# Future Helicopters



## a_majoor

NASA works on active rotors which have the potential to make helicopter flight more efficient. If this pans out, retrofitting existing helicopters is an option providing increases in performance and fuel economy:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/smart_rotor.html



> *Future Helicopters Get SMART*
> 
> Helicopters today are considered a loud, bumpy and inefficient mode for day-to-day domestic travel—best reserved for medical emergencies, traffic reporting and hovering over celebrity weddings.
> 
> But NASA research into rotor blades made with shape-changing materials could change that view.
> 
> Twenty years from now, large rotorcraft could be making short hops between cities such as New York and Washington, carrying as many as 100 passengers at a time in comfort and safety.
> 
> Routine transportation by rotorcraft could help ease air traffic congestion around the nation's airports. But noise and vibration must be reduced significantly before the public can embrace the idea.
> 
> "Today's limitations preclude us from having such an airplane," said William Warmbrodt, chief of the Aeromechanics Branch at NASA's Ames Research Center in California, "so NASA is reaching beyond today's technology for the future."
> 
> The solution could lie in rotor blades made with piezoelectric materials that flex when subjected to electrical fields, not unlike the way human muscles work when stimulated by a current of electricity sent from the brain.
> 
> Helicopter rotors rely on passive designs, such as the blade shape, to optimize the efficiency of the system. In contrast, an airplane's wing has evolved to include flaps, slats and even the ability to change its shape in flight.
> 
> NASA researchers and others are attempting to incorporate the same characteristics and capabilities in a helicopter blade.
> 
> NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also known as DARPA, the U.S. Army, and The Boeing Company have spent the past decade experimenting with smart material actuated rotor, or SMART, technology, which includes the piezoelectric materials.
> 
> "SMART rotor technology holds the promise of substantially improving the performance of the rotor and allowing it to fly much farther using the same amount of fuel, while also enabling much quieter operations," Warmbrodt said.
> 
> There is more than just promise that SMART Rotor technology can reduce noise significantly. There's proof.
> 
> The only full-scale SMART Rotor ever constructed in the United States was run through a series of wind tunnel tests between February and April 2008 in the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex at Ames. The SMART Rotor partners joined with the U.S. Air Force, which operates the tunnel, to complete the demonstration.
> 
> A SMART Rotor using piezoelectric actuators to drive the trailing edge flaps was tested in the 40- by 80-foot tunnel in 155-knot wind to simulate conditions the rotor design would experience in high-speed forward flight. The rotor also was tested at cruise speed conditions of 124 knots to determine which of three trailing edge flap patterns produced the least vibration and noise. One descent condition also was tested.
> 
> Results showed that the SMART Rotor can reduce by half the amount of noise it puts out within the controlled environment of the wind tunnel. The ultimate test of SMART rotor noise reduction capability would come from flight tests on a real helicopter, where the effects of noise that reproduces through the atmosphere and around terrain could be evaluated as well.
> 
> The test data also will help future researchers use computers to simulate how differently-shaped SMART Rotors would behave in flight under various conditions of altitude and speed.
> 
> For now that remains tough to do.
> 
> "Today's supercomputers are unable to accurately model the unsteady physics of helicopter rotors and their interaction with the air," Warmbrodt said. "But we're working on it."


----------



## George Wallace

100 PAX helicopters have been around for some time.  http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/helicopters/q0284.shtml

Interesting that NASA is coming up with new systems to improve flight, though.


----------



## Good2Golf

It seems that a company recently dusted off the V-12 design and is about to put the joys of vertical flight and a good night's sleep into production...


----------



## KingKikapu

that thing reminds me of a zeppelin.


----------



## JSR OP

Oh the humanity!!


----------



## Michael OLeary

Seems purpose designed for its own "Destroyed in Seconds" episode.


----------



## ArmyRick

Crazy design


----------



## chrisf

New designs got to start somewhere... I'm sure the same things were said about the very first helicopter and the very first air plane...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Did everything ecept the noise bit.....
http://www.asra.org.au/rotordyn.htm

My family and I traveled through the Soviet Union by camper in the summer of 1970, we were detoured past a large Soviet base and I saw this aircraft flying overhead. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12


----------



## a_majoor

Unmanned helicopters are getting a workout:

http://www.army.mil/article/71269/Army_to_deploy_vertical_take_off_UAS/



> *Army to deploy vertical take-off UAS*
> 
> December 22, 2011
> 
> By Kris Osborn, ASA(ALT) Public Affairs
> VTOL UAS
> A Vertical-Take-Off-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial System.
> Related Links
> 
> Army.mil: Science and Technology News
> STAND-TO!: U.S. Army Roadmap for Unmanned Aircraft Systems: 2010-2035
> Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology -- ASA(ALT)
> 
> WASHINGTON (Dec. 22, 2011) -- The U.S. Army is using a hybrid-type acquisition approach to develop a helicopter-like, Vertical-Take-Off-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial System with a so-called ARGUS wide-area surveillance sensor suite designed to beam back information and images of the surrounding terrain, service officials said.
> 
> Beginning in May or June of 2012, the Army will deploy three Boeing-built A160 Hummingbird Vertical-Take-Off-and-Landing Unmanned Aerial Systems, or VTOL-UAS, to Afghanistan as part of a Quick Reaction Capability, an acquisition approach aimed at delivering cutting-edge and emerging technologies to theater to add capability and inform requirements while simultaneously developing a formal Program of Record approach, said Lt. Col. Matthew Munster, product manager, UAS Modernization.
> 
> "These aircraft will deploy for up to one full year as a way to harness lessons learned and funnel them into a program of record," Munster said.
> 
> The formal VTOL Program of Record will involve a full and open competition among many vendors able to propose UAS solutions able to meet the desired requirements, he added.
> 
> Army VTOL UAS program developers and engineers are now finishing up some wiring work on the A160 aircraft and performing ground tests with the ARGUS sensor suite.
> 
> "The ARGUS sensor suite has never been flown on this platform before so we have to make sure that the integration is complete. We are finishing that up now and adding some different types of antennas. We begin flight testing of the UAS at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona, early next year," Munster said.
> 
> The VTOL aircraft will give forward-positioned Army units the ability to deploy a wide-area UAS Intelligence, Surveillance Reconnaissance, or ISR, asset without needing access to a runway.


----------



## a_majoor

DARPA wants to explore the idea of ultra fast VTOL aircraft. I don't think that anything "conventional" will be able to fulfill their conditions, so it will be interesting to see what exactly comes from this:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/darpa-vtol-x/



> *Darpa Wants to Rethink the Helicopter to Make It Go Way Faster*
> BY SPENCER ACKERMAN02.25.132:00 PM
> 
> Helicopters are great. They’re maneuverable in very tight spaces, they haul heavy things relative to their small sizes — and, very importantly, they take off and land vertically, removing the need for a big airstrip or aircraft-carrier deck. That function is so important to the military that the U.S. designed fixed-wing aircraft to do the same thing, like the Marines’ iconic Harrier jet or their weird tilt-rotor Osprey.
> And they actually all suck, according to the Pentagon’s blue-sky researchers at Darpa, who are launching an effort to blow up and re-imagine helicopters, jump jets and tilt-rotors. It’s time to make these “VTOL” aircraft — the collective term for Vertical Take-Off and Landing — way, way faster, without sacrificing their ability to hover or other functionality.
> 
> Like any aircraft, VTOLs are most vulnerable to enemy attack when they’re taking off and landing. But unlike other aircraft, they’re slow to ascend and descend, a particular problem when an adversary lurking nearby knows exactly what pattern the VTOLs will use to get off the ground and back onto it. And when they’re flying, they’re not going nearly as fast as something with, say, a jet engine. It’s a problem the U.S. military has often encountered in warzones. Anyone who’s taken a ride on a Blackhawk or a Chinook in Afghanistan or Iraq has been very thankful for the guy with the .50-caliber gun hanging out the open back of the helo.
> 
> Hence Darpa’s newest aircraft program. It’s called the VTOL X-Plane and officially launches Monday. The idea is to rethink the designs of anything that takes off and lands vertically, to make it faster; hover and cruise more efficiently; and haul more stuff. By the time it’s done in 52 months, it just might result in an aircraft that doesn’t look at all like a helicopter, jump jet or tilt-rotor.
> 
> “What we’re interested in doing is flying much faster than we have been able to do with helicopters,” program manager Ashish Bagai told reporters on a conference call. Helos and other VTOL aircraft typically max out at 170 knots. Bagai wants the X-Plane to do 300. “We want to fly at improved efficiencies, both in hover and at forward flight,” he said, “and we want to demonstrate this is possible without sacrificing the ability to do useful work. And to do this concurrently is a very big challenge.”
> 
> It’s also not springing up from specific improvements in helicopter or other VTOL capability in the aerospace industry. Nor does it arise from any tech innovations Darpa sees on the horizon. “We have seen in the community a few isolated and novel approaches to addressing this problem but we’re in danger of suffering an attrition in our technology bases,” Bagai said. “This is an opportunity Darpa would like to put forth to advance the state of the art, well beyond where we are today.”
> 
> Good luck with that. Helicopters usually get faster by adding power and messing with the rotor placements. (See, for instance, Sikorsky’s funky ’70s-era designs.) But that typically compromises their ability to hover. Nor, Bagai conceded, have fixed-wing VTOLs cracked the speed/hover/power problem. And the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor has endured more than its fair share of challenges.
> 
> All of which raises questions about the VTOL X-Plane’s ability to actually deliver on its promises. Bagai thinks there’s an opportunity for “hybridization” by mashing up the fixed-wing and helicopter design communities, but like many Darpa projects, the program will pulse those communities rather than take advantage of improvements on the cusp of maturity.
> 
> Darpa’s setting a “very aggressive” development schedule, Bagai said, that’s targeting a flight test in 42 months. Ten months later, when the program ends, “we want to have demonstrated all our key objectives and have a flying aircraft available,” he said. If it fails, helicopters, jump jets and tilt-rotors won’t be any worse off. If it succeeds, the VTOL X-Plane pretty much represents their next generation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

.


----------



## daftandbarmy

This one machine will solve all our problems...  ;D


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Crossfire said:
			
		

> Oh the humanity!!


Couldn't resist!


----------



## GnyHwy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This one machine will solve all our problems...  ;D



Does that count as a hovertank?



> Darpa Wants to Rethink the Helicopter to Make It Go Way Faster



Who wants to go fast?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnA1Q2JvvJo


----------



## a_majoor

While not a helicopter, the Hunting H-126 research aircraft used "Jet Flaps" (know known as "Blown Flaps") to achieve remarkable STOL performance. The downside was since 60% of the thrut was diverted through the slots at the rear of the wing, there was little power for forward flight (although as a proof of principle research craft that wasn't really much of an issue).

