and we’re broke due to COVID and so the government really just needs an excuse to kick another defence project can down the road…

If you get the sense from all all this is that the government really doesn’t care much about the CAF, other than eventually resolving what the past CDS, the current substantive but on pause CDS and a few other poorly behaved senior officers (and some likely who didn’t do anything, but were set up by some senior unelected mandarins ), did or didn’t do to address inappropriate sexualized conduct in the CAF, then you’re likely not too far off the mark.

Don’t expect refreshed Cormorants with any sensors or flight simulators or additional airframes any time soon. Maybe after the Liberals’ next majority in 2025…


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Jul 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Am I the only one here thinking that if you set aside one billion dollars to refurbish and extend the lives of fourteen  20 years old helicopters by another 20 years and buy two new ones is insufficient by a large margin, then perhaps the economical solution (I Know, that's un-Canadian) is to buy 16 new SAR helicopters further to a quick bidding process.


What would the cost be for the AW139 or 189?


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> What would the cost be for the AW139 or 189?


Why chose an aircraft not made/assembled in Canada?

Not that I in any way think getting a new aircraft is the solution, but if I were, I’d put the Airbus H225 on the top of the list, and ensure they were assembled in Fort Erie, ON and that Airbus committed to assembling at least another equal quantity of H225 before disassembling the assembly rigs and sending them back to Marignan, France.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> What would the cost be for the AW139 or 189?


The cost for helicopters with two rather than three engines, and half the capacity?


----------



## CBH99 (6 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Why chose an aircraft not made/assembled in Canada?
> 
> Not that I in any way think getting a new aircraft is the solution, but if I were, I’d put the Airbus H225 on the top of the list, and ensure they were assembled in Fort Erie, ON and that Airbus committed to assembling at least another equal quantity of H225 before disassembling the assembly rigs and sending them back to Marignan, France.


Well that entire post just makes sense.

Yeah, we don’t do that here…


----------



## CBH99 (6 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Ours were petty stripped down because someone put a cap on the CSH project…hence why no FLIR, FSim(s), etc., so I’m not surprised the budget for CMLU is notably more than the original acquisition budget.  One could look at the increase incrementally as getting capability that should have been provided originally, but wasn’t, because the program was heavily constrained to keep the higher levels of Government from being embarrassed at having to pay at a level that would have been near identical to what the previous government’s plan had been.  In the end, the budget stayed below the public survey/poll noise level, so the government of the day was happy with doing the bare minimum (or less, many a SAR practitioner would say).
> 
> The irony is that there would have been more money available in the fiscal framework if the current government hadn’t come up with the “Buy used Aussie Hornets” stupid plan to cover for the previous stupid plan to buy Super Hornets to cover for the time prior it would take for the Canadian electorate to forget about the stupid campaign promise to stop another acquisition program that will eventually go ahead, but that created a capability gap of the government’s own doing that they figured the best idea was eventually to buy other, older, less capable aircraft models of the same type that would need to be updated to Canadian standard to provide more aircraft than the significantly undermanned fighter force will be able to resiliently fly until pretty much after we receive the original aircraft that should have been bought by the previous government, but that wasn’t due to a failure to properly assess whether doing so or not, would substantively influence the 2015 election…oh, and we’re broke due to COVID and so the government really just needs an excuse to kick another defence project can down the road…
> 
> ...


Sorry I started deleting the above & then realized my reply didn’t require it.

The government cares about optics.  They still haven’t realized that the CAF really IS their enforcer of foreign policy, and keeping us well equipped is in their best interest.  Instead of thinking ‘do we buy the CAF this thing they are asking for?’ - they should be saying ‘does this give us more options or capability as a country, and can we foresee us using it?  Yes?  Then buy it.’

Once a few SAR calls go badly, or unanswered, the government will change it’s tune.  It’s about optics that make them look good.  

If a SAR bird goes down?  I wouldn’t expect anything to change.  The optics don’t effect the PM directly enough.  


As for them funding this appropriately if they get a majority?  I would have gone with the opposite on that one?  If they get a majority, that funding would vanish.  (I would think anyway)

0.02


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jul 2021)

CBH99 said:


> As for them funding this appropriately if they get a majority?  I would have gone with the opposite on that one?  If they get a majority, that funding would vanish.  (I would think anyway)


CBH, not the upcoming 2021 majority…I agree with you…that one will cause the CMLU can to be kicked further down the road.  I was thinking the 2025 Liberal majority because by that point, there may be a smidgen of shame to resolve the situation…maybe…


----------



## CBH99 (6 Jul 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> CBH, not the upcoming 2021 majority…I agree with you…that one will cause the CMLU can to be kicked further down the road.  I was thinking the 2025 Liberal majority because by that point, there may be a smidgen of shame to resolve the situation…maybe…


Ah.  Gotcha.

Can’t Pierre change his mind and run for leader of the Conservatives, and we have a future without this clown circus instead tho?  🙏🏻


----------



## OceanBonfire (13 Oct 2021)

Scale model of the Mid-Life Upgrade:








__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446445269491593220


----------



## kev994 (13 Oct 2021)

I thought this project was back to the drawing board?


----------



## OceanBonfire (1 Jun 2022)

Side view of the Mid-Life Upgrade model:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532059126540673025


----------



## OceanBonfire (6 Jun 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532343134201462784


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Jul 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546216189285830658
not sure if 50% availability is bad or not but does seem to indicate that maybe we need more helicopters one way or another


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546216189285830658
> not sure if 50% availability is bad or not but does seem to indicate that maybe we need more helicopters one way or another


It’s bad, especially when the fleet is as small as it is.


----------



## CBH99 (11 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> It’s bad, especially when the fleet is as small as it is.


 Not just a small fleet but it's so spread out.  

I knew the fleet was spread thin, I didn't really realize just how thin until seeing the numbers per base.

I know there is not a requirement for having a substantial number at each base it deploys from... But those numbers are spread pretty thin, so only 50% availability means that some calls will literally depend on whether one aircraft can get off the ground or not.


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Not just a small fleet but it's so spread out.
> 
> I knew the fleet was spread thin, I didn't really realize just how thin until seeing the numbers per base.


It’s pretty crazy IMHO that the area expected to be served by so few helicopters is so large. 



CBH99 said:


> I know there is not a requirement for having a substantial number at each base it deploys from... But those numbers are spread pretty thin, so only 50% availability means that some calls will literally depend on whether one aircraft can get off the ground or not.


