# Why the big helos?



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

Something I've been wondering recently: why do we (and some others, like the Brits) demand helos in the EH-101/S-92 size range for our ships when many nations seem to get by just fine with things like the blackhawk, or even sea sprite? Do we use them for additional duties that others don't? What can/will we do with our S-92's that could not be done with it's smaller sibling? Just curious as to what the extra cost in fuel for a heavier aircraft gets us.


----------



## nULL (26 Nov 2004)

I'd imagine it could carry more supplies, has a longer range, can carry more (and is less restricted by) exterior armarmants or sensors, things like that. Not to mention a larger helicopter could fit larger engines. (or an extra one in the case of the EH-101)  

Perhaps Inch could give a better answer though, these are just my thoughts.


----------



## Inch (26 Nov 2004)

Part of it has to do with the mission we use it for and what we deemed was necessary to complete that mission. We said we wanted 4 crew vice the 3 crew that's used in the Lynx, Sea Sprite and Sea Hawk. We also wanted our guys in the back to be able to stand up instead of slouching when they are moving around. A rescue hoist was deemed necessary since we're SAR back up for the coasts as well as for the fleet. We also wanted to be able to carry more than 8 guys, with a full load of fuel. 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/mhp/docssor_e.html

That's the list of operational requirements. As you can see by reading that, we wanted to be able to do stuff like MEDEVACs, aid to the civil power, SAR, even supporting the crunchies if we're needed for that,  as well as our primary role of ASW and Shipborne support.

I apologize if it's kind of a vague answer, but to be honest, the concensus around here is that a smaller helo couldn't have done the job and the Sea Sprite or Lynx just weren't considered. Though I think the drivers out here wanted the smaller NH90, but given it's flight characteristics, who wouldn't want to fly one?

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Nov 2004)

Besides I have been in the back of a Lynx in the North Atlantic and we were all over the place (or so it seemed) whilst a Sea King seems to be more stable.


----------



## Inch (26 Nov 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Besides I have been in the back of a Lynx in the North Atlantic and we were all over the place (or so it seemed) whilst a Sea King seems to be more stable.



No, you thought right Ex-D, it's Newton's first law, inertia and momentum. A larger helo tends to be more stable since it's big enough to dampen out the turbulence and wind gusts.


----------



## Mountie (26 Nov 2004)

What would have been wrong with the Blackhawk for SAR and MHP?  The US military uses Blackhawk variants for SAR in the Coast Guard (Jayhawk), Combat SAR in the Air Force (Pavehawk), ship-board anti-submarine and combat support helicopters in the Navy (Seahawk & Knighthawk), medium combat support and attack helicopters in the Army (Blackhawk & Battlehawk) and by the Marines as Marine-1 VIP.  Did we really need the SuperHawk for the MHP?  Why woundn't the Seahawk/Knighthawk variant have done.  Either way, why wouldn't the CF have purchased the same helicopter for SAR and MHP?  Wouldn't this have been cheaper to purchase, operate and maintain?  The Canadian Navy is often integrated into US Navy Carrier Battlegroups.  Would it not have made sense to use the same ship-board helicopter as the US Navy.  Even though the SuperHawk/Cyclone has something like 80% commonality with the Seahawk/Knighthawk versions.   The CF might have someday been able to replace the useless Griffons with Blackhawks.  This would mean a single airframe for the entire CF.  

The Griffon replacements are a dream I realize.  But why wouldn't the CF have purchased one helicopter for SAR and MHP, whether that was the EH-101, the SuperHawk, the Blackhawk, or the NH-9 it doesn't matter.  One bird for two missions had to have been the cheaper option.  And all choices are quite capable of both missions.


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

I wasn't really expecting that we would ever go with a sea sprite or lynx, just thought I'd throw it in to see if anyone could say what we do that countries using them don't (supporting the army seems the answer). 

For helos S-70/NH-90 range, how much of what was mentioned could not be done? If the blackhawk can carry 11 passengers, why couldn't it fit 4 crew rather than 3? It would seem from this also that carrying 8 would be within limits. Is there something I'm missing? Is the extra size for a "what if" scenario where you need to move far more than 8, or does it come down to you flyboys saying "but we need to stretch our legs!   :dontpanic:


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

Mountie said:
			
		

> The Griffon replacements are a dream I realize.   But why wouldn't the CF have purchased one helicopter for SAR and MHP, whether that was the EH-101, the SuperHawk, the Blackhawk, or the NH-9 it doesn't matter.   One bird for two missions had to have been the cheaper option.   And all choices are quite capable of both missions.