Developing this idea further could be the 80% solution, providing excellent STOL performance from very small airfields, good low speed performance and the high speed "dash" that DARPA wants. How to do the hovering/vertical flight portion with this principle needs the attention of much smarter people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_H.126


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While not a helicopter, the Hunting H-126 research aircraft used "Jet Flaps" (know known as "Blown Flaps") to achieve remarkable STOL performance. The downside was since 60% of the thrut was diverted through the slots at the rear of the wing, there was little power for forward flight (although as a proof of principle research craft that wasn't really much of an issue).
> 
> Developing this idea further could be the 80% solution, providing excellent STOL performance from very small airfields, good low speed performance and the high speed "dash" that DARPA wants. How to do the hovering/vertical flight portion with this principle needs the attention of much smarter people:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_H.126



So we should just buy all the upgraded Harriers that the British mothballed then? :nod:


----------



## a_majoor

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So we should just buy all the upgraded Harriers that the British mothballed then? :nod:



Might be nice.

Since DARPA is looking for something that combines the vertical flight capabilities of a helicopter with the forward flight capabilities of a fixed wing aircraft, something like an evolved Harrier might actually be the way to go.


----------



## Loachman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> something like an evolved Harrier might actually be the way to go.



Like an F35B.....?

That still does not offer helicopter-like capabilities, though.


----------



## GnyHwy

What's the loiter time of an F-35B or Harrier in hover?  5 min?  That was just a complete guess, but I can't imagine it's much longer than that, unless your carrying fuel instead of bombs.

The vertical take off offers great flexibility, but I don't think you can compare a Harrier to a helo.  Most simply because helos are a manoeuvre force  that is commanded at the tactical level, and jets are not.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Can I assume that this x-plane would be used to bring troops in and out of combat? As they are afraid of the enemy knowing the patterns set by current aircraft. And if not, don't we have weapons, smart bombs etc that don't require aircraft to hover and still be effective?

Becuase I see no need in modern warfare for a jet to land in a hostile enviroment. And having a troop carrier with such capabilities might be a little big and vulnerable.


----------



## daftandbarmy

STOVL Sqns anyone?  :nod:

Mission: The mission of the VMA STOVL squadron is to attack and destroy surface and air targets, to escort helicopters, and to conduct other such air operations as may be directed. 

Specific tasks of the AV-8B HARRIER II include: 
- Conduct close air support using conventional and specific weapons.
- Conduct deep air support, to include armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, using conventional and specific weapons.
- Conduct offensive and defensive antiair warfare. This includes combat air patrol, armed escort missions, and offensive missions against enemy ground-to-air defenses, all within the capabilities of the aircraft. 
- Be able to operate and deliver ordnance at night and to operate under instrument flight conditions.
- Be able to deploy for extended operations employing aerial refueling.
- Be able to deploy to and operate from carriers and other suitable seagoing platforms, advanced bases, expeditionary airfields, and remote tactical landing sites.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/marinefacts/blharrier.htm


----------



## Loachman

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> What's the loiter time of an F-35B or Harrier in hover?  5 min?  That was just a complete guess, but I can't imagine it's much longer than that, unless your carrying fuel instead of bombs.
> 
> The vertical take off offers great flexibility, but I don't think you can compare a Harrier to a helo.



My point exactly.

VTOL capability is merely a take-off and landing option, not a tactical employment one.


----------



## a_majoor

My comment about an evolved Harrier was directed more towards the physics of how DARPA's project might be accomplished than how it would be tactically employed. I can see how the way I worded it was not clear.

The F-35 actually _does not_ replicate how the Harrier works, the Harrier's vectored thrust system works in all flight modes (Vector In Flight Thrust) while the F-35's fan is only capable of vertical take off and landing, and is not deployed in forward flight. The Harrier is capable of air combat manoeuvres that are literally impossible for any other aircraft, and are perhaps the inspiration for thrust vectoring nozzles on modern jet fighters.

As for what DARPA hopes to accomplish, I expect they are looking at high speed dash and the ability to cover larger areas with these high speed concepts. Smaller vehicles would supplement or replace attack and scout helicopters, while larger vehicles would serve as transports. This is someting like the projected role of the V-22 in the USMC's doctrine. As a point of interest, a Harrier also carried far more ordinance than any helicopter, but the trade off is Harriers do not hover while waiting for a target to appear (indeed, I think Harriers normally only land vertically, since vertical takeoff with a combat load would burn up too mch fuel)


----------



## CBH99

So we should just buy all the upgraded Harriers that the British mothballed then? :nod:  

^  USMC beat us to it.  They jumped on that opportunity like a fat kid on a sandwich.


----------



## a_majoor

DARPA is still working on this project:

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/03/18.aspx



> *VTOL X-Plane Program Takes Off*
> March 18, 2014
> 
> DARPA tasks four companies with designing new aircraft to revolutionize vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) flight capabilities
> 
> For generations, new designs for vertical takeoff and landing aircraft have remained unable to increase top speed without sacrificing range, efficiency or the ability to do useful work. DARPA’s VTOL Experimental Plane (VTOL X-Plane) program seeks to overcome these challenges through innovative cross-pollination between the fixed-wing and rotary-wing worlds, to enable radical improvements in vertical and cruise flight capabilities. In an important step toward that goal, DARPA has awarded prime contracts for Phase 1 of VTOL X-Plane to four companies:
> 
> ◦Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation
> ◦The Boeing Company
> ◦Karem Aircraft, Inc.
> ◦Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
> “We were looking for different approaches to solve this extremely challenging problem, and we got them,” said Ashish Bagai, DARPA program manager. “The proposals we’ve chosen aim to create new technologies and incorporate existing ones that VTOL designs so far have not succeeded in developing. We’re eager to see if the performers can integrate their ideas into designs that could potentially achieve the performance goals we’ve set.”
> 
> VTOL X-Plane seeks to develop a technology demonstrator that could:
> 
> ◦Achieve a top sustained flight speed of 300 kt-400 kt
> ◦Raise aircraft hover efficiency from 60 percent to at least 75 percent
> ◦Present a more favorable cruise lift-to-drag ratio of at least 10, up from 5-6
> ◦Carry a useful load of at least 40 percent of the vehicle’s projected gross weight of 10,000-12,000 pounds
> All four winning companies proposed designs for unmanned vehicles, but the technologies that VTOL X-Plane intends to develop could apply equally well to manned aircraft. Another common element among the designs is that they all incorporate multipurpose technologies to varying degrees. Multipurpose technologies decrease the number of systems in a vehicle and its overall mechanical complexity. Multipurpose technologies also use space and weight more efficiently to improve performance and enable new and improved capabilities.
> 
> The next major milestone for VTOL X-Plane is scheduled for late 2015, when the four performers are required to submit preliminary designs. At that point, DARPA plans to review the designs to decide which to build as a technology demonstrator, with the goal of performing flight tests in the 2017-18 timeframe.
> 
> # ##
> 
> Associated images posted on www.darpa.mil and video posted at www.youtube.com/darpatv may be reused according to the terms of the DARPA User Agreement, available here: http://go.usa.gov/nYr.
> 
> Tweet @darpa


----------



## a_majoor

More on the US rotorcraft replacement program. If we were smart we wold buy into the program as well (much like we did with the fighter program that eventually created the CF-35), which would put us in line to replace the Griffon and potentially the Chinooks in the late 2020's when this program reaches fruition. The ability to get economies of scale and interoperability are well worth seeking:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/news/the-rise-of-radical-new-rotorcraft-16850989?click=pp