Yup.  


Unrelated to Canada but also an issue with fewer helicopters.  








						Air Force rethinks combat rescue for major war — but what will it look like?
					

The Air Force's hunt for a combat search and rescue approach that would work in a war against China or Russia will likely be a two-pronged effort: Help downed aviators survive longer behind enemy lines, and find new ways — perhaps using drones — of finding and reaching them.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> It’s pretty crazy IMHO that the area expected to be served by so few helicopters is so large.



Yup



KevinB said:


> Unrelated to Canada but also an issue with fewer helicopters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Send an Uber. 

Unmanned recovery helicopter 



Why would you risk aircraft, crews and people on the ground if you didn't absolutely have to?


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Yup
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most folks needing CSAR (or SAR) need medical help as well.   The PJ’s who do CSAR down here are primarily medics - not gunfighters.  
  I’m all about unmanned systems where possible- but I think those will be a small percentage in the grande scheme


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Most folks needing CSAR (or SAR) need medical help as well.   The PJ’s who do CSAR down here are primarily medics - not gunfighters.
> I’m all about unmanned systems where possible- but I think those will be a small percentage in the grande scheme



If medical assistance is required then by all means send the whole team.   But why risk them if you don't have to.  After all isn't it Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape training?


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> If medical assistance is required then by all means send the whole team.   But why risk them if you don't have to.  After all isn't it Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape training?


Totally agree. 
   My concern is that plan hasn’t been well thought out at this point.  
   They don’t have the assets even in place and are trying to reduce HH-60W acquisitions, that are needed now to replace the G model PaveHawks that have a lot of blade hours on then.


----------



## CBH99 (11 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> It’s pretty crazy IMHO that the area expected to be served by so few helicopters is so large.
> 
> 
> Yup.
> ...


The ‘convenient’ thing about Russia invading Ukraine is it gives us a real world, real time look at just Russia’s true capabilities & how those are comparing to what NATO had planned for.

So far, steamrolling through Europe within 72hrs seems like it may have been a biiiitttt of an overstretch, seeing as Ukraine took the gloves off & didn’t let them get very far. 



My point?  We can see how CSAR against China or - literally - Russia would need to be done.  

Plenty of MANPADS for sure.  Nor would I want to be a CSAR pilot behind their lines, especially if I didn’t have a specific & reliable POC to fly to.  

Drones with good sensors sounds like a much better choice than risking human pilots in a high-risk environment like that.  



I imagine CSAR missions in a China context will be an entirely different bag altogether, as I see that conflict primarily being maritime in nature.  

Is the pilot shortage in the USAF affecting the CSAR community?  Are the airframe numbers looking healthy?  

(I’ve read various updates over the years, but there are so many bloody Blackhawk/Pavehawk/Seahawk versions out there I can’t keep track of all minor differences & sub variants.)


----------



## armrdsoul77 (11 Jul 2022)

Company working on an unmanned rescue helicopter for climbers on Everest. Could affix a debit machine on it so only those willing to pay get rescued.

Unmanned helicopter rescue service for Mount Everest


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jul 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> Company working on an unmanned rescue helicopter for climbers on Everest. Could affix a debit machine on it so only those willing to pay get rescued.
> View attachment 71952
> Unmanned helicopter rescue service for Mount Everest



Kind of like taking the elevator.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jul 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> Company working on an unmanned rescue helicopter for climbers on Everest. Could affix a debit machine on it so only those willing to pay get rescued.
> View attachment 71952
> Unmanned helicopter rescue service for Mount Everest



If we pay extra will it bring a soothing gin and tonic? 

After all.. standards...


----------



## Skysix (12 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> If medical assistance is required then by all means send the whole team.   But why risk them if you don't have to.  After all isn't it Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape training?


Not many pilots are going to crawl into an AI drone. remotely piloted, MAYBE. But where is the rest of the package? Remotely piloted ground attack/anti air fire suppression and an anti opfor air defense  fighter capability? Not anytime soon with any degree of assurance the rescued pilot will survive the  extraction.

Then there is the whole EW issue to deal with. Remote piloting may not even be possible and SkyNet level AI is likely a long way off (thank the lord - Steven Hawking had a seriously good point).

Have you ever done a SERE class? Especially SERE-C that the flight crews and SF take? After 72 hours of evading (assuming no serious combat or ejection or landing injuries) your mental acuity and physical resiliance is often crap compared to what is needed to continue, or to steathily signal, meet and board a non-stealth vertical lift machine somewhere far enough from the landing area that it has a chance of evading detection itself.

CSAR with medics is still the best option, the question is what form will Sandy and Pedro need to be in a contested peer conflict. None of the PJ or SAR-tech or SF or civilian flight medics I have talked to is willing to ride an AI drone or RPV in and back at the level of tech that is currently being developed near Barstow or Big Sur (or other places) - and it is going to be a decade or more before the tech is mature enough to field.

TLDR: Update the fleet, upgrade its defenses, and don't cut back until a combat proven alternative is available.

My 2¢


----------



## Zoomie (12 Jul 2022)

FWIW that graphic about fleet serviceability is garbage.  

All aircraft undergo maintenance - they are certainly not considered “out of service” or whatever label they had.  

SAR is mandated under the NSS to have one (1) LOT assigned to each region they support.   By no means do the CH-149 fleet represent the entire RWSAR community nor are they expected to cover all of Canada.


----------



## CBH99 (12 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Most folks needing CSAR (or SAR) need medical help as well.   The PJ’s who do CSAR down here are primarily medics - not gunfighters.
> I’m all about unmanned systems where possible- but I think those will be a small percentage in the grande scheme


I meant to mention the medical aspect of what CSAR entails, and thought I did, but somehow managed to not say a bloody word.

Getting to the right place at the right time, picking up a passenger or two, and evacuating the area — all without getting shot up or shot down — is only half the battle.  

Like Kevin said, most folks requiring CSAR require medical assistance as well.  Anything from broken limbs upon landing for pilots, gunshot wounds, infections, trauma, or just sheer dehydration requiring an IV, etc 

There was a show a few years back called ‘Inside Combat Rescue’ on History Channel, which I thought was top notch.  Those PJ’s in the back really know their stuff, and those skills were put to use all the time - and that was just in a prolonged COIN Op.  

Imagine a peer vs peer fight?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Jul 2022)

After seeing the Russians in action in Ukraine, I wonder who a NATO near peer would be.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jul 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> After seeing the Russians in action in Ukraine, I wonder who a NATO near peer would be.