If, as originally planned, we were to get them all at once it might have made some sense. However, with the current Cormorants, my understanding is that they are closer to the civilian version than what we would need for something that may see combat, so commonality didn't enter heavily into the MHP (at least not enough to outweigh the perceived benefits of the S-92 vs EH-101)


----------



## Sheerin (26 Nov 2004)

Isn't Marine 1 a Sea King?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Nov 2004)

We almost did end up with Sea Sprites back in the early 60's, but there were technical problems (according to "Hands to Flying Stations" by Stu Soward) and the Sea King was ready to go, so we bought them instead.   I think, over time, we have just gotten used to having a big helo because it is just so handy.   We tend to do many different jobs with our Sea Kings (often on the same mission) and a big helo with lots of room to carry kit or people allows us to do that.   The US Navy has tended to be alot more specialized until very recently with their Sea Hawks ie some were ASW only (no radar), some were surface warfare only (no ASW kit), so they could get away with a small cabin.   The cabin on a Sea Hawk is tiny compared to a Sea King.   I'm glad we don't fly Seahawks-   I would have to crawl around a fully kitted out ASW version.   SAR would be a nightmare, but the Aussies and US Navy manage.   I enjoy having elbow room when I work. 

So why do we have a four man crew as opposed to a 3 man US Navy crew?   Tough to answer directly, but I suspect that we have learned over time that it is generally better to have both pilots concentrating on not hitting the ocean.   We have two dedicated equipment operators/tacticians in the back.   I'm simplifying, but a US Navy pilot is always directly involved in the minutae of the tactics- not something that you usually see in Canada.   This is going to change big time BTW.   As we get into the Cyclone, I think (big guess here) that we are going to find that there will be so much info to process from so many sensors that both pilots will have to be more tactically involved by monitoring the sensors or even (gasp!) link management.   Luckily, the airplane should more or less fly itself, except for takeoffs/landings and the obvious picky work like hoisting.   This will probably mean our co-pilots will have to receive way more formal tactics training than they currently do.   Crew coordination will also be much more important because there will be more demand for all of our attention. A four man crew will be even more important.    Well, that is my opinion anyway.

Cheers


----------



## Inch (27 Nov 2004)

Mountie said:
			
		

> What would have been wrong with the Blackhawk for SAR and MHP?   The US military uses Blackhawk variants for SAR in the Coast Guard (Jayhawk), Combat SAR in the Air Force (Pavehawk), ship-board anti-submarine and combat support helicopters in the Navy (Seahawk & Knighthawk), medium combat support and attack helicopters in the Army (Blackhawk & Battlehawk) and by the Marines as Marine-1 VIP.   Did we really need the SuperHawk for the MHP?   Why woundn't the Seahawk/Knighthawk variant have done.   Either way, why wouldn't the CF have purchased the same helicopter for SAR and MHP?   Wouldn't this have been cheaper to purchase, operate and maintain?   The Canadian Navy is often integrated into US Navy Carrier Battlegroups.   Would it not have made sense to use the same ship-board helicopter as the US Navy.   Even though the SuperHawk/Cyclone has something like 80% commonality with the Seahawk/Knighthawk versions.     The CF might have someday been able to replace the useless Griffons with Blackhawks.   This would mean a single airframe for the entire CF.
> 
> The Griffon replacements are a dream I realize.   But why wouldn't the CF have purchased one helicopter for SAR and MHP, whether that was the EH-101, the SuperHawk, the Blackhawk, or the NH-9 it doesn't matter.   One bird for two missions had to have been the cheaper option.   And all choices are quite capable of both missions.



So, if we had the same airframe and say, uh, a cracked tail rotor hub were to rear it's ugly head, like perhaps what's happening now with the Cormorants, who's going to pick up the slack when every helicopter in our fleet is grounded? Any benefit you may get from having similar aircraft is far out weighed by the options avail when one type breaks. 

If you think the Americans have only one type, you're sorely mistaken. To complement the Blackhawks they've got Chinooks. They've also got Apaches and Kiowa Warriors. The USN has a whole slew of helicopters, far more than just the one type. 

Also, as SeaKingTacco stated, you can't stand up in the back of a Seahawk and you can't carry many guys at all with all the kit installed. The Cyclone will be able to carry 22 guys + 4 crew.

One more thing, the Seahawks et al have been around for over 20 years, the Americans will be looking for a replacement at some point and the Superhawk could very well be it.

Cheers


----------



## Zoomie (27 Nov 2004)

I suggest that if any of you have the chance, you should visit your local MHP or SAR squadron and see exactly how much kit is loaded onto one of those birds.  
In the Cormorant world, the FE spends most of his time on his knees and anyone over 5'10" is crouched over.  Every single square inch of space is occupied by the SAR kit - these helicopters are big for a reason!


----------



## Mountie (28 Nov 2004)

Sheerin, 

I thought Marine-1 was still a Sea King as well.  But according to several US military sites they are also using a Blackhawk for the role.  However, they are looking for a replacement at a any rate.  Right now it is a competition between the S-92 SuperHawk and the US-101 (US procuction version of the EH-101).  Sounds like a familiar competition.  