> *The Rise of Radical New Rotorcraft*
> At a secret facility, aerospace engineers are plotting to end the helicopter as we know it, and devising new rotorcraft to replace it.
> By Jeff Wise
> 
> The building doesn't look like much—one of several nondescript hangars alongside an airstrip on the edge of the Everglades, baking in the eternal monotony of the central Florida sun.
> 
> This is the home of Sikorsky Aircraft's Area 31, where the company works on its most advanced rotorcraft projects. Like Area 51, the famously clandestine Air Force base in the Nevada desert, this airfield is home to experimental aircraft being built and tested. The mystery projects here need to be kept not only from other nations but from other aviation companies too. Millions, possibly billions, of dollars are at stake. For that reason, Sikorsky is hesitant to let journalists onto the grounds and does so only if the tour is restricted and the photography limited.
> 
> Inside the hangar, bathed in fluorescent light from banks of industrial lamps, is a molasses-dark fuselage with unusual twin fins jutting vertically from its tail. The fin structures are vertical stabilizers with rudders built in. Even at a glimpse, the half-finished airframe is something new.
> 
> This is the S-97 Raider. When it takes to the air in 2015, it will be the first production-ready prototype for a new kind of rotorcraft, the compound-coaxial helicopter. The Raider has two rotors that turn in opposite directions on a central mast, enabling it to fly up to 275 mph. That's more than 100 mph faster than a conventional helicopter, giving it twice the range.
> 
> The S-97 is among an emerging generation of advanced craft that could redefine the meaning of vertical-lift aviation. In 2011 the Army funded the Joint MultiRole Rotorcraft Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) program. This is the first step in an effort to replace the military's entire inventory of helicopters. Retired first will be the UH-60 Black Hawk, to be replaced with the Future Vertical Lift Medium, at the earliest in 2030.
> 
> The FVL Medium will have big shoes to fill. The Black Hawk provides the bulk of vertical-lift capability for the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, Special Operations Command, and Coast Guard. It first entered service with the Army in 1979; over the next 30 years, more than 2300 aircraft saw service at home and abroad. The Black Hawk and its variants have proven track records but are limited by a maximum speed of 183 mph.
> 
> Aside from the FVL Medium, the Pentagon envisages three other classes of future flying machines that will have roots in this program: the FVL Light, to replace the Kiowa scout helicopter; the FVL Heavy, to replace the brawny twin-rotor Chinook; and the FVL Ultra, a brand-new class of aircraft that would combine the hauling capacity of a C-130 cargo plane with the ability to take off vertically. If the Pentagon plan comes together, these machines will replace every U.S. military helicopter.
> 
> Changes on the battlefield are posing dangers for traditional helicopters. Longer range missiles can target bases and ships, putting helicopter staging areas at risk. Aircraft that can fly faster and travel farther can complete their missions with less risk. And, since more capable rotorcraft can cover more ground, the Pentagon can buy fewer of them.
> 
> Today's most advanced vertical-lift aircraft is the V-22 Osprey, used by the Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command. The Osprey tilts its rotors 90 degrees to fly like an airplane and land like a helicopter. But the Army is looking for a smaller combat rotorcraft instead of an Osprey-size heavy lifter. The JMR Technology Demonstrator will be designed to carry 11 troops, compared with the Osprey's carry capacity of 24.
> 
> The other type of vertical aircraft is the jump jet, which can vector its engines toward the ground to hover. Examples include the AV-8B Harrier and F-35B Lightning II, both carrier-capable fighter airplanes. These are not well-suited as Army utility lifters and attack helos because they burn too much fuel and are not light or maneuverable enough to fly missions close to the ground.
> 
> The goal of the JMR-TD program is to create an aircraft that is as nimble as today's Black Hawk while hovering, but with a ferry range of 2100 miles and a cruise speed of more than 265 mph. Industry engineers declare that it's possible, but the Pentagon launched the JMR-TD program to be convinced. "It's an investment to inform ourselves about the technology that's available," Dan Bailey, the Army program's director, says. "What we are looking at is a leap ahead in capability."
> 
> Last year the Army narrowed the field to four JMR-TD competitors, including two giants—Sikorsky of Stratford, Conn., and Bell Helicopter of Hurst, Texas—and two tiny firms, AVX Aircraft Company of Benbrook, Texas, and Karem Aircraft of Lake Forest, Calif. Each was awarded $6 million to produce a design. This summer two of the four will be selected to turn that design into hardware, with flight tests from 2017 to 2019.
> 
> The Army has made it clear that whoever survives the downselect will not necessarily be the winner of a $100 billion production contract for building as many as 4000 aircraft. But even losing companies stand to gain by flying demonstration aircraft, since the JMR-TD designs will inspire versions suitable for civilian markets.
> 
> In a few decades these futuristic rotorcraft could be as common in the skies as conventional helicopters are today. "This is a step change," says Steve Weiner, Sikorsky's director of engineering sciences. "It's going to be similar to when fixed-wing airplanes went from piston to jet engines."
> 
> If next-generation rotorcraft will be more capable than today's fleet, they are also going to be considerably more expensive. It takes a lot of power to go fast, and bigger engines add both weight and cost. "If you want to go above 150 knots [173 mph], you're going to have to pay a premium of 50 to 100 percent," says Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal Group. Pentagon-funded demonstrator programs allow manufacturers to work out the kinks of new designs and bring down prices.
> 
> "Looking downstream, it's obvious that there's certain commercial applications of this technology," Bell's Keith Flail says. Some niches will be easier to exploit than others. "Offshore oil rigs could be a market," Aboulafia says. With exploration moving into ever-deeper waters, a vehicle that can make twice as many trips ferrying rig workers in the same amount of time will be worth the steep price tag to the big energy companies.
> 
> Another potential market, Aboulafia says, is the VIP market. Corporate executives and other wealthy individuals already take helicopters on short-hop trips, but more advanced rotorcraft could ferry passengers as far as 500 miles, avoiding airport hassles.
> 
> In a more critical application, medevac, speed can mean the difference between life and death. "There's a thing called golden hour," AVX's Troy Gaffey says. "If you can get someone to a hospital within that time, they're a lot more likely to live."
> 
> If these early markets pan out for tilt-rotors or compound-coaxial helicopters, there's no telling how many other uses they'll have. Right now vertical lift means a conventional helicopter, with niches occupied by the jump jet and the tilt rotor. Some day that relationship could reverse, if this new generation of vertical-lift aircraft becomes the norm, relegating conventional helicopters to the fringe. "You'll see the ratio change in that direction," Flail predicts confidently. "The evolution is coming."
> 
> What Makes Helicopters So Slow?
> 
> When a helicopter is stationary, its rotor blades move at the same speed relative to the air. But when a helicopter flies forward, the blades on the advancing side move faster, relative to the wind, and the blades on the retreating side move slower.
> 
> As soon as the helicopter's forward speed matches the speed at the tip of the rotor, the retreating rotor tip momentarily experiences zero airspeed. At that point the rotor is generating no lift, a phenomenon known as retreating-blade stall. With half the rotor disc no longer holding the aircraft up, the helicopter tends to roll to the side. This aerodynamic principle limits conventional helicopters to about 200 mph.
> 
> The Contenders
> 
> Sikorsky
> 
> Coaxial Rotors: Sikorsky's entry in the Black Hawk replacement program is the SB-1 Defiant. With a top speed of more than 300 mph, the Defiant will be faster than the company's internally funded S-97 Raider. The Defiant uses two rotor discs that move in opposite directions to defeat retreating-blade stall. Counter-rotating rotors have an advancing blade on each side of the aircraft, giving balanced lift at all speeds. Advanced composites make the blades extremely stiff, so they can whir through the air in proximity without hitting each other.
> 
> Pusher Prop: This rear-mounted propeller provides extra thrust. "It's an incredible sensation to realize that you're at the cruise-power setting of a normal helicopter but going 250 mph," Sikorsky chief test pilot Kevin Bredenbeck says.
> 
> Bell Helicopter
> 
> Tiltrotors: Bell is building its entrant, the V-280 Valor, based on its experience with the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor. The smaller, nimbler version will be able to carry 11 soldiers 264 miles, hover for 30 minutes, and return at 320 mph. No need to worry about retreating-blade stall: To go fast, pilots toggle a thumb wheel that tilts the twin rotors 90 degrees, transforming them into propellers. The Valor's two engines will be fixed in a horizontal position, with only the rotors pivoting up and down. The Valor will sport flexible rotor blades for a new level of maneuverability at low speeds, while still providing the range and efficiency that no traditional helicopter can match.
> 
> Side Doors: "The bread-and-butter mission for the Army is air assault," V-280 program director Keith Flail says. "When soldiers are coming into a landing zone, they need clear fields of view and clear fields of fire out the sides of the aircraft."
> 
> Karem Aircraft
> 
> Optimum Speed Tiltrotors: Karem's TR36TD concept uses twin tiltrotors to achieve a top speed in level flight of more than 420 mph. The company developed a technology, the Optimum Speed Tiltrotor, that allows the pilot to adjust the revolutions per minute of the rotor depending on the phase of flight. The rotors don't need extra power to turn during forward flight, so decreasing their rpm increases efficiency.
> 
> AVX
> 
> Ducted Fans: AVX's design relies on a compound-coaxial helicopter like Sikorsky's, but with rotors that are lighter and more flexible, saving weight and therefore reducing power requirements. A pair of ducted fans on the rear of the airframe will give AVX's as-yet-unnamed rotorcraft extra speed. The rotors and the ducted fans push the demonstrator up to a maximum of 265 mph.
> 
> Forward Canards: In cruise mode, much of the lift will come from a pair of canard wings near the nose. "Based on our analysis, the coaxial-compound helicopter will outperform a conventional helicopter, and the cost will be essentially the same," AVX president Troy Gaffey says.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Looks nice, but considering their seemingly inability to deal with the S-92 issues, not sure how much faith I or others will have in their new toy.


----------



## a_majoor

Good thing then that there are four competitors working on this. As well, there are several other companies with good ideas (if less political clout) working on various alternatives. Just because Sikorsky seems unable to adapt an existing helicopter design (the S-92 is ultimately derived from the UH-60 Blackhawk) does not mean that we are stuck with them for any future product (or for that matter, that the team working on their new helicopter is equally inept).

Given the long lead time, *we* have the ability to get in on this (the economic benefits of Canadian companies being able to act as a subcontractor or supply parts is worth going for in of itself), and Canada is going to have to look for replacement helicopters sooner rather than later. The Griffon is a militarized Bell 412, which is itself a product evolution of the 1960's era "Huey", and the Chinook as a design is equally old. Even the S-92 is derived from the UH-60 which was designed in the 1970's...Even though there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with these designs, the operating environment has changed so much that new approaches need to be looked at.


----------



## Loachman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Griffon is a militarized Bell 412, which is itself a product evolution of the 1960's era "Huey", and the Chinook as a design is equally old.



The current versions, especially the Chinook, bear little in common with their original variants.

How much commonality is there between a 1960s Ford Mustang and a 2014 one, other than the name?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting report on 2 Super Puma ditchings , basically after a gearbox failure, the secondary lubricating system kicked in, but then a fault light came on saying it didn't so both aircraft successfully ditched when they didn't need to.


----------



## a_majoor

While it is true that the Chinook of 2014 is quite different from the 1960 version, one of the critical things which never changed is the internal dimensions. Much of our kit is bigger and heavier than it was back then, so a future heavy lift helicopter should have either a bigger fuselage, or perhaps be laid out like the Skycrane and be capable of grappling large loads. As for the Griffon, it is difficult to fit an entire section with its kit inside, and impossible to do so under winter warfare conditions (too much kit taking up too much space), so any future utility helicopter also needs a larger fuselage and more lifting capacity. If there is a desire to have a navalized version, then a bigger, more capable airframe would also be a bonus (one reason the S-92 and earlier the EH-101 were selected as the naval helicopter is they are far more capable than the Seahawk in terms of lift capability)

So fresh sheet of paper designs are still needed for today and tomorrow's operating environments.


----------



## Loachman

What bigger and heavier kit would you need to move in one piece, internally, in a tactical situation, that a Chinook cannot move?

Don't expect any good news on the Utility side, ie Griffon replacement or upgrade, for a couple of decades - barring major surprises.

Don't expect the same on the Chinook side for about four decades.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I wonder how far this can be developed? A _Chinook_ can carry five times as much but this seems like an interesting step in one direction.


----------



## Good2Golf

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder how far this can be developed? A _Chinook_ can carry five times as much but this seems like an interesting step in one direction.



An interesting hybrid between a drone and all-in-one transporter.  While the USMC successfully operated drone converted K-Max helicopters in Afghanistan to carry slung loads, it still remains a transporter separate from a carried load.  Should be interesting to see this line of technology develop.

Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor

The US is also testing a system called ARES, which might be compared to the "Skycrane" on a smaller scale. The flying module of the ARES is something like a giant quadcopter, capable of picking up a 3000lb (1500Kg) payload module. Projected uses are cargo, medivac and ISR:

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Aerial_Reconfigurable_Embedded_System_(ARES).aspx



> *AERIAL RECONFIGURABLE EMBEDDED SYSTEM (ARES)*
> 
> Difficult terrain and threats such as ambushes and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) can make ground-based transportation to and from the front line a dangerous challenge. Helicopters can easily bypass those problems but present logistical challenges of their own, and can subject flight crew to different types of threats. They are also expensive to operate, and the supply of available helicopters cannot always meet the demand for their services, which cover diverse operational needs including resupply, fire-team insertion and extraction, and casualty evacuation.
> 
> To help overcome these challenges, DARPA unveiled the Transformer (TX) program in 2009. Transformer aimed to develop and demonstrate a prototype system that would provide flexible, terrain-independent transportation for logistics, personnel transport and tactical support missions for small ground units. In 2013, DARPA selected the Aerial Reconfigurable Embedded System (ARES) design concept to move forward.
> 
> ARES is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) flight module designed to operate as an unmanned platform capable of transporting a variety of payloads. The ARES VTOL flight module is designed to have its own power system, fuel, digital flight controls and remote command-and-control interfaces. Twin tilting ducted fans would provide efficient hovering and landing capabilities in a compact configuration, with rapid conversion to high-speed cruise flight.
> 
> It is envisioned that the flight module would travel between its home base and field operations to deliver and retrieve several different types of detachable mission modules, each designed for a specific purpose. Example modules could include:
> 
> Cargo resupply
> Casualty evacuation (CASEVAC)
> Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR)
> The ARES program would enable numerous benefits, including:
> 
> Useful load capability as high as 3,000 pounds, more than 40 percent of the takeoff gross weight of the aircraft
> Flight performance similar to light aircraft
> Compact configuration and the ability to use landing zones half the size typically needed by helicopters of similar size
> VTOL operations from prepared, unprepared and ship-based landing sites
> Unmanned operation, with a future path towards semi-autonomous flight systems and user interfaces for optionally manned/controlled flight


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is, also, the _Air Mule_ being developed by Israel.