We also use the word Near Peer. 
   But for several NATO countries, there Military Peers are countries like Botswana…


----------



## Skysix (12 Jul 2022)

Zoomie said:


> All aircraft undergo maintenance - they are certainly not considered “out of service” or whatever label they had.


Ummmm... I challenge you to get in any aircraft that is in a phase check, or the midst of an MEL fix, and fly off into the wild blue yonder. If it will even leave the ground.

An aircraft being routinely or emergeny maintained is NOT immediately serviceable. Sometimes not for days. So thus it is:
Out of service. Unserviceable.
Waiting for parts
Not currently airworthy.
Sitting on the ramp.

In other words  a dead parrot. (Maybe Augusta's should be reclassified as a new subspecies of parrot? Their serviceability rates suck)


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2022)

Zoomie was noting that the chart doesn’t accurately reflect how RCAF aircraft serviceability/availability status are classified.

They are all ‘in-service’ unless they are struck from the fleet for whatever reason: crash, damage beyond economical repair, disposal, transfer to other department/agency/country, etc.

An RCAF aircraft is either Serviceable or Unserviceable.Aircraft in deep maintenance are usually unserviceable, unless the flying regulations authorize a flight test for the purposes of confirming subsequent serviceability. 

Aircraft that are serviceable may not be ‘available’ due to an operational restriction resulting from some component or system beyond the authorized minimum equipment list (MEL) that precludes employment of that aircraft for a specific type of mission.


----------



## CBH99 (12 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> We also use the word Near Peer.
> But for several NATO countries, there Military Peers are countries like Botswana…


<Awkwardly whistling>  …Gosh it’s hot out today…


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> We also use the word Near Peer.
> But for several NATO countries, there Military Peers are countries like Botswana…


_Canada enters Chat_


----------



## Dana381 (12 Jul 2022)

I had a conversation with a sar tech at the Summerside air show around 10 years ago. He said he once had to "bag" (breathing bag) a guy while being winched up in the basket in high seas (very windy). How is a drone going to do that If sar techs won't get in the back of drones?


----------



## CBH99 (13 Jul 2022)

Dana381 said:


> I had a conversation with a sar tech at the Summerside air show around 10 years ago. He said he once had to "bag" (breathing bag) a guy while being winched up in the basket in high seas (very windy). How is a drone going to do that If sar techs won't get in the back of drones?


 Perhaps drones should be a tool in the toolbox.  Not appropriate for every mission, but could make sense where it mitigates some risk.


----------



## Skysix (13 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Perhaps drones should be a tool in the toolbox.  Not appropriate for every mission, but could make sense where it mitigates some risk.


Assuming the potential rescue is self loading baggage willing to trust an RPV  pilot with no skin in the game or worse an AI.

I have been following this for a number of years and while the concept eventually might be workable in areas with overwhelming air superiority or no credible opposition, even then it requires a LOT of additional developnent and parallel support aircraft development plus doctrine and real world training.

In the safe civilian world it MIGHT be an option by 2035 but I will take bets against the tech being mature enough by then. Techies tend to get emotionally invested in their projects potential and development to the detriment of real world honest impartial evaluation of its use and cost.

As an example, in 1980ish at the U. of Alberta I assisted with research on myoelectric control of prosthetics with feedback to the users surviving nerves. My paper was downgraded heavily as wishfull thinking and it did not even propose a timeline. Some 25-30 years later most of the tech was starting human trials but it is STILL not a non-experimental treatment option (although probably within another 5-10 years)


----------



## Skysix (13 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Air Force rethinks combat rescue for major war — but what will it look like?
> 
> 
> The Air Force's hunt for a combat search and rescue approach that would work in a war against China or Russia will likely be a two-pronged effort: Help downed aviators survive longer behind enemy lines, and find new ways — perhaps using drones — of finding and reaching them.
> ...


Note to Pentagon: Good luck with that. Let us know how it turns out 😝









						Army’s future medical strategy hopes for unmanned MedEvacs, first-aid kit upgrades and more
					

Unmanned MedEvacs, enhanced first-aid kits and more training for combat medics are on the Army's wish list in the coming years.




					www.militarytimes.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jul 2022)

I can see unmmaned large drones to evacuate wounded from near the front lines, basically flying at 50' for a few km then dropping the patients off to a causality evacuation unit.


----------



## Skysix (14 Jul 2022)

Well defined front lines with safe areas immediately behind them no longer exist. Ask the DPR/LPR.

NOE by a large AI drone or RPV is more risky than being tossed in the back of a soft ambulance. Not only the risk of CFIT but because of the attention it draws to itself.

Take a ride in a scout helicopter (or even a larger bird like a medevac 'Hawk) doing a fast low level transit in terrain other than a wide open field and then tell me how safe you would feel having the time lag of a remote pilot as you watch the disc shave the tips off bushes and feel the G's of rapidly sequential snap rolls to 60 degrees or more as you get thrown around in pain on litter (if humans on board) or roll/slide around on a bloody floor if not. Not to mention the negative then positive verticle g's of rapid ups and downs to avoid power lines etc.

x5 if under active fire from manpads and bullets, doubly so at night. And that is assuming the Wx is compatible with flying at all.

Ask any tactical RW pilot if they would ride unsecured in the back as a passenger of an AI drone or RPV on that casevac mission.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2022)

Modern drones fly themselves, that collision avoidance will continue to get better and much of it is optical based, making it hard to jam, along with optical navigation. I can imagine the same thoughts when the first helicopters were used for evacuation, or snagging gliders full of wounded out of the jungle.

I have flown low in military copters, but done much more risky stuff in them in mining exploration and aerial geophysics. To be fair the bears wern't trying to shoot us down, but one deserving pilot did have his Hughes 500 mauled by a Grizzly he pissed off.


----------



## Spencer100 (14 Jul 2022)

So I am a bit lost here.  I thought the Midlife upgrade (rebuild) for the CH148 was already awarded to Leonardo.  Was it put on hold or cencelled?


----------



## kev994 (14 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> So I am a bit lost here.  I thought the Midlife upgrade (rebuild) for the CH148 was already awarded to Leonardo.  Was it put on hold or cencelled?


Here’s a link of the timeline 





						Cormorant Mid-Life Upgrade - Canada.ca
					

The Government of Canada has purchased 17 tactical transport aircraft to replace the E-model Hercules. They fly faster, higher and farther, and carry heavier loads while burning less fuel.




					www.canada.ca
				




*November 10, 2020*
The proposal received was deemed unaffordable, and Leonardo was informed that the Government of Canada will be investigating alternative solutions.