Inch, 

I know you don't think much of my suggestions, and again I grant you the fact I have no experience.  But do you really suggest that the CF should buy different helicopters just in case something goes wrong with one type?  With that strategy I guess we in the RCMP should buy several different types of cars just in case Ford does a recall on our Crown Vics.  Sorry, but with the exception of a quick experimentation with Impalas and Intrepids a few years ago, we have one type of car, the Crown Vic.  If something goes wrong with the Crown Vic we don't panick and "ground" the whole fleet.  For example several US police departments have launched a law suite against Ford because some models of the police interceptor version of the Crown Vic have gas tanks that explode when the car is rear ended and several police officers have been killed.  However, we still didn't ground the fleet.


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Nov 2004)

They need big helos to carry all the Duff.


----------



## Storm (28 Nov 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> They need big helos to carry all the Duff.



So for SAR, how did we manage all those years with labs? They looked like little puppy dogs sitting on the apron next to the cormorants in Comox (scary since the lab wasn't exactly small...). The size of the cormorants is a bit overkill for equipment alone I think. I'd imagine that such size in the SAR role makes sense more because there are quite a few ships (not to mention oil rigs) in Canadian waters that have more than a handful of crew/passengers. Big helo in worst case scenario = less trips back and forth dropping people off. Just guessing though, so I could be way off.


For the MH role, the impression I get from peoples' answers so far is that all our ASW equipment could be fit on an aircraft in the 9 ton range, but that carrying more than a handful of passengers would be out (if I'm reading it wrong, let me know... I just got back late on a Sat night and may not be thinking all that clearly ). If this is the case, how often do the MH's actually really need to move a large (8+) load of people all at once? How do the numerous fleets using sea hawks and NH-90's manage to apparently operate just fine? While I can see that it's nice to be able to cross over and play with a number of army guys, how often is this actually done, and how many times is it because we don't have a decent size tac hel to do it instead?

It's probably just my mind playing tricks on me due to a lack of knowledge about the dark side, but it just seems to me that navy-related equipment as of late has turned into an effort do everything at once rather than specific things well or efficiently as separate tasks. It reminds me too much of the evolution of the bradley in "Pentagon Wars" I think.


----------



## NavyGrunt (28 Nov 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> They need big helos to carry all the Duff.



Are you refering to all the cookies and bananas I eat?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Nov 2004)

> With that strategy I guess we in the RCMP should buy several different types of cars just in case Ford does a recall on our Crown Vics.  Sorry, but with the exception of a quick experimentation with Impalas and Intrepids a few years ago, we have one type of car, the Crown Vic.  If something goes wrong with the Crown Vic we don't panick and "ground" the whole fleet.


Automobiles are just a tad less labour intensive then a helo....I am just wondering Mountie if you hve even noticed all the trouble the EH101/Cormorant is having?


----------



## Inch (28 Nov 2004)

Mountie said:
			
		

> Inch,
> 
> I know you don't think much of my suggestions, and again I grant you the fact I have no experience.   But do you really suggest that the CF should buy different helicopters just in case something goes wrong with one type?   With that strategy I guess we in the RCMP should buy several different types of cars just in case Ford does a recall on our Crown Vics.   Sorry, but with the exception of a quick experimentation with Impalas and Intrepids a few years ago, we have one type of car, the Crown Vic.   If something goes wrong with the Crown Vic we don't panick and "ground" the whole fleet.   For example several US police departments have launched a law suite against Ford because some models of the police interceptor version of the Crown Vic have gas tanks that explode when the car is rear ended and several police officers have been killed.   However, we still didn't ground the fleet.



Mountie, I appreciate your thoughts and they do get me thinking, but to compare a car to a helicopter is just ludicrous. You don't operate in three dimensions, we do. How often do you get rear-ended? We go flying everyday and if a tail rotor hub is cracked and the bloody thing decides to depart the fix, we die, period. That's everyday my friend, not just the off chance that someone rear ends us. That's why we're grounded for things like that. So when a helo is grounded, any emergencies that happen are on their own. I just think it's nice to be able to pick up the slack in that case. It doesn't happen all the time that one fleet is grounded, but are you going to put a price on someone's life that could have been saved if we had a different fleet able to pick up the slack? I'm a firm believer that we should get the right equipment for the job, not a half assed jack of all trades helo that doesn't do anything particularly well but does everything ok. The EH101 is a 1980s design, the H92 is a very new design, I dare say that technology has advanced by leaps and bounds since the EH101 was designed.