As far as I can find out the vehicle is six meters long and two meters wide, has a top speed of 120+ knots and can carry 1,500+ pounds of cargo or passengers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No option to care for the patient while underway. I wonder if they would put monitors in the craft? It's a bit of a throw back to this


----------



## George Wallace

It is still a method to get casualties off the battlefield and into the medical treatment system faster than other lesser land options.


Monitors were mentioned in the presentation.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Future of AF Helicopter Fleets Discussed At Conference
> 
> 
> (Source: U.S Air Force; issued Oct 20, 2014)
> 
> 
> 
> BARKSDALE AFB, La. --- Air Force Global Strike Command's Helicopter Operations Division hosted the Worldwide Helicopter Conference here Oct. 7-9, to discuss the current and future state of the Air Force's helicopter fleets.
> 
> The conference promoted cross talk among the Air Force's helicopter forces, which are principally operated by Air Combat Command, Pacific Air Forces, the Air Force District of Washington and AFGSC.
> 
> AFGSC, PACAF and AFDW operate a fleet of UH-1N Iroquois helicopters whose missions include surveillance of off-base nuclear weapons convoys, support of the Nuclear Security and Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government missions and distinguished visitor airlift.
> 
> However, the UH-1N is an aging platform, operating well past its intended lifespan, said Col. Todd Worms, the AFGSC Helicopter Operations Division chief. To continue safe, secure and effective operations, a more capable platform is required.
> 
> ACC currently operates the HH-60G Pave Hawk to fulfill the Air Force's requirement to provide personnel recovery capability for its own forces as well as other Defense Department forces in hostile or isolated environments.
> 
> "We find that even though we're divided up into two operations, pretty much what affects one half affects the other; to include deployments, personnel shortfalls and maintenance issues," Worms said. "This is the one time each year we get to sit down and discuss all those issues with the commanders and the leadership from both sides to make sure we balance impacts across the force, come up with innovative ideas and exchange best practices. Budget restrictions resulted in the conference being cancelled in 2012 and 2013, making this year's information cross flow extremely beneficial."
> 
> Although the helicopter community is split across two platforms, the lessons learned from either side can greatly impact the future of the other.
> 
> "The Air Force's helicopter community is critical to a number of missions, and a common forum to address current and future issues is important to the Airmen who execute those missions," said Col. Charles Tomko, the ACC Personnel Recovery Division chief. "As we move forward with the Combat Rescue Helicopter Program, we will continue to work with our other helicopter partners to ensure we are all successful as a community to execute the missions the Air Force and combatant commanders task us with."
> 
> Worms also highlighted areas that a common rotary-wing platform across the Air Force would improve, including reduced training and maintenance costs, personnel efficiencies and common logistical practices across the force.
> 
> One particular area where commonality could be felt is in the helicopter training program.
> 
> The training that helicopter pilots go through currently requires aircrews to go through additional training when they transition between the UH-1 and the HH-60. A topic of discussion during the conference was how the Air Force can improve the process, avoiding the added cost of operating two separate platforms.
> 
> Currently, the goal is to have one rotary-wing platform for the Air Force.
> 
> "If we buy the right things and make the right moves, we have an opportunity to build a much more capable and flexible helicopter force at a lower cost," Worms said.



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158114/usaf-conference-mulls-future-helicopter-fleets.html

For me, I would be looking at helicopters that can fold up in 10 mins and be stowed on board C130s or C17s and then can be unfolded in a like period of time at the far end.  Instead of trying to build transcontinental, super-sonic helicopters.


----------



## Good2Golf

> Currently, the goal is to have one rotary-wing platform for the Air Force.



Which shows you what the USAF truly thinks about helicopters.  Imagine if the Air Force said, "Our goal is to have one airplane for the Air Force."   ???

Of course, the Air Force considers the Osprey a fixed-wing aircraft because it sometimes looks normal...like other airplanes.

:dunno:


----------



## YZT580

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Which shows you what the USAF truly thinks about helicopters.  Imagine if the Air Force said, "Our goal is to have one airplane for the Air Force."   ???
> 
> They already did.  It is called the F35.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just make them turn over all transports to the Army and USN.  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158114/usaf-conference-mulls-future-helicopter-fleets.html
> 
> For me, I would be looking at helicopters that can fold up in 10 mins and be stowed on board C130s or C17s and then can be unfolded in a like period of time at the far end.  Instead of trying to build transcontinental, super-sonic helicopters.



Do you mean Sea Kings?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have to wonder if what we are building today can last as long as they did?


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Do you mean Sea Kings?



Everything old is new again.


----------



## George Wallace

Just imagine what a larger scale platform this could make:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=693522244049344&fref=nf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It will do a lot of things, but not stealth


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> It will do a lot of things, but not stealth



Visions of Stormtroopers flying through the forests of Ewok come to mind.  Larger versions that would create a large central cargo/passenger compartment with a cockpit up top would probably be too large to be practical.  

The interesting part of the design is the 'protected' rotors that would prevent blade strikes, damage and critical loss of control.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

patrol drones, resupply of FOB's and possibly causality evac.


----------



## Sf2

Current birds can fly with damaged rotors


----------



## Loachman

Yes, I know.

But it wasn't very comfortable, and we didn't fly very far.


----------



## midget-boyd91

SF2 said:
			
		

> Current birds can fly with damaged rotors



A few years ago i had a duct tape themed page-a-day calendar. One of the little tidbits was a tale submitted by a huey pilot who served in Vietnam. After being broufht down by enemy fire that damaged the blades, the huey crew was able to repair the damaged rotor blades enough to take flight again and escape the enemy forces who were rapidly closing in on their downed bird... Using only duct tape.
[/tangent]


----------



## a_majoor

New helicopter prototype from Sikorsky. While roughly the size of a Kiowa, it can carry six people plus crew, and flies extremely fast. Sikorsky hopes this is the prototype of a new generation of helicopters (it is itself a development of the company's X-2 program).

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/sikorsky-shows-off-superfast-and.html



> *Sikorsky shows off superfast and compact S-97 Raider military helicopter proof of concept*
> Sikorsky is building a game-changing RAIDER aircraft that is intended to revolutionize helicopters for the military.
> 
> The Army wants to reinvent the very idea of rotorcraft, with a new propulsion concept. After the flight tests and technology development, JMR will end and a Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued open to all companies to begin the projected $100 billion FVL effort. Demonstrators developed under JMR will be "X-planes" to demonstrate some key technologies, but they won't have production-representative engines or real mission systems architecture; JMR will show off technologies to enable Army rotary-wing aviation to make the next leap in speed, lift, protection, and interoperability under FVL for the 2030s. The program is intentionally slow paced to avoid past program failures.
> 
> Although requirements are still being refined, the notional concept for a new aircraft must reach speeds of 230 kn (260 mph; 430 km/h), carry up to 12 troops, operate in "high-hot" conditions at altitudes of 6,000 ft (1,800 m) and temperatures of 95-degrees Fahrenheit, and have a combat radius of 424 km (263 mi) with an overall unrefueled range of 848 km (527 mi).
> 
> Ars Technica reports that Sikorsky a guided walk-around of the S-97 Raider, a proof-of-concept helicopter developed without government funding that the company hopes will earn a role with the military as an armed scout helicopter. The Raider is different from just about everything in the helicopter world, using a pair of counter-rotating rigid rotors for lift and a tail-mounted propeller for additional thrust, allowing it to fly at speeds of up to 250 miles per hour (220 knots) and hover at extreme altitudes.
> 
> Sikorsky is hoping that the Raider will fill a hole in the Army's aviation capabilities that can't currently be filled by unmanned aircraft. "You need to have a human in the loop assessing the situation" on scout missions, Fell said.
> 
> The rigid rotors of the Raider give it a compact footprint compared to other helicopters of its size—while it fills up the same space as the two-seater Kiowa, the Raider has space for six troops in a passenger compartment. And when in level flight, the Raider flies more like a commercial jet than a helicopter—the collective control locks in at its most efficient position, and the pilot flies the helicopter exclusively with the cyclic stick. A control on the stick allows the pilot to control the pitch of the rear propeller to control speed in level flight—or to fly the aircraft backward with negative pitch. And the combination of rigid rotors and rear thrust makes the Raider much more nimble than other helicopters; the Raider is designed to withstand sustained forces of up to three times the earth's gravity in maneuvering.
> 
> Much work needs to be done still on the Raider—so far, the aircraft has only flown for a little over two hours, and there have only been about 40 hours of ground tests.
> 
> By next year, the Raider's test flights will begin to push its performance envelope.


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## a_majoor

Photos of a prototype of the V-280

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-first-images-of-the-armys-new-futuristic-helicopter-2017-9



> *Here are the first images of the Army's new futuristic helicopter prototype*
> The Aviationist
> David Cenciotti, The Aviationist
> 
> The V-280 Valor is Bell’s submission for the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) phase, the technology demonstration precursor to Future Vertical Lift (FVL), a replacement for the service’s Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopters.
> 
> The V-280 will have a crew of 4 (including two pilots) and be capable of transporting up to 14 troops. Its cruising speed will be 280 knots (hence the designation V-280) and its top speed will be 300 kts.
> 
> It’s designed for a range of 2,100 nautical miles and an effective combat range of 500 to 800 nmi although the Army’s requirements for the demonstrator call for hot and high hover performance (at 6,000 feet and 95 F), and the ability to self-deploy 2,100 nautical miles at a speed of at least 230 knots.
> 
> Featuring a triple-redundant flight-by-wire Flight Control System and cutting edge avionics, the first prototype of the next generation helicopter is expected to perform its first flight in the next few months. On Aug. 30, what looks like a 100 percent complete aircraft, sporting the registration N280BH, was spotted at Bell Helicopter Amarillo Assembly Center (where the demonstrator aircraft began ground vibration testing with a 95 percent complete helicopter back in February 2017): the Valor is probably being prepared for engine tests ahead of its maiden flight (planned for Sept. 2017).
> 
> The T64-GE-419 engines and gearboxes in the nacelles are clearly visible in the interesting images in this post obtained from a short video filmed by our friend Steve Douglass. Interestingly, unlike the V-22’s engines, that rotate with the gearboxes, in the V-280, the gearbox is the only thing that rotates.
> 
> According to Bell “The output shaft is connected to the drive system through a spiral bevel gearbox that transfers power to the fixed gearbox and proprotor gearbox, which rotates on two big spherical bearings driven by a conversion actuator mechanism.” The Valor’s tilting gearbox design vastly simplifies the Osprey’s complex hydro-mechanical clockwork required for the tiltrotor action.
> 
> The U.S. Army plans to field distinct platforms: a utility helicopter and an attack helicopter. For this reason, a variant, dubbed AV-280, is expected to carry rocket, missiles and also small UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) forward or aft with no rotor interference.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This popped up in my FB page


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Short Sikorsky Defiant video of a recent test flight where they achieved over 250kts.