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> Here’s a link of the timeline
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder what the alternative solutions could be? Do nothing for another 5 years or 10?


----------



## Spencer100 (14 Jul 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> I wonder what the alternative solutions could be? Do nothing for another 5 years or 10?


KevinB...hmmm HH-60 anyone.  

I bet they would give a great deal on 15 of them.


----------



## Skysix (15 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Modern drones fly themselves, that collision avoidance will continue to get better and much of it is optical based, making it hard to jam, along with optical navigation


In the long term yes, I agree. But not in the near term (5-10 years). Not to the level needed for autonomous casevac.

And even then, not until operational for another 5+/- years will it be trusted and reliable enough to replace manned missions.

It took what, almost 30 years to debug the Osprey to become a reliable operational asset?

"To be fair the bears wern't trying to shoot us down, but one deserving pilot did have his Hughes 500 mauled by a Grizzly he pissed off" 😂


----------



## GR66 (15 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> In the long term yes, I agree. But not in the near term (5-10 years). Not to the level needed for autonomous casevac.
> 
> And even then, not until operational for another 5+/- years will it be trusted and reliable enough to replace manned missions.
> 
> ...


The only caveat I'd put to that is that war drives innovation/adoption/acceptance of greater risks due to necessity.  In a full-on conflict against China or Russia where manned casevac assets are attrited or simply insufficient to the need then you will quite possibly see UAVs/USVs/UGVs drafted into roles for which they were previously deemed as not being ready to fulfill.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> Take a ride in a scout helicopter (or even a larger bird like a medevac 'Hawk) doing a fast low level transit in terrain other than a wide open field and then tell me how safe you would feel having the time lag of a remote pilot as you watch the disc shave the tips off bushes and feel the G's of rapidly sequential snap rolls to 60 degrees or more as you get thrown around in pain on litter (if humans on board) or roll/slide around on a bloody floor if not. Not to mention the negative then positive verticle g's of rapid ups and downs to avoid power lines etc.



Yeah, humans are always better…


----------



## Skysix (15 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, humans are always better…


(What I took away from that clip was that the humans who designed the Apache were smarter than the hunans flying it 🤣)

Not always. Humans are individually stupid at times. Machines are always limited by their programming - which is done by potentially stupid or shortsighted humans.

Even AI itself, while capable of machine learning, depends at its core foundation on human programming.

Cue Asimov's 4 laws....


----------



## GR66 (15 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> (What I took away from that clip was that the humane who designed the Apache were smarter than the hunans flying it 🤣)
> 
> Not always. Humans are individually stupid at times. Machines are always limited by their programming - which is done by potentially stupid or shortsighted humans.
> 
> ...


CAN-EVAC AI Software...brought to you by the developers of the Phoenix Pay System!


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> CAN-EVAC AI Software...brought to you by the developers of the Phoenix Pay System!


and for the lowest bid


----------



## armrdsoul77 (15 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> Cue Asimov's 4 laws....


What's the 4th law?


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jul 2022)

Don't get caught.


----------



## Skysix (15 Jul 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> What's the 4th law?


0-th law. A human can only be harmed if not doing so will harm humanity (roughly, can't remember exact words)


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Jul 2022)

armrdsoul77 said:


> What's the 4th law?


Robots must reproduce. As long as such reproduction does not interfere with the first or second or third laws.


----------



## Skysix (16 Jul 2022)

Found it: “Zeroth Law,” above all the others – “*A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm*.”


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Don't get caught.


That is the bureaucratic prime directive ... followed closely by Never Embarrass the Minister.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Jul 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> That is the bureaucratic prime directive ... followed closely by Never Embarrass the Minister.


…followed by Find a scapegoat….


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> …followed by Find a scapegoat….


Better yet, form a committee to investigate it, and pray the public forgets about it. Then a small press release "nothing to see here, move on. These aren't the droids we're looking for.


----------



## Spencer100 (25 Jul 2022)

You could just outsource the whole thing.  






						Bristow, 2Excel Secure UK Coastguard Contract | Aviation Week Network
					

Bristow Group has secured a 10-year contract with the UK’s Department of Transport to provide search-and-rescue services to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.




					aviationweek.com


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> You could just outsource the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> You could just outsource the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How big is the UK coastline and country area compared to Canada...


----------



## kev994 (22 Dec 2022)

CMLU is finally moving forward, including additional machines to finally return to Trenton. Lots of announcements, maybe taking advantage of the holiday distractions? 


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/search-rescue-cormorant-procurement-1.6696053?fbclid=IwAR3YBhRZNh4at6qm1rNLQ0o4nftoCPn7opCtsekC0lxaFIiseeIGW1OkZoQ


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> CMLU is finally moving forward, including additional machines to finally return to Trenton. Lots of announcements, maybe taking advantage of the holiday distractions?
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/search-rescue-cormorant-procurement-1.6696053?fbclid=IwAR3YBhRZNh4at6qm1rNLQ0o4nftoCPn7opCtsekC0lxaFIiseeIGW1OkZoQ


So 903 was a write-off, then?  ( re: upgrade of 13…)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> So 903 was a write-off, then?  ( re: upgrade of 13…)


It would seem so…


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Dec 2022)

Where are the "new" three coming from?  Are they rebuilding the VH-71's? 

I didn't think Leonardo was still making new ones.


----------



## KevinB (23 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Where are the "new" three coming from?  Are they rebuilding the VH-71's?
> 
> I didn't think Leonardo was still making new ones.


The 9 VH-71’s were apparently already transferred to Canada to be cannibalized for parts years ago. 

Leonardo is still building them, but mostly in Commercial configurations. 
    There are some used ones for sale as well 15-25m USD (commercial to Mil birds)


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> The 9 VH-71’s were apparently already transferred to Canada to be cannibalized for parts years ago.
> 
> Leonardo is still building them, but mostly in Commercial configurations.
> There are some used ones for sale as well 15-25m USD (commercial to Mil birds)


Yup I knew that in 2011 RCAF bought them.  But the last government put out a presser thinking they would rebuild them.  The rumour was the Marines said no and the manufacturer told them it was a no go too.

