# BHS Air group



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jun 2006)

Ok what would be best for the BHS? New helicopter type? The CH53 has been mentioned. Another variant of the Cyclone? This would make logistics and maintenance a lot easier. A mixed air group of Cyclones and CH53s? Some even mentioned Cobras as well. Should we also look it being able to embark the Osprey? thoughts?


----------



## Armymatters (30 Jun 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ok what would be best for the BHS? New helicopter type? The CH53 has been mentioned. Another variant of the Cyclone? This would make logistics and maintenance a lot easier. A mixed air group of Cyclones and CH53s? Some even mentioned Cobras as well. Should we also look it being able to embark the Osprey? thoughts?



The way I see it, the CF will be operating in the future the following helicopters:
Boeing CH-47 Chinook
AgustaWestland EH-101
Sikorsky Superhawk (Cyclone)
Bell Model 412

Of those, we will be operating 3 different engine types: PWC PT6, Lycoming T55, and General Electric T700 series (two subtypes present).

I am leaning towards either EH-101 (assuming rotor issues gets fixed), Sikorsky Superhawk (commonality with navy helos), or Sikorsky Seahawk (mechanical and engine similarity with Superhawk).


----------



## Inch (30 Jun 2006)

I say no to the EH-101 for the ongoing tail rotor issues that still have no end in sight. No to Seahawks for the simple fact of why would you go through the trouble of buying a giant ship only to put a smaller helo on it than what operates off the CPFs and 280s, not to mention another aircraft type (I'm against similar aircraft types for all, but I'm also against a million types for a million jobs). Cyclone gets my vote, it's small enough to get into places that the CH-53s and Chinooks can't, you're sea basing here so DA is not a factor, which is something the proponents of the Chinook will throw out there. The Cyclone is big enough to carry the majority of what we want, there's not going to be room on the BHS for 155mm guns so I see no need to have the capability to sling anything more than ammo and other associated equipment for the Light Infantry battalion embarked, that's what landing craft are for.

As for what can be embarked, if it fits on there, sure why not? I just don't think we should get Ospreys.


----------



## Zoomie (1 Jul 2006)

With the upcoming US-101 project and the recent (as in yesterday) lifting of a majority of the Cormorant's restrictions - I think that the EH-101 would be the best choice for Canada.  
Sikorsky only has one customer so far for the Cyclone (us!) - while AWI has quite a mulit-national customer base with a large supply chain.  With the induction of the US Marine US-101 project, the parts/supply chain will only get closer and thus easier to keep the fleet maintained.  
The Cormorant can seat 30 troops and carry approx 5500 kg on the hook - plenty for a M777 full meal deal package.


----------



## Armymatters (1 Jul 2006)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> With the upcoming US-101 project and the recent (as in yesterday) lifting of a majority of the Cormorant's restrictions - I think that the EH-101 would be the best choice for Canada.
> Sikorsky only has one customer so far for the Cyclone (us!) - while AWI has quite a mulit-national customer base with a large supply chain.  With the induction of the US Marine US-101 project, the parts/supply chain will only get closer and thus easier to keep the fleet maintained.
> The Cormorant can seat 30 troops and carry approx 5500 kg on the hook - plenty for a M777 full meal deal package.



Zoomie, are you aware of how the rotor problem is being resolved for us? Has AgustaWestland provided the fix or are there procedures developed to work around the issue?


----------



## Zoomie (1 Jul 2006)

An entirely new tail is being developed for the US-101 project.  It is all a matter of whether the CF buys into this new tail and updates its fleet of Cormorants.  This is not a fix, it is an entirely new system.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2006)

> ..there's not going to be room on the BHS for 155mm guns...



That's a pretty bold statement Inch.  

The M777 A1 is  9.3m long x 2.8 m wide x 2.3 m high rounded up vs 7.0m long x 2.7m wide x 2.8 m high for a LAVIII which, presumably, the BHS is intended to carry.  Even the JSS is supposed to be able to carry LAVs and HLVWs.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_48_1.asp?uSubSection=48&uSection=1


----------



## Inch (2 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That's a pretty bold statement Inch.
> 
> The M777 A1 is  9.3m long x 2.8 m wide x 2.3 m high rounded up vs 7.0m long x 2.7m wide x 2.8 m high for a LAVIII which, presumably, the BHS is intended to carry.  Even the JSS is supposed to be able to carry LAVs and HLVWs.
> 
> ...



Copy that, I retract that statement.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jul 2006)

I am thinking that the air group on the BHS will be quite small, while the ship itself will be quite large to accommodate large LCAC's. 

Maybe room for 4-6 converted Cyclones and some [4-6] gunship escorts or recce helos, plus UAV's. 

BHS will almost certainly not carry any Chinooks as part of an embarked air group, although it will be able to provide limited support to Chinooks just like the JSS. The amphib part of the BHS will do the heavy lifting to shore, the air group will ferry troops then pallets, maybe a few light guns or small vehicles. 

This will still be a 30,000 ton ship, IMHO otherwise everyone will be packed in like rats and no one will want to serve on the thing. 

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2006)

Zoomie makes a pretty interesting case for the 101, but does the fact that such a group would be embarked with Canadian warships that will be flying Cyclone's seem to point out that for the sake of ease of maintenance, all our sea-birds should be the same?  (I don't know the answer, how much extra work is entailed in fielding more than 1 helo in a naval task force?)

That being said, if we're setting up the bullpen, when do a couple of AH-1Z Sea-Cobra's get chucked into the party?


----------



## FSTO (6 Oct 2006)

CH-53 E Sea Stallion (I think that the USN/USMC are working on a G or H model. Why the 53? Already navalized. Kinda of important when you take an aircraft to sea.


----------