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> Short Sikorsky Defiant video of a recent test flight where they achieved over 250kts.


OK the crayon eater has another a few questions: how difficult would this thing be to fly? Maintenance would be an issue maybe? How airworthy is something like this?


----------



## suffolkowner

OldSolduer said:


> OK the crayon eater has another a few questions: how difficult would this thing be to fly? Maintenance would be an issue maybe? How airworthy is something like this?


From what I have read, its a small group that have been allowed to fly it compared to the V-280 but id think maintenance would be less than a tilt-rotor or tilt-engine(is that the right term?)?









						Bell V-280 Valor - Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA)
					

The Bell V-280 is a Future Long Range Assault (FLRAA) aircraft purpose-built to revolutionize the U.S. Army's reach and effectiveness of each mission while offering unmatched maneuverability, reduced downtime and elevated mission safety.




					www.bellflight.com
				




this one is still a sexy beast






						Kamov Ka-52 Hokum-B Attack Helicopter | Military-Today.com
					

The Kamov Ka-52 Alligator (NATO Designation Hokum-B) is a two-seat version of the Ka-50. It is a multi-role attack helicopter. It's small-scale series production begun in 2008.



					www.military-today.com


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> OK the crayon eater has another a few questions: how difficult would this thing be to fly? Maintenance would be an issue maybe? How airworthy is something like this?


I think it is probably less technically challenging than a V-22 Osprey.


----------



## lenaitch

Slightly off-topic from an outsider, but I saw this on the RCAF f/b page.  Apparently the Griffon is off to France for Exercise Volfa.

My question is why it is blue?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

lenaitch said:


> Slightly off-topic from an outsider, but I saw this on the RCAF f/b page.  Apparently the Griffon is off to France for Exercise Volfa.
> 
> My question is why it is blue?
> 
> View attachment 66816


That is ETAH 430’s anniversary bird. She gets a special paint job for the year.


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> OK the crayon eater has another a few questions: how difficult would this thing be to fly? Maintenance would be an issue maybe? How airworthy is something like this?


Modern fly-by-wire flight control systems tame the inherently unruly flight characteristics of rotorcraft like these, allowing the pilots to concentrate on mission accomplishment vs just trying to stay in the same grid square as formation/element colleagues. 😉 

I’d have a slight preference to the V-280 Valor over the Defiant, but would gladly fly either.  Personally, I think the greatly simplified mechanics of the V-280 compared to the V-22 will go a long way to easing the maintenance difference between tilt-rotor and coaxial compound helos.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> That is ETAH 430’s anniversary bird. She gets a special paint job for the year.











						430 Tactical Helicopter Squadron - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## KevinB

Meanwhile in Bahrain...








						Bell rolls out first AH-1Z helicopter for Bahrain
					

Textron subsidiary Bell has completed the first of 12 AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters for Bahrain, delivering it to U.S. Naval Air Systems Command as part of a 2019 Foreign Military Sales contract.




					www.defensenews.com
				




JFC how embarrassing for the CA and RCAF that Bahrain has AH-1Z's and the CF has a grand sum of zero AH.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Meanwhile in Bahrain...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bell rolls out first AH-1Z helicopter for Bahrain
> 
> 
> Textron subsidiary Bell has completed the first of 12 AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters for Bahrain, delivering it to U.S. Naval Air Systems Command as part of a 2019 Foreign Military Sales contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFC how embarrassing for the CA and RCAF that Bahrain has AH-1Z's and the CF has a grand sum of zero AH.


The majority of the Canadian electorate don’t really care, or even more so, would question why would even need AH for the peacekeeping that PM Trudeau promised that “Canada’s back” to do…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> The majority of the Canadian electorate don’t really care, or even more so, would question why would even need AH for the peacekeeping that PM Trudeau promised that “Canada’s back” to do…


Maybe he missed the memo there is no peace to keep...


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Maybe he missed the memo there is no peace to keep...


Don’t let the facts get in the way of a (well, multiple) hollow, unfulfilled election promise(s).  “Canada’s back” sound good to the non-critically thinking millennial Neo-liberals who eat up Trudeau’s virtuous, inspirational, buzz-word laced self-backslapping that makes them feel good as they sip $5 Starbucks lattés.


----------



## RedFive

Yeah but just think about how many jobs could be created if we bought a mixed fleet of UH-1Y and AH-1Z's to be built in Mirabel!

And then the Government of Canada wouldn't have to answer embarrassing questions from the media about why foreign allied force's investigations into their member's deaths in our aircraft call the aircraft completely unsuitable for the job, after multiple elected and Commissioned officials claimed otherwise before their deployment...


----------



## FJAG

RedFive said:


> Yeah but just think about how many jobs could be created if we bought a mixed fleet of UH-1Y and AH-1Z's to be built in Mirabel!
> 
> And then the Government of Canada wouldn't have to answer embarrassing questions from the media about why foreign allied force's investigations into their member's deaths in our aircraft call the aircraft completely unsuitable for the job, after multiple elected and Commissioned officials claimed otherwise before their deployment...


I'd like to read that. Is there a link you can point me to.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> I'd like to read that. Is there a link you can point me to.
> 
> 🍻











						Kent soldier helicopter death 'questions unanswered'
					

Questions about a soldier's death in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan have gone "unasked and unanswered", a Kent coroner says.



					www.bbc.com
				












						Death of British soldier in Afghanistan helicopter crash ruled an accident
					

Capt Ben Babington-Browne and two Canadian troops were killed in Zabul province incident in 2009




					www.theguardian.com
				





Key take away:
Indirect factors included incorrect application of aircraft performance charts and the inter-turbine temperature was exceeded, but the mission was "appropriately tasked and authorised".

I has some personal opinions about "appropriate" - and that word never applies to the Griffon in Afghanistan.

There is a lot more - some US stuff that us FOUO, and I am sure other Allies also held that the Griffon was a bad idea for Afghan -- even the then CDS thought it was the wrong helicopter for the AO


----------



## Colin Parkinson

the Griffons turned out better than expected and sure beat have no helicopters. I wonder how the Mi-17's would have performed if given the same missions as the Griffon and equipped with weapons?


----------



## RedFive

Colin Parkinson said:


> the Griffons turned out better than expected and sure beat have no helicopters. I wonder how the Mi-17's would have performed if given the same missions as the Griffon and equipped with weapons?


Certainly. And I’m by no means an expert or even casually knowledgeable, nor do I want to take away from the contributions those helicopters and their crews made over there. But when a parter nation whose Air Force operates the same helicopter arrives at that conclusion it’s pretty damning.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RedFive said:


> Certainly. And I’m by no means an expert or even casually knowledgeable, nor do I want to take away from the contributions those helicopters and their crews made over there. But when a parter nation whose Air Force operates the same helicopter arrives at that conclusion it’s pretty damning.


Which helicopter are you talking about the Mi-17 or the Griffon?


----------



## Dana381

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t let the facts get in the way of a (well, multiple) hollow, unfulfilled election promise(s).  “Canada’s back” sound good to the non-critically thinking millennial Neo-liberals who eat up Trudeau’s virtuous, inspirational, buzz-word laced self-backslapping that makes them feel good as they sip $5 Starbucks lattés.




About half way through I started reading this in Ron James voice, now I want to go watch his show again?

🍻


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> I think it is probably less technically challenging than a V-22 Osprey.


I thought the V-22 was much easier to fly the any other helos I had flown before!



OldSolduer said:


> OK the crayon eater has another a few questions: how difficult would this thing be to fly? Maintenance would be an issue maybe? How airworthy is something like this?



If an aircraft is certified by an airworthiness authority, or is given a flight permit, it is airworthy (in a limited fashion when on a flight permit).  Airworthy means « safe to fly ».


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> I thought the V-22 was much easier to fly the any other helos I had flown before!


Probably because the flight controls were designed primarily by fixed-wing folks.  A friend who flew 22s for VMX-1 regularly cursed the control quadrant and the forward/down=power increase, which is of course 180° from helicopter’s collective control…and also counter to human factors conventions when in vertical mode with the nacelles rotated up.  I’ve only flown the 22 sim down in Hurlbert and was not a fan of the controls.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> I thought the V-22 was much easier to fly the any other helos I had flown before!
> 
> 
> 
> If an aircraft is certified by an airworthiness authority, or is given a flight permit, it is airworthy (in a limited fashion when on a flight permit).  Airworthy means « safe to fly ».


I did not mean “technically difficult to fly”, I meant technically difficult to build and maintain.


----------



## RedFive

Colin Parkinson said:


> Which helicopter are you talking about the Mi-17 or the Griffon?


Griffon.


----------



## Dale Denton

You could make the argument that RCAF may be better off getting additional Chinooks instead of investing more into that airframe?

The Chinook has more of a future in it than the Griffon does, simply due to how its sales are still strong, and the industry isn't too focused on developing something to replace it either.

Ideally, we could pay off Bell to stay in Mirabel for at least 3 more decades and buy +115 Bell V-280s to replace Griffons, Cormorants and Cyclones (early). Replaces at least 2 airframes with a new more capable one built in Canada and militarized from the get-go.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't believe you can replace the Cyclones with the Bell V-280. I may be mistaken, but I think that the V-280 wings are fixed, as are the blades of the propellers and cannot fold and pivot over the main airframe so as to be stowable in a ship's hagar. That would simply make the V-280 require way too much real estate on a ship smaller than an aircraft carrier - real estate that cannot be provided by such smaller ship.


----------



## KevinB

LoboCanada said:


> You could make the argument that RCAF may be better off getting additional Chinooks instead of investing more into that airframe?
> 
> The Chinook has more of a future in it than the Griffon does, simply due to how its sales are still strong, and the industry isn't too focused on developing something to replace it either.
> 
> Ideally, we could pay off Bell to stay in Mirabel for at least 3 more decades and buy +115 Bell V-280s to replace Griffons, Cormorants and Cyclones (early). Replaces at least 2 airframes with a new more capable one built in Canada and militarized from the get-go.