_Sorry I had to delete a link.

 someone caught before I got too much in touble_


----------



## kev994 (23 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Yup I knew that in 2011 RCAF bought them.  But the last government put out a presser thinking they would rebuild them.  The rumour was the Marines said no and the manufacturer told them it was a no go too.
> 
> _*DS Edit *_


That’s one of those articles that you can’t post here


----------



## KevinB (23 Dec 2022)

It wouldn’t be the USMC saying no, as DOD would have stripped out anything concerning prior to transfer.  Mostly likely that airframe couldn’t easily be converted.   

    Oh just saw the author yeah @kev994 is correct he’s a no go here.


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> That’s one of those articles that you can’t post here


opps.  Thanks I delete the link.


----------



## don3wing (23 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> It wouldn’t be the USMC saying no, as DOD would have stripped out anything concerning prior to transfer.  Mostly likely that airframe couldn’t easily be converted.
> 
> Oh just saw the author yeah @kev994 is correct he’s a no go here.


To refresh everyone's memory here is a picture of the  Kestrels


----------



## kev994 (23 Dec 2022)

There’s no ramp on them, apparently that’s the biggest issue for a conversion


----------



## KevinB (23 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> There’s no ramp on them, apparently that’s the biggest issue for a conversion


No ramp and no side door on the starboard side - looking at some other schematics - the airframe seems to have a lot of different structures from the Merlin type double door & ramp types - its basically a totally different airframe skeleton.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Dec 2022)

With enough money, you can solve any problem, while creating a raft of other ones.


----------



## Maxman1 (23 Dec 2022)

The government had initially budgeted $1.03B for the project when it was announced in 2018, but negotiations broke down over the cost being deemed too expensive
Author of the article: The Canadian Press Lee Berthiaume
Published Dec 22, 2022

OTTAWA — Canada is planning to spend $1.24 billion to upgrade its fleet of military search-and-rescue helicopters — about $200 million more than originally planned.

The federal government has been planning to upgrade the Cormorant fleet for years, which will include modernizing its 13 existing helicopters and buying three new ones.

But negotiations between Ottawa and Leonardo, whose subsidiaries built the original helicopters, broke down in 2019 after the European company’s proposal was deemed too expensive.

The government had initially budgeted $1.03 billion for the project when it was announced in 2018.

Asked about the cost increase, Defence Department spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande said negotiations were restarted in December 2021 “to attempt to reach an acceptable and affordable solution.”

The two sides eventually decided that upgrading the existing fleet to Norway’s standards for its version of the Cormorant was the most cost-effective approach, she added.

It was not immediately clear how Norway’s variant, which the Scandinavian country recently acquired for its own search-and-rescue services, differs from what Canada originally wanted.

However, Lamirande said the Cormorants will meet the Canadian military’s high-level requirements.

Canada will consider adding additional capabilities “as financial risks are retired, including inflationary and foreign exchange fluctuations,” she added.

The contract announced Thursday also includes the purchase of a simulator from Montreal-based CAE Inc.

Then-defence minister Harjit Sajjan first announced plans to modernize the Cormorant fleet in August 2019, nearly 20 years after the helicopters entered service.

The first aircraft was supposed to be delivered this year.

But the Defence Department publicly revealed in an update in May 2021 that “negotiations with the contractor were put on pause due to the proposals being unaffordable.”

It warned at the time that alternative solutions may not meet the military’s full requirements.

The Cormorants are currently used to conduct search-and-rescue missions out of Comox, B.C., Gander, Nfld., and Greenwood, N.S. The addition of three more helicopters is expected to see the fleet expand to include operations out of Trenton, Ont.

Liberals announce $1.24B sole-sourced deal to upgrade search and rescue helicopter fleet


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Dec 2022)

So, a four year delay over $200M, or 0.5% of our budget?  That’s be like most of us making a huge deal over $500 on a car purchase….


----------



## suffolkowner (23 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, a four year delay over $200M, or 0.5% of our budget?  That’s be like most of us making a huge deal over $500 on a car purchase….


but the process must be adhered to


----------



## Fabius (23 Dec 2022)

Since $1 CAD in 2018  is now equal to $1.14 CAD in 2022 or in other words 1CAD now will get you about 88% of what it would have in 2018 this project is likely getting less. 
Also the opportunity cost of not having the project staff working on other files for x amount of time over 4 years. 
Oh well process over result and penny wise dollar foolish.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Dec 2022)

Good thing it won’t *take more than the original budget of $650M to upgrade them…oh, wait…


----------



## CBH99 (24 Dec 2022)

Maxman1 said:


> The government had initially budgeted $1.03B for the project when it was announced in 2018, but negotiations broke down over the cost being deemed too expensive
> Author of the article: The Canadian Press Lee Berthiaume
> PublThe Cormorants are currently used to conduct search-and-rescue missions out of Comox, B.C., Gander, Nfld., and Greenwood, N.S. The addition of three more helicopters is expected to see the fleet expand to include operations out of Trenton, Ont.
> 
> Liberals announce $1.24B sole-sourced deal to upgrade search and rescue helicopter fleet


What are the feelings on returning some airframes to Trenton?  Or should the 3 additional machines go to each location they are operating out of now, for redundancy or to be a fallback bird?


----------



## kev994 (24 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> What are the feelings on returning some airframes to Trenton?  Or should the 3 additional machines go to each location they are operating out of now, for redundancy or to be a fallback bird?


The Griffon is not suitable as a primary SAR asset and this two-year stopgap is long overdue to end. Range is too short (AOR goes to the North Pole, the Griffon is a joke for anything past Sudbury), payload is too low, it doesn’t have a 4-axis autopilot, it doesn’t have enough power.  The last two mean that hovering over the water is extremely difficult, there’s no references and no autopilot, and if you mess it up the aircraft doesn’t have enough power to bail you out. This needs to end.

Edit: it also can’t fly in icing conditions. In Canada.


----------



## KevinB (24 Dec 2022)

I’m shocked I tell you, to hear that the Griffon has yet another role it’s assigned to that it’s unsuitable for.  

Wait.  

No I’m not.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m shocked I tell you, to hear that the Griffon has yet another role it’s assigned to that it’s unsuitable for.
> 
> Wait.
> 
> No I’m not.


I think you were looking for this @KevinB


----------



## KevinB (24 Dec 2022)

@Good2Golf


----------



## Maxman1 (24 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m shocked I tell you, to hear that the Griffon has yet another role it’s assigned to that it’s unsuitable for.
> 
> Wait.
> 
> No I’m not.


You mean, besides every role it's assigned to?