Storm,
The other forces don't multi role as much as we do. There's two USN Sea Hawk drivers on my Sea King course and about the only thing they have in common is they flew Sea Hawks. Their jobs were totally different. One guy did sonar dips like we do, while the other guy had never done a sonar dip since his Sea Hawk wasn't so equipped. A Seahawk is almost like a Sea King in that respect, with a full mission kit installed, you can carry maybe 6 guys. As for transporting more than 6 guys, Naval Boarding party ring a bell? Yeah, we drop them off once in a while, it'd be nice to get the whole team on board in one trip, something the Sea King nor Sea Hawk is capable of with mission kit installed. We wanted a big helo to give us more versatility, and we're getting one.

Boys, the big helo is to sling beer.

Cheers


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2004)

Quote,
_Boys, the big helo is to sling beer._

Well why didn't you state that off the top and save two pages of bandwidth? 8)
I like when things make sense.


----------



## Mountie (28 Nov 2004)

I wasn't actually suggesting a helicopter was the same as a car, just trying to make a point, sarcastically I guess.  

I never said that the EH-101 was the best helicopter for the job, I just suggested it would have made more sense to have one helicopter for both SAR and MH considering a MH.  The H-92 may have been the better choice, I woundn't argue that.  And like Spr.Earl said, many Navies, big Navies, are doing just find with Seahawks and NH-90s.  

With regards to the fact that the US Navy has many different kinds of helicopters: they do, but they are presently consolidating those into the MH-60/CH-60 Knighthawks replacing the CH-46, H-3 and H-1.


----------



## Inch (28 Nov 2004)

Mountie, you are correct that the Americans are consolidating into the H-60 series, however, they still have CH/MH-53s.  We don't have a heavy lift helo so that's why we went with a 30% bigger helo for our MH duties.  It gives us more lifting capacity and the ability to do that without having to remove all the ASW kit since you don't always have time to take it out and put it in for when you need it.


----------



## NavyGrunt (28 Nov 2004)

Mountie said:
			
		

> I know you don't think much of my suggestions, and again I grant you the fact I have no experience.   But do you really suggest that the CF should buy different helicopters just in case something goes wrong with one type?   With that strategy I guess we in the RCMP should buy several different types of cars just in case Ford does a recall on our Crown Vics.   Sorry, but with the exception of a quick experimentation with Impalas and Intrepids a few years ago, we have one type of car, the Crown Vic.   If something goes wrong with the Crown Vic we don't panick and "ground" the whole fleet.   For example several US police departments have launched a law suite against Ford because some models of the police interceptor version of the Crown Vic have gas tanks that explode when the car is rear ended and several police officers have been killed.   However, we still didn't ground the fleet.



The detachments do have different vehicles for different roles- suburbans, tahoes, the vics, there are still impalas.....whcih make a horrible patrol car...


----------



## Storm (29 Nov 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> Boys, the big helo is to sling beer.



Wehy didn't you say so in the first place? That answers everything   ;D


----------



## Sam69 (29 Nov 2004)

Lot's of great points already brought up by SK Tacco and Inch (especially about the beer - reminds me of a time when we traded a pallet of beer for a pallet of ketchup). Thought I would mention that there is no mention of a minimum size anywhere in the MHP documents. The size of the helo is simply implied by the mission set and conditions required to fill the CF's requirement. The simple reality is that we can't afford, nor do we have the assets to carry at sea, a bunch of specialized helos so we need the one size fits all solution.

Sam


----------



## Spr.Earl (30 Nov 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> Are you refering to all the cookies and bananas I eat?


Yahar Billy,thats whats I means,all those fat pill's!!
Note: Duff= Navy Slang for Dessert!!!
Not to be mixed up with Dobie.


----------



## Disillusioned (9 Dec 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> The detachments do have different vehicles for different roles- suburbans, tahoes, the vics, there are still impalas.....whcih make a horrible patrol car...




What is it you don't like about the Impala for a patrol car? Is it the front wheel drive?


----------



## NavyGrunt (11 Dec 2004)

its just bad. The inside isn't designed for partitioning. Its tall enough but leg room in the offender box is non-existent and its to small in the front as well. Also the police package has a very cheap platic interior. At least it did 2 years ago. Pieces were breaking off all over the place. I think it was a rush to find a crown vic replacment, they tried some bizzarre models> PM me if you want to discuss more....


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Dec 2004)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> Lot's of great points already brought up by SK Tacco and Inch (especially about the beer - reminds me of a time when we traded a pallet of beer for a pallet of ketchup).



Not to mention the fact you can't cram a whole pallet of ketchup packs in the glove compartment of the police car, although you might get the beer into it if you deep six the all unnessary gear in the trunk. [briefcases, riot stuff, blankets, first air kits etc., spare tire, shovel etc.]     A 1992 Crown Vic might do nicely. 

Next, remove the roof light kit and install rubber band driven rotor blades, and next thing ya' know, your a bear in the air with all the really necessary supplies you will ever need.


----------