I would accept the UH-1Y "Venom" as a good Griffon 'upgrade' - similar airframe, with a great deal more capability.

 My personal belief is Canada needs 3-4 Sqn of Chinooks, 3-4 Sqn of AH, and about 20 Sqn of L/M UH to support all the CF's needs
  AH-1Y, UH-1Y, and V-280's could be done by Bell  - and Being continues on the Hooks in the USA.
*I also think the CF needs to stick Vertical Lift Forces into it's own Command - and then OPCOM Squardons to the Supported element.



Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I don't believe you can replace the Cyclones with the Bell V-280. I may be mistaken, but I think that the V-280 wings are fixed, as are the blades of the propellers and cannot fold and pivot over the main airframe so as to be stowable in a ship's hagar. That would simply make the V-280 require way too much real estate on a ship smaller than an aircraft carrier - real estate that cannot be provided by such smaller ship.


The model that they had at AUSA last year did fold - both wings and rotors.   It packed down to around the size of a Sikorski UH-60
    I believe it might be a model option - not done on a base model.

 But while I am offering what the CF needs, I would say at least 2 Amphibious ships - which offer small deck carrier capabilities.


----------



## suffolkowner

LoboCanada said:


> You could make the argument that RCAF may be better off getting additional Chinooks instead of investing more into that airframe?
> 
> The Chinook has more of a future in it than the Griffon does, simply due to how its sales are still strong, and the industry isn't too focused on developing something to replace it either.
> 
> Ideally, we could pay off Bell to stay in Mirabel for at least 3 more decades and buy +115 Bell V-280s to replace Griffons, Cormorants and Cyclones (early). Replaces at least 2 airframes with a new more capable one built in Canada and militarized from the get-go.


Interesting as I thought we missed an opportunity in Afghanistan along with the Sikorsky situation  to move to a dual fleet of 85/15 Griffons and the rest EH101's. Obviously there would be some challenges as the EH101 is not a direct replacement for the Chinook but at the time we didn't have any and I think the larger mass of airframes would have been beneficial. 28 Marine Helicopters + 14 SAR  + 15 Transport = 57 total EH101's.  With the move to one aircraft I would think we could have squeezed a few more airframes in there say 30/20/20 for 70 easily.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the V-280 folded up diagrams as Kevin mentioned too


----------



## FJAG

suffolkowner said:


> Interesting as I thought we missed an opportunity in Afghanistan along with the Sikorsky situation  to move to a dual fleet of 85/15 Griffons and the rest EH101's. Obviously there would be some challenges as the EH101 is not a direct replacement for the Chinook but at the time we didn't have any and I think the larger mass of airframes would have been beneficial. 28 Marine Helicopters + 14 SAR  + 15 Transport = 57 total EH101's.  With the move to one aircraft I would think we could have squeezed a few more airframes in there say 30/20/20 for 70 easily.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've seen the V-280 folded up diagrams as Kevin mentioned too


But if we'd gone that route in 2008 wouldn't we still be waiting for the first helicopter to be delivered?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

suffolkowner said:


> I'm pretty sure I've seen the V-280 folded up diagrams as Kevin mentioned too




Are you sure, though?  I've seen diagrams of how it can be disassembled and "packed" for transport by C-5 or C-17, but never seen any "self-foldable" model. BTW, such self-folding is definetely another level of mechanical complexity. If it's not required by the Army, I don't see why they would bother including such complexity in a mass produced model.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Are you sure, though?  I've seen diagrams of how it can be disassembled and "packed" for transport by C-5 or C-17, but never seen any "self-foldable" model. BTW, such self-folding is definetely another level of mechanical complexity. If it's not required by the Army, I don't see why they would bother including such complexity in a mass produced model.


The blade fold system is complex and adds both a weight and a disproportionate maintenance penalty. You would never install one on a helicopter unless there was absolutely no other way to do business.


----------



## MilEME09

KevinB said:


> I would accept the UH-1Y "Venom" as a good Griffon 'upgrade' - similar airframe, with a great deal more capability.
> 
> My personal belief is Canada needs 3-4 Sqn of Chinooks, 3-4 Sqn of AH, and about 20 Sqn of L/M UH to support all the CF's needs
> AH-1Y, UH-1Y, and V-280's could be done by Bell  - and Being continues on the Hooks in the USA.
> *I also think the CF needs to stick Vertical Lift Forces into it's own Command - and then OPCOM Squardons to the Supported element.
> 
> 
> The model that they had at AUSA last year did fold - both wings and rotors.   It packed down to around the size of a Sikorski UH-60
> I believe it might be a model option - not done on a base model.
> 
> But while I am offering what the CF needs, I would say at least 2 Amphibious ships - which offer small deck carrier capabilities.


Pretty sure the senate defense committee came to a similar conclusion years ago. Being a nation surrounded by three oceans and a close ally, I have stated many times I believe any expansion in the CAF should be in the airforce and the navy.


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> Interesting as I thought we missed an opportunity in Afghanistan along with the Sikorsky situation  to move to a dual fleet of 85/15 Griffons and the rest EH101's. Obviously there would be some challenges as the EH101 is not a direct replacement for the Chinook but at the time we didn't have any and I think the larger mass of airframes would have been beneficial. 28 Marine Helicopters + 14 SAR  + 15 Transport = 57 total EH101's.  With the move to one aircraft I would think we could have squeezed a few more airframes in there say 30/20/20 for 70 easily.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've seen the V-280 folded up diagrams as Kevin mentioned too


???

Are you saying divest the Chinooks and replace them with EH-101s? 🤔

Perhaps you hadn’t notice, but that ship sailed far, far away almost 30 years ago.  Your pan-fleet ‘savings’ would never in 100 years be made up with the loss of expended capital on the CH-147F and CH-148.  The operational capability loss by watering down (true) heavy lift to less than half the capacity at the best of times is another consideration why trying to go backwards by decades is a horrible idea.

Oh, and there’s no way in Hell that the current Government would even consider tarnishing Jean Chrétien’s legacy by directly opposing his actions of almost 30 years ago.

Last bit is the consideration that even the UK doesn’t put its EH-101’s very far from sea level.   A good friend in the RAF flew both Chinooks and Merlins (Hooks in AFG and both in IRQ) and he said the only thing good about the Merlin is it’s smoothness, compared to the ‘Chinny.’

If anything, the out of box option would be to decommission the Cormorant, and roll CMLU funds into a capital procurement of additional CH-147Fs, whack a rescue hoist and weather radar on them, and end of with a tandem back in RWSAR, a Labrador-on-steroids, if you will.

$0.02


----------



## KevinB

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Are you sure, though?  I've seen diagrams of how it can be disassembled and "packed" for transport by C-5 or C-17, but never seen any "self-foldable" model. BTW, such self-folding is definetely another level of mechanical complexity. If it's not required by the Army, I don't see why they would bother including such complexity in a mass produced model.





SeaKingTacco said:


> The blade fold system is complex and adds both a weight and a disproportionate maintenance penalty. You would never install one on a helicopter unless there was absolutely no other way to do business.


USSOCOM requirements.
   I don't think it is "self fold", at least not based on that was shown - but quickly convertible.
 Which is why I think that version was an "optional" variant.
    It is much easier to put a CLIN Variant as part of a contract - I wouldn't expect that most of the bird would require it - but for those who would have that requirement - you get the benefits of getting a larger fleet support for a high amount of components.



*and I blame autocorrect for changing Boeing into Being in my above post...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quickly convertible is definitely not the same as "self-folding" and at sea, it makes a world of difference. You would still need techs to go crawling up and down the bird to carry out some disassembling or folding ... and I can tell you they ain't doing that on a HAL flight deck in sea state 3 and above.

Another strike against using the V-280 in a ASW shipboard version would also be its inability to operate in just about any  sea state other than 0 or 1. Anyone who has seen a helicopter trap on a frigate or destroyer in high sea state knows that while the helicopter stays horizontal during the winch down, the ship rolls under it, raising one side of the flight deck then the other in relation to the horizontal plane, with the rotor tips having the potential to hit the deck edge or get tangled in the safety netting that surrounds the flight deck. The V-280 having wings and then large rotors becomes extremely wide in relation to the width of the ship, greatly increasing those same risks even at a small level of rolling. Landing would quickly become impossible even at what is otherwise considered (for standard helicopters) a fairly routine level of rolling.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Quickly convertible is definitely not the same as "self-folding" and at sea, it makes a world of difference. You would still need techs to go crawling up and down the bird to carry out some disassembling or folding ... and I can tell you they ain't doing that on a HAL flight deck in sea state 3 and above.
> 
> Another strike against using the V-280 in a ASW shipboard version would also be its inability to operate in just about any  sea state other than 0 or 1. Anyone who has seen a helicopter trap on a frigate or destroyer in high sea state knows that while the helicopter stays horizontal during the winch down, the ship rolls under it, raising one side of the flight deck then the other in relation to the horizontal plane, with the rotor tips having the potential to hit the deck edge or get tangled in the safety netting that surrounds the flight deck. The V-280 having wings and then large rotors becomes extremely wide in relation to the width of the ship, greatly increasing those same risks even at a small level of rolling. Landing would quickly become impossible even at what is otherwise considered (for standard helicopters) a fairly routine level of rolling.


That is not exactly how it works.

On a frigate sized vessel, the helicopter will stay in the high hover well away from the deck, waiting for the quiescent period  (also known as the steady deck that occurs every 15-45 seconds  and lasts  for 5-10 secs in virtually any sea state that  I have ever seen). Only when the deck is more or less level, will the helicopter descend to attempt the trap. There really is no point where your rotor tips should be anywhere close to the deck/nets.


----------



## suffolkowner

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Are you sure, though?  I've seen diagrams of how it can be disassembled and "packed" for transport by C-5 or C-17, but never seen any "self-foldable" model. BTW, such self-folding is definetely another level of mechanical complexity. If it's not required by the Army, I don't see why they would bother including such complexity in a mass produced model.


looking at some from google it looks like just models and cgi stuff






						GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information
					






					www.globalsecurity.org


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> ???
> 
> Are you saying divest the Chinooks and replace them with EH-101s? 🤔
> 
> Perhaps you hadn’t notice, but that ship sailed far, far away almost 30 years ago.  Your pan-fleet ‘savings’ would never in 100 years be made up with the loss of expended capital on the CH-147F and CH-148.  The operational capability loss by watering down (true) heavy lift to less than half the capacity at the best of times is another consideration why trying to go backwards by decades is a horrible idea.
> 
> Oh, and there’s no way in Hell that the current Government would even consider tarnishing Jean Chrétien’s legacy by directly opposing his actions of almost 30 years ago.
> 
> Last bit is the consideration that even the UK doesn’t put its EH-101’s very far from sea level.   A good friend in the RAF flew both Chinooks and Merlins (Hooks in AFG and both in IRQ) and he said the only thing good about the Merlin is it’s smoothness, compared to the ‘Chinny.’
> 
> If anything, the out of box option would be to decommission the Cormorant, and roll CMLU funds into a capital procurement of additional CH-147Fs, whack a rescue hoist and weather radar on them, and end of with a tandem back in RWSAR, a Labrador-on-steroids, if you will.
> 
> $0.02


NO I meant before we bought the CH-147F's. The timing doesn't really work out though as you are looking at 2009 for the Chinooks I believe and the CH-148's didn't hit the fan really until 2013. 