----------



## dimsum (24 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Edit: it also can’t fly in icing conditions. In Canada.


Honest question bc I don't know much about the fling-wing side of the house:  

What helicopters are certified to fly in icing?  Isn't the big spinning thing bad for ice accumulation?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Honest question bc I don't know much about the fling-wing side of the house:
> 
> What helicopters are certified to fly in icing?  Isn't the big spinning thing bad for ice accumulation?


Cormorant and Cyclone, for sure. Not certain about Chinook.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Dec 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Cormorant and Cyclone, for sure. Not certain about Chinook.


Hook is certified for flight in known light icing. It has engine inlet anti-icing and heated windscreen for anti-icing, but not active blade de-icing…other than having 10,000hp to shed ice if need be (it has proven performance in that department, though not approved for intentional flight into anything worse than Light).

Anecdotally the HH-47 would have had full de-ice capability.  It is an OEM option for those that wish, backed up with 1/6 MW of on-board electrical generation.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Hook is certified for flight in known light icing. It has engine inlet anti-icing and heated windscreen for anti-icing, but not active blade de-icing…other than having 10,000hp to shed ice if need be (it has proven performance in that department, though not approved for intentional flight into anything worse than Light).
> 
> Anecdotally the HH-47 would have had full de-ice capability.  It is an OEM option for those that wish, backed up with 1/6 MW of on-board electrical generation.



But are there USB plugs for the pilot to keep their iPad flight manual fully charged?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Dec 2022)

The Cyclone has a Rotor Icing Protection System (RIPS).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> But are there USB plugs for the pilot to keep their iPad flight manual fully charged?


Don’t be daft.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> But are there USB plugs for the pilot to keep their iPad flight manual fully charged?


Aeronautical-spec USB-C was in the plans for a mid-life, but you can plug the USB brick into the 115vac plug in the cockpit plug.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> But are there USB plugs for the pilot to keep their iPad flight manual fully charged?


Isn’t it a fair requirement?


----------



## dimsum (25 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> But are there USB plugs for the pilot to keep their iPad flight manual fully charged?


_Electronic charts are not to be used for navigation_


----------



## dapaterson (25 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> _Electronic charts are not to be used for navigation_


Tech pubs enter the discussion.


----------



## kev994 (25 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> _Electronic charts are not to be used for navigation_


CC130J is full paperless. And has dual USB ports at each station to support it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Dec 2022)

Geolocation can, however, be used for situational awareness.  It is a wonderful tool on approach charts. Plus, we don’t carry paper pubs anymore…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Geolocation can, however, be used for situational awareness.  It is a wonderful tool on approach charts. Plus, we don’t carry paper pubs anymore…


There is a fair bit of sarcasm flying here at how hard it is to get EFBs into some cockpits…


----------



## Zoomie (26 Dec 2022)

Heck I don’t even fly a plane anymore - I still have an EFB.  Pretty sure every fleet has some iteration of use in service.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> _Electronic charts are not to be used for navigation_


As we learned in our Green Procurement course…oh, wait…


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Tech pubs enter the discussion.


147F, like 130J is fully electronic tech library as well, and also includes VR tech training.


----------



## kev994 (26 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> 147F, like 130J is fully electronic tech library as well, and also includes VR tech training.


We use it for everything… ForeFlight for charts, the checklist is in there on a secure content locker. There is are two one-page checklists that we use for normal operations on-board but they are for convenience only, the official pub is the one one the iPads. We have to carry a spare iPad for any mission requiring an overnight stop.


----------



## dimsum (26 Dec 2022)

Is this when some folks say "back in my day, we used paper charts"?   

_Edit to add:_  RIP free present wrapping paper every 56 days


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> We use it for everything… ForeFlight for charts, the checklist is in there on a secure content locker. There is are two one-page checklists that we use for normal operations on-board but they are for convenience only, the official pub is the one one the iPads. We have to carry a spare iPad for any mission requiring an overnight stop.


👍🏼

Not surprising, the 147 lets you pull up the checklist on the centre MFD or the outboard (non -PFD) MFDs.  Between notify-on-exception logic for the EICAS and things like (optional for use) e-checklists on the MFDs, it’s good to see automation being used/embraced rather than shunned.


----------



## dimsum (26 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> 👍🏼
> 
> Not surprising, the 147 lets you pull up the checklist on the centre MFD or the outboard (non -PFD) MFDs.  Between notify-on-exception logic for the EICAS and things like (optional for use) e-checklists on the MFDs, it’s good to see automation being used/embraced rather than shunned.


I totally agree.  

I was just taking a jab at the previous rules that, in effect, made it _less_ safe because we were using "paper map/finger" while low-level and close to Cumulus Granitus, rather than using the electronic charts.


----------



## kev994 (26 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> I was just taking a jab at the previous rules that, in effect, made it _less_ safe because we were using "paper map/finger" while low-level and close to Cumulus Granitus, rather than using the electronic charts.


Some communities still think that the paper version is the only official version, they clearly haven’t kept up with the FOM changes.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Dec 2022)

Did AETE ever sign off on the iPad mount in the Aurora?


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Did AETE ever sign off on the iPad mount in the Aurora?


AETE doesn’t sign off on anything.  It makes recommendations. DTAES (for airworthiness issues) and the Project Sponsor (for qualification issues) sign off on things.


----------



## CBH99 (27 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> _Electronic charts are not to be used for navigation_


The military truly is one hilarious adventure after another 😅

“No life like it!”   

(Do we have a new motto to go with the cool new recruiting commercial?  If not, what’s old is new again…)


----------



## dimsum (27 Dec 2022)

CBH99 said:


> The military truly is one hilarious adventure after another 😅
> 
> “No life like it!”
> 
> (Do we have a new motto to go with the cool new recruiting commercial?  If not, what’s old is new again…)


To be fair, the "not to be used for navigation" isn't a military thing.  

It was a regulatory thing - I think it was NAV CANADA's rule.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> To be fair, the "not to be used for navigation" isn't a military thing.
> 
> It was a regulatory thing - I think it was NAV CANADA's rule.


NavCanada isn’t a regulator.  There are two air regulators in Canada: DND and TC.  We are also not bound by the standards that TC publishes.  We publish our own (including for certification), although we heavily borrow from other regulators (too often civilian regulators imo).  It is acknowledged by pretty much all regulators around the world that you should only use positional data from a tablet as situational awareness only as it is not certified for anything more than that.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Dec 2022)

Question from the institutional crayon eater:

So when you navigate an aircraft from point A to point B what nav charts/maps do you use?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Question from the institutional crayon eater:
> 
> So when you navigate an aircraft from point A to point B what nav charts/maps do you use?


It really depends on how far you are going, how high you are flying and what you are doing.


----------



## dimsum (27 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Question from the institutional crayon eater:
> 
> So when you navigate an aircraft from point A to point B what nav charts/maps do you use?


In Canada, NAV CANADA charts.

Overseas, there are other products.


----------



## Mick (28 Dec 2022)

To circle back to the original comment about e-charts and navigation - electronic charts displayed on tablets (and in many cases multi-function displays built into an aircraft's instrument panel) will often depict the aircraft's position directly onto the chart.  As SSM indicated, this is great for enhancing situational awareness, but lacks the accuracy and integrity required for precise navigation.  The "not be used for navigation" really just address that fact.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Dec 2022)

Yup, you follow the indications of the certified primary (and if applicable, secondary) flight instruments/primary flying display.  An aircraft’s installed and certified flight management system may also show an overheard plan view of an approach, as an EFB might, but an instrument departure, airways routing and landing approach must be conducted as the aircraft certification specifies.  Interestingly, some EFBs display the very same map as the aircraft’s own flight management system does, but the tablet’s integral GPS is not a P(Y) code (or even an air-spec C(A) code) GNSS receiver and I don’t think the maps are georectified against the datum like the digital maps in the FMS are.


----------



## kev994 (28 Dec 2022)

While I agreed with y’all’s conclusion that you can’t navigate using the little blue dot, strictly speaking, “not suitable for navigation” means that you can’t use the chart at all to navigate, and that’s not true for EFBs. You can use the EFB as a replacement for paper charts, you just can’t rely on the iPad’s ‘ownship.’


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> While I agreed with y’all’s conclusion that you can’t navigate using the little blue dot, strictly speaking, “not suitable for navigation” means that you can’t use the chart at all to navigate, and that’s not true for EFBs. You can use the EFB as a replacement for paper charts, you just can’t rely on the iPad’s ‘ownship.’


We also use electronic charts on Ships.  The rules for aviation and the maritime world seem remarkably similar.

For us, you need to confirm your position every time you take the reigns via sensor fix.  We also require Radar Image Overlay to be able to be considered navigationally safe.  

Loss of RIO, GPS, etc = Navigationally Unsafe and you need to establish a visual fixing routine which for coastal navigation is 15 min and pilotage is 5 min.

We also follow a track plan which is input in to the electronic chart with the route being scanned.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> While I agreed with y’all’s conclusion that you can’t navigate using the little blue dot, strictly speaking, “not suitable for navigation” means that you can’t use the chart at all to navigate, and that’s not true for EFBs. You can use the EFB as a replacement for paper charts, you just can’t rely on the iPad’s ‘ownship.’


I am pretty sure (but I don’t have them in front of me to confirm) that SPFPs and OACs for Tablets state that ownship position can’t be used for navigation, not the chart itself.


----------



## FSTO (28 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Navigationally Unsafe and you need to establish a visual fixing routine which for coastal navigation is 15 min and pilotage is 5 min.


Hmm, I wonder how well that is being done now. Could today's NAVO's even maintain that routine?

MARS IV we were required to maintain a 5 min routine as we roared around the Gulf Islands at 15 to 20 knots in the old steamers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> Hmm, I wonder how well that is being done now. Could today's the NAVO's even maintain that routine?
> 
> MARS IV we were required to maintain a 5 min routine as we roared around the Gulf Islands at 15 to 20 knots in the old steamers.


They talk a big game but very doubtful.  A few could but many couldn't I'm willing to bet.

We don't even really make use of the full capabilities of ECPINS either though, particularly in using it as an aide on actual operations.

I mean.... I could be persuaded to give deploying NWOs a crash course on how to maximize use of ECPINS for Force Protection and on Maritime Interdiction Operations but the RCN would need to pay me a consulting fee 😉

None of those skills are in the books or what is being taught by Sea Training, I developed the process by playing with the system and reading the manual in my spare time while overseas 🤣

Fun fact:  Did you know you can set alert zones for Force Protection on ECPINS to give you an audible alarm any time a vessel enter your designated zone on the system?  Very useful if you're Officer of the Watch and conducting a high risk transit through lets say.... the Strait of Hormuz 😉.  All those escalations we talk about.... Warning 1, Warning Shots, etc.  ECPINS can be used as a very good aide in that process.

Also, you can use ECPINS to do Relvel on Manually Entered Operator contacts with offsets. 

UAV or Helicopter detects a suspect VOI with course, speed and Lat/Long.  This information is fed to ops who feeds it to you.  Input it on ECPINS then use the system to automatically calculate your course to station or you can also offset + a time when you want to conduct the intercept.

I personally like to intercept either ahead or astern of the VOI and remain just outside visual detection range and also take in to account the winds and seas for a boat launching course.  You can, using Height of Eye, treat the horizon like your Line of Departure 😎.  Particularly useful for conducting Dawn raiding actions 😁

Also works real well for doing a JFA or getting to your RAS Station 😉.  The big moves get done by the system and you can look after the minute details once you get within visual range.

The best and most talented NavO I know is now working for the Company who makes ECPINS, MSI.  Another one lost to the private sector 😉


----------



## FSTO (28 Dec 2022)

^^
I have a very rudimentary knowledge of the electronic navigation system as it was just being introduced as I left the seagoing Navy. It sounds like it is another piece of kit that the CAF is unwilling or unable to utilize to its fullest.


----------



## dimsum (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> ^^
> I have a very rudimentary knowledge of the electronic navigation system as it was just being introduced as I left the seagoing Navy. It sounds like it is another piece of kit that the CAF is unwilling or unable to utilize to its fullest.


I had just finished MARS trg when ECPINS came onboard.

Let's just say that some senior folks were...hesitant to use it as a primary nav method.  There was a (short) while where ECPINS was used for confirmation, but paper charts and fixing routine was maintained.

That changed within a couple of years but it wasn't like it was wholeheartedly embraced when it first came out.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> ^^
> I have a very rudimentary knowledge of the electronic navigation system as it was just being introduced as I left the seagoing Navy. It sounds like it is another piece of kit that the CAF is unwilling or unable to utilize to its fullest.