Instead we have a true micro fleet of heavy lift helicopters and two micro fleets of one off medium lift helicopters.


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:


> NO I meant before we bought the CH-147F's. The timing doesn't really work out though as you are looking at 2009 for the Chinooks I believe and the CH-148's didn't hit the fan really until 2013.
> 
> Instead we have a true micro fleet of heavy lift helicopters and two micro fleets of one off medium lift helicopters.


If anything we should invest in CH-53K or more chinooks for heavy lift. The 53K could also make a good Griffon replacement, can carry a lot, and go the distance, keep it navalized which would benefit us if we ever got into the LHD game.


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:


> If anything we should invest in CH-53K or more chinooks for heavy lift. The 53K could also make a good Griffon replacement, can carry a lot, and go the distance, keep it navalized which would benefit us if we ever got into the LHD game.


I don't disagree that more chinooks would be good.  The 53 seems a little big for a Griffon replacement. The Chinook might make a good SAR helicopter but expensive?


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> NO I meant before we bought the CH-147F's. The timing doesn't really work out though as you are looking at 2009 for the Chinooks I believe and the CH-148's didn't hit the fan really until 2013.
> 
> Instead we have a true micro fleet of heavy lift helicopters and two micro fleets of one off medium lift helicopters.


True that there was actually a small window in the 91-92 period where there was consideration of adding in 15 NTH to the 50 (35+15) NSA-NSH program, but Chrétien killed it, so it really doesn’t do much good now to try and imagine ‘what could have been’…we could have also accepted the US AH-1S gift in the 80s when the US was downsizing in European forces and costed it as being cheaper to gift the Cobras to Camada to replace the OH-58A Kiowas than to ship them back home to stick them in Davis-Monthan…but, like the free offer of surplus C-141 Starlifters we turned down just before that, we continued muddling on. 

I’m intrigued by your characterization of the Chinooks as a micro-fleet…to the US with 600+ Chinooks, perhaps micro is right.  For Canada, it’s twice as big as the original C-models, 2-1/2 times as big as the D-models we flew in AFG, and has proven itself quite capably.  What are the other “micro” fleets you mention?  Cormorant and Cyclone?  Cyclone I’ll give you, but the CH-149 is a 101-rose by another name.

Question for you then, how big does a fleet have to be before it’s not micro (assuming you’re using micro in a negative sense)?


----------



## dapaterson

If the CH149 was a 101 by another name, we wouldn't have to waste YFR to retrain pilots after they recert on overseas 101 simulators.

The RCAF's refusal to insist on sims as part of every aircraft acquisition (and multiple sims for fleets dispersed nationally) is a head scratcher.  Almost as if they want aircrew to fly from Victoria to Vancouver to Calgary to Hamilton to Moncton to Montreal to Halifax and back, several times a year.


----------



## Good2Golf

Griffon is a doctrinal UTTH…like a Black Hawk…or UH-1Y…or NH-90…or Super Puma/Caracal…or AW169…or the FLV FLRAA (V-280 or Defiant X).  A King Stallion is so far away from a UTTH type helicopter that only the Mi-26 is a more insane proposal for replacement.  So let’s take the CH-53K’s projected 2022 fly-away cost of 94M USD and multiply by 2.5 for an estimated 29-year life-cycle cost, and multiply by an average of 1.25 FOREX to CAD and multiply by 85 aircraft (since it seems replacing Griffon with the King Stallion to give the same numbers of utility helos across the various RCAF squadrons currently equipped with Griffon, then we get…

$24.97 Billion (CAD).   

Perhaps we risk having a ‘micro-fleet’ of 53Ks and only get…say, 15 for a cool $4.4 Billion…which seems like….a really bad idea…I mean, beyond giving each current Griffon squadron just two, or maybe three CH-53Ks.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> If the CH149 was a 101 by another name, we wouldn't have to waste YFR to retrain pilots after they recert on overseas 101 simulators.
> 
> The RCAF's refusal to insist on sims as part of every aircraft acquisition (and multiple sims for fleets dispersed nationally) is a head scratcher.  Almost as if they want aircrew to fly from Victoria to Vancouver to Calgary to Hamilton to Moncton to Montreal to Halifax and back, several times a year.


I wouldn’t be quick to blame project staff for wanting to facilitate aircrew swanning across country to some great resort like….Greenwood, as the cause of all things unsustainable where Cormorant is concerned.   

Historically, Chretien…errr…PMO…umm…TBS… MND capped the Cormorant program at $650M.  That’s why they only got 15…and no FSims…and no other critical capabilities, like thermal sensors…that would have been helpful in finding warm things…like people (at least if they were still alive to be found).


----------



## Good2Golf

Here’s my proposal:

1. Don’t reinvent the wheel.

2. Decide to align either with Uncle Sam…or the Euros.

  2.a. Pursue FVL if Uncle Sam.

  2.b. Pursue NATO NGRC if Euros.

3. Conduct a practical, in-service extension program for both the Cormorant and Griffon, but to bridge until FLV/NGRC comes on line, not to re-capitalize existing fleets (149/146) for long-duration permanence.

4. Don’t mess with Cyclone and Chinook, other than start planning now for their respective mid-life programs - Hook should last until 2050 with modest midlife….it’s like a rotor-winged B-52…it’s design is ubiquitous- don’t f*** with it. 148…we’re into it now, it’ll be quite decent once it’s fully 2.0 capable.  The effort wasted to frig with either won’t be worth the incremental spending to get something else.


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> True that there was actually a small window in the 91-92 period where there was consideration of adding in 15 NTH to the 50 (35+15) NSA-NSH program, but Christine killed it, so it really doesn’t do much good now to try and imagine ‘what could have been’…we could have also accepted the US AH-1S gift in the 80s when the US was downsizing in European forces and costed it as being cheaper to gift the Cobras to Camada to replace the OH-58A Kiowas than to ship them back home to stick them in Davis-Monthan…but, like the free offer of surplus C-141 Starlifters we turned down just before that, we continued muddling on.
> 
> I’m intrigued by your characterization of the Chinooks as a micro-fleet…to the US with 600+ Chinooks, perhaps micro is right.  For Canada, it’s twice as big as the original C-models, 2-1/2 times as big as the D-models we flew in AFG, and has proven itself quite capably.  What are the other “micro” fleets you mention?  Cormorant and Cyclone?  Cyclone I’ll give you, but the CH-149 is a 101-rose by another name.
> 
> Question for you then, how big does a fleet have to be before it’s not micro (assuming you’re using micro in a negative sense)?


15 CH-147
14 CH-149
27 CH-148

seem like pretty small fleets to me. The Comorant may not be quite the orphan that the Cyclone is, but my understanding was that it is or was a fairly unique offering that Canada went with probably part of the reason Leonardo's upgrade cost so much. 

The ship has sailed I think as far as fleet rationalization is concerned at this point, although there's lots of opportunity for failure here yet.

The V-280 and SB-Defiant look to offer a quantum leap forward in capability but maybe too complex and expensive for the RCAF but I hope I'm wrong. But are the V-280 and SB-Defiant good replacements for the CH-146, CH-149, and CH-148?


----------



## Good2Golf

Only the 148 is what I’d call a micro fleet, because those are the only ones on the planet.

147…ours are part of the larger family of close to 1000.  Common user group support rounds out what we don’t do uniquely ourselves.

149, same as 147 but about a 200 units globally.

So how big do you think each of those fleets would have to be to be a better use of taxpayers money?

To answer your last question, if I was king for a day, I’d pick FVL/FLRAA to replace the 146, either one, they’re both excellent aircraft…perhaps leaning towards the 280.  I would buy more 147s to replace the 149…start point 1:1 replacement, but if pressed, I’d buy less than 1:1, keep them all green (yellow is a logistical waste of assets and not needed for the rescuing aircraft, more the rescuee) to keep them rotatable.  There are already four (4) FSims, 3 for pilots and one for cabin aircrew/gunnery sim, in Petawawa…in a pinch could deploy the deployable FSim to Comox, if it wasn’t already deployed out of country with a 147 detachment.  For the 148?  Like I said upthread…leave it alone and stop trying to replace it. Finish off the investing in it to make it one of the most capable MH to date, and get on with working it into a solid, capable machine that will help the CPF limp along until CSC comes in line.


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> 15 CH-147
> 14 CH-149
> 27 CH-148
> 
> seem like pretty small fleets to me. The Comorant may not be quite the orphan that the Cyclone is, but my understanding was that it is or was a fairly unique offering that Canada went with probably part of the reason Leonardo's upgrade cost so much.
> 
> The ship has sailed I think as far as fleet rationalization is concerned at this point, although there's lots of opportunity for failure here yet.
> 
> The V-280 and SB-Defiant look to offer a quantum leap forward in capability but maybe too complex and expensive for the RCAF but I hope I'm wrong. But are the V-280 and SB-Defiant good replacements for the CH-146, CH-149, and CH-148?




Get Bell to deliver 4 Valors on a "try before you buy" lease.  If we like them we can keep them and order more.   Find out what we can do with them.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> Get Bell to deliver 4 Valors on a "try before you buy" lease.  If we like them we can keep them and order more.   Find out what we can do with them.


You mean actually let our pilots get ahold of the kit to get their opinions before we buy? We don't do that here


----------



## SupersonicMax

MilEME09 said:


> You mean actually let our pilots get ahold of the kit to get their opinions before we buy? We don't do that here


We actually do that.  It’s called and Initial Operational Assessment.  We did it for the FWSAR project.  We had pilots fly the C-27 and CASA 295.


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> Only the 148 is what I’d call a micro fleet, because those are the only ones on the planet.
> 
> 147…ours are part of the larger family of close to 1000.  Common user group support rounds out what we don’t do uniquely ourselves.
> 
> 149, same as 147 but about a 200 units globally.
> 
> So how big do you think each of those fleets would have to be to be a better use of taxpayers money?
> 
> To answer your last question, if I was king for a day, I’d pick FLV/FLRAA to replace the 146, either one, they’re both excellent aircraft…perhaps leaning towards the 280.  I would buy more 147s to replace the 149…start point 1:1 replacement, but if pressed, I’d buy less than 1:1, keep them all green (yellow is a logistical waste of assets and not needed for the rescuing aircraft, more the rescuee) to keep them rotatable.  There are already four (4) FSims, 3 for pilots and one for cabin aircrew/gunnery sim, in Petawawa…in a pinch could deploy the deployable FSim to Comox, if it wasn’t already deployed out of country with a 147 detachment.  For the 148?  Like I said upthread…leave it alone and stop trying to replace it. Finish off the investing in it to make it one of the most capable MH to date, and get in with working it into a solid, cap le machine that will help the CPF limp along until CSC comes in line.