As I said, none of this is taught to anyone.  I got yelled at by Sea Training for not doing Paper Relvel 😄

They didn't like my comment "I guarantee with 100% certainty that the shitty little pencil and paper isn't as accurate as my computer that has a feed from all the Ship's navigation systems"

🤣🤣

The Navy is not an adaptive organization, its leadership from what I saw is generally averse to new ideas or improved ways of doing things.

I like winning, especially on operations.  Effective use of technology reduces workload and improves speed of decision-making.  It is an enabler for us to win.


----------



## FSTO (28 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> I had just finished MARS trg when ECPINS came onboard.
> 
> Let's just say that some senior folks were...hesitant to use it as a primary nav method.  There was a (short) while where ECPINS was used for confirmation, but paper charts and fixing routine was maintained.
> 
> That changed within a couple of years but it wasn't like it was wholeheartedly embraced when it first came out.


I'd be lying if I said I whole heartily accepted the idea of transferring totally from paper to electronic. I will always advocate that visual fixing on paper charts should be a skill that the Navy tries to maintain.

Edit to add: Another word for this is hypocrite.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I'd be lying if I said I whole heartily accepted the idea of transferring totally from paper to electronic. I will always advocate that visual fixing on paper charts should be a skill that the Navy tries to maintain.
> 
> Edit to add: Another word for this is hypocrite.


Sure, as a skill, but we are in the business of committing violent acts on behalf of the Govt and I like being able to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible, while also preserving my own hide 😉.  I'm also lazy and want to dedicate as little energy as possible to achieve something i.e. optimize performance 😁

Nobody cares that you hit a sweet paper fix if you can't do a proper TCM, FBA, etc.  Unfortunately I think some/many in the RCN care more about the former than the latter.


----------



## FSTO (28 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Sure, as a skill, but we are in the business of committing violent acts on behalf of the Govt and I like being able to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible, while also preserving my own hide 😉.  I'm also lazy and want to dedicate as little energy as possible to achieve something i.e. optimize performance 😁
> 
> Nobody cares that you hit a sweet paper fix if you can't do a proper TCM, FBA, etc.  Unfortunately I think some/many in the RCN care more about the former than the latter.




I guess I'm still remembering watching some new subbies trying to plot a visual fix on the ECPINs. It was bloody painful to watch.

But I also agree that knowing the position of the ship 60ft astern of the actual position isn't that useful and using all the sensors to show your actual position is far better.

One thing that really worried me was the lack of spatial awareness by some folks. One time I stopped an Orca just off the entrance to Montegue Harbour (home to the best Cinnamon Buns in the Gulf Islands) and asked the students to point out prominent points of land on the chart I had on the table to what they could see around them. I wasn't very impressed with their efforts.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I guess I'm still remembering watching some new subbies trying to plot a visual fix on the ECPINs. It was bloody painful to watch.
> 
> But I also agree that knowing the position of the ship 60ft astern of the actual position isn't that useful and using all the sensors to show your actual position is far better.
> 
> One thing that really worried me was the lack of spatial awareness by some folks. One time I stopped an Orca just off the entrance to Montegue Harbour (home to the best Cinnamon Buns in the Gulf Islands) and asked the students to point out prominent points of land on the chart I had on the table to what they could see around them. I wasn't very impressed with their efforts.


Driving by sight and using visual queues is a skill that will develop over time.  I think the Navy expects too much of people too soon in this regard, while also not really teaching them how to use the tools at their disposal that will aide them in making that visual assessment.

With enough practice, they will get good at it but they need to be afforded the opportunity to practice.  Our people aren't getting much practice these days.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I guess I'm still remembering watching some new subbies trying to plot a visual fix on the ECPINs. It was bloody painful to watch.
> 
> But I also agree that knowing the position of the ship 60ft astern of the actual position isn't that useful and using all the sensors to show your actual position is far better.
> 
> One thing that really worried me was the lack of spatial awareness by some folks. One time I stopped an Orca just off the entrance to Montegue Harbour *(home to the best Cinnamon Buns in the Gulf Islands)* and asked the students to point out prominent points of land on the chart I had on the table to what they could see around them. I wasn't very impressed with their efforts.



My favourite floating coffee shop... if you ask nicely they'll even provide 'drive through' service so you don't need to climb out of your kayak 

Coincidentally, taking your snotties out for a spin in some kayaks might be a good idea. There's nothing like having to be good at chart reading to ensure survival to ensure that you get good at chart reading


----------



## kev994 (28 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I am pretty sure (but I don’t have them in front of me to confirm) that SPFPs and OACs for Tablets state that ownship position can’t be used for navigation, not the chart itself.


Ours is worded exactly as you describe.


----------



## YZT580 (28 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> As I said, none of this is taught to anyone.  I got yelled at by Sea Training for not doing Paper Relvel 😄
> 
> They didn't like my comment "I guarantee with 100% certainty that the shitty little pencil and paper isn't as accurate as my computer that has a feed from all the Ship's navigation systems"
> 
> ...


electronic navigation is great stuff.  It is reliable, more accurate, and allows precision approaches to limits far greater than following a paper trail BUT it is not failsafe.  GPS can be spoofed.  The Russians is particular are very adept at this.  It can be jammed as well.  That is why precision approaches still require an INS system as well.  When INS is updated by GPS, even if the GPS fails, the INS will maintain track as it deteriorates only over a time period long enough to be readily detected and allow the user to get the hell out of dodge.  Paper backup may seem redundant and old-fashioned but it will eventually safe your ass.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

YZT580 said:


> electronic navigation is great stuff.  It is reliable, more accurate, and allows precision approaches to limits far greater than following a paper trail BUT it is not failsafe.  GPS can be spoofed.  The Russians is particular are very adept at this.  It can be jammed as well.  That is why precision approaches still require an INS system as well.  When INS is updated by GPS, even if the GPS fails, the INS will maintain track as it deteriorates only over a time period long enough to be readily detected and allow the user to get the hell out of dodge.  Paper backup may seem redundant and old-fashioned but it will eventually safe your ass.


No dispute from me but there are a variety of methods to confirm position.

You can also use radar fixing, visual fixing, heck you can even use the echo sounder 😉

Warships have a lot of methods at their disposal to confirm position.


----------



## YZT580 (28 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> No dispute from me but there are a variety of methods to confirm position.
> 
> You can also use radar fixing, visual fixing, heck you can even use the echo sounder 😉
> 
> Warships have a lot of methods at their disposal to confirm position.


Except when you are really, really close to the rocks it is nice to be sure quickly


----------