If the RCAF can maintain them then its not a problem but all I hear from my Army buddies is the difficulties they have had with their "micro" fleets which are huge in comparison. I have read much the same numerous times on this site. The RCAF itself doesn't want to operate more than fighter plane but operates 4 helicopter fleets with 3 of them less than 30 airframes and still doesn't have an attack or recce capability


----------



## Good2Golf

You’re not answering the question as to what then, is a ‘sustainable’ fleet size?



> If the RCAF can maintain them then its not a problem but all I hear from my Army buddies is the difficulties they have had with their "micro" fleets which are huge in comparison.



A Navy buddy of mine told me how bad the Army was at sustaining the TLAVs, Leo2s and the MSVS, and that about the only vehicle
working out well is the TAPV….



…see how that sounds?

The Army…ie. the organization that was in charge of providing procurement funding for tactical aviation up until 1994?  You mean the organization where Comd FMC accordingly approved the ‘divest Chinook’ order in 1991, and bought off on Marcel Masse’s plan to buy 100 Bell 412 in 1992?

“Alex, I’ll take ‘Organizations not to trust with your livelihood’ for $800…”


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Only the 148 is what I’d call a micro fleet, because those are the only ones on the planet.
> 
> 147…ours are part of the larger family of close to 1000.  Common user group support rounds out what we don’t do uniquely ourselves.
> 
> 149, same as 147 but about a 200 units globally.
> 
> So how big do you think each of those fleets would have to be to be a better use of taxpayers money?
> 
> To answer your last question, if I was king for a day, I’d pick FLV/FLRAA to replace the 146, either one, they’re both excellent aircraft…perhaps leaning towards the 280.  I would buy more 147s to replace the 149…start point 1:1 replacement, but if pressed, I’d buy less than 1:1, keep them all green (yellow is a logistical waste of assets and not needed for the rescuing aircraft, more the rescuee) to keep them rotatable.  There are already four (4) FSims, 3 for pilots and one for cabin aircrew/gunnery sim, in Petawawa…in a pinch could deploy the deployable FSim to Comox, if it wasn’t already deployed out of country with a 147 detachment.  For the 148?  Like I said upthread…leave it alone and stop trying to replace it. Finish off the investing in it to make it one of the most capable MH to date, and get in with working it into a solid, cap le machine that will help the CPF limp along until CSC comes in line.




G2G

Where does Bell Textron stand on a non-ITAR, commercial variant of the technology?


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> If the RCAF can maintain them then its not a problem but all I hear from my Army buddies is the difficulties they have had with their "micro" fleets which are huge in comparison. I have read much the same numerous times on this site. The RCAF itself doesn't want to operate more than fighter plane but operates 4 helicopter fleets with 3 of them less than 30 airframes and still doesn't have an attack or recce capability


It also operates 4 Twin Otters, 4 Challengers, 5 Globemasters, 5 A310-300s, 15 Buffalos, 17+ Hercs.   It also operates Jet Rangers, Hawks, Harvards and Tutors.

Micro-Fleet Management seems to be an RCAF specialty.





__





						List of active Canadian military aircraft - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> You’re not answering the question as to what then, is a ‘sustainable’ fleet size?
> 
> 
> 
> A Navy buddy of mine told me how bad the Army was at sustaining the TLAVs, Leo2s and the MSVS, and that about the only vehicle
> working out well is the TAPV….
> 
> 
> 
> …see how that sounds?
> 
> The Army…ie. the organization that was in charge of providing procurement funding for tactical aviation up until 1994?  You mean the organization where Comd FMC accordingly approved the ‘divest Chinook’ order in 1991, and bought off on Marcel Masse’s plan to buy 100 Bell 412 in 1992?
> 
> “Alex, I’ll take ‘Organizations not to trust with your livelihood’ for $800…”


Yep I'm going on hearsay. 75% of which I've read on here. The RCAF itself says it can't afford to run 2 fighter jet fleets. I don't have access to the numbers what are the CPFH? What are the sustainability numbers? What are the maintabiity numbers? 

I'm sure there's some work out there on sustainable fleet sizes from the commercial world, I'm just not familiar with them. I've maintained lot's of truely orphan fleets over the decades down to complete one offs. I could also get same day or next day parts. If the RCAF doesn't have any issues on that account by all means continue and add 15 Lakota's and 15 Apaches. I've always strived for commonality and fleet rationalization if at all possible, although there are limits to how far you can stretch a platform, obviously.


----------



## suffolkowner

Kirkhill said:


> It also operates 4 Twin Otters, 4 Challengers, 5 Globemasters, 5 A310-300s, 15 Buffalos, 17+ Hercs.   It also operates Jet Rangers, Hawks, Harvards and Tutors.
> 
> Micro-Fleet Management seems to be an RCAF specialty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of active Canadian military aircraft - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


True, and maybe they're good at it. Do they do it on purpose though?
Do we actually think we're better off with 14 Comorants and 27 Cyclones than the original order Chretien cancelled?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> If the CH149 was a 101 by another name, we wouldn't have to waste YFR to retrain pilots after they recert on overseas 101 simulators.
> 
> The RCAF's refusal to insist on sims as part of every aircraft acquisition (and multiple sims for fleets dispersed nationally) is a head scratcher.  Almost as if they want aircrew to fly from Victoria to Vancouver to Calgary to Hamilton to Moncton to Montreal to Halifax and back, several times a year.


It was not the line aircrew that traded away the Cyclone Flight Sim for Victoria, I can assure you.

When Projects get unrealistic and artificial politically imposed caps, this is what happens.


----------



## dapaterson

There have been opportunities post project to address some (not all) of these issues, which were not pursued aggressively by senior leadership.

Almost as if we have too many interim layers between the operational squadrons and the command suite of the RCAF, so those requirements get filtered out.  (Not a problem unique to the RCAF.)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> There have been opportunities post project to address some (not all) of these issues, which were not pursued aggressively by senior leadership.
> 
> Almost as if we have too many interim layers between the operational squadrons and the command suite of the RCAF, so those requirements get filtered out.  (Not a problem unique to the RCAF.)


Not wrong. Does not help when a certain Comd 12 Wing, who never served on the west coast,  says “no, really, we will be fine with 443 Sqn racking up the air miles for all eternity”. Or words to that effect…


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> There have been opportunities post project to address some (not all) of these issues, which were not pursued aggressively by senior leadership.
> 
> Almost as if we have too many interim layers between the operational squadrons and the command suite of the RCAF, so those requirements get filtered out.  (Not a problem unique to the RCAF.)


You forgot the ever-helpfulness of very senior civilians and their seconded military members, in the process.  The RCAF certainly should eat operationally-myopic issues.  Strat/Departmental constraints?  Yeah, like a DM-enabled ADM really has to put up with pesky operators’ input. SKT’s point about a WComd of the day illuminates the case of damage that can occur when an old boy member of an operational community who got more than a rank or two beyond competency, plays god as best they can.

It is absolutely a two-way street inside of the Department, and I think many like to believe that military peons have more power than they truly do, doing the peoples’/Government’s bidding.

I personally saw the vehemence of the constraints imposed on the Canadian Sesrch Helicopter capital project back in 95-97, and is was nowhere near operators saying they didn’t need an FSim in Camada, and years later, I personally watched a colleague get the same treatment in MHP…


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> You forgot the ever-helpfulness of very senior civilians and their seconded military members, in the process.  The RCAF certainly should eat operationally-myopic issues.  Strat/Departmental constraints?  Yeah, like a DM-enabled ADM really has to put up with pesky operators’ input.
> 
> It is absolutely a two-way street inside of the Department, and I think many like to believe that military peons have more power than they truly do, doing the peoples’/Government’s bidding.
> 
> I personally saw the vehemence of the constraints imposed on the Canadian Sesrch Helicopter capital project back in 95-97, and is was nowhere near operators saying they didn’t need an FSim in Camada, and years later, I personally watched a colleague get the same treatment in MHP…


And don’t get me started on the “efficiency analysts” who pointed out what a waste a Flight Sim would be, if only utilized to 40% capacity.

Tell me again what the opportunity cost is for 50(ish) aircrew to spend a minimum of two weeks per year in Shearwater, on top of sea going deployments?


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> G2G
> 
> Where does Bell Textron stand on a non-ITAR, commercial variant of the technology?


As far as I know at this point, V-280 is definitely going to be ITAR for some time.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> As far as I know at this point, V-280 is definitely going to be ITAR for some time.


I thought I remembered seeing some company literature discussing the promotion of a civil/commercial version of the technology.  

Techi-Color false memories again?


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> And don’t get me started on the “efficiency analysts” who pointed out what a waste a Flight Sim would be, if only utilized to 40% capacity.
> 
> Tell me again what the opportunity cost is for 50(ish) aircrew to spend a minimum of two weeks per year in Shearwater, on top of sea going deployments?


I’d blame it entirely in DCostS and the wonderfully types like JZ, but that particular flavour of infinitesimal introspection hadn’t been born yet…I will say that I think when the window was open for flexibility, it slammed shut with higher-level, it’s done, move on-like force that overtook the operational downside and time and monetary cost impact of a single sim.  It was definitely oroject-specific because I have it in good authority that at the same time, another fleet project was pitching and got four sims in one location (1/4 was/is deployable but C-130 to any theatre of operations).


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> I’d blame it entirely in DCostS and the wonderfully types like JZ, but that particular flavour of infinitesimal introspection hadn’t been born yet…I will say that I think when the window was open for flexibility, it slammed shut with higher-level, it’s done, move on-like force that overtook the operational downside and time and monetary cost impact of a single sim.  It was definitely oroject-specific because I have it in good authority that at the same time, another fleet project was pitching and got four sims in one location (1/4 was/is deployable but C-130 to any theatre of operations).


I would take a sea can sim, in a heartbeat…


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> I thought I remembered seeing some company literature discussing the promotion of a civil/commercial version of the technology.
> 
> Techi-Color false memories again?


AW 690


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> AW 690


Thanks


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Thanks


¡De Nada!  (Autocorrect ruined my accurate AW609 with an incorrect 690….)


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> ¡De Nada!  (Autocorrect ruined my accurate AW609 with an incorrect 690….)


Found it anyway.  (Autocorrect corrected it back - 2 wrongs do make a right).


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> As far as I know at this point, V-280 is definitely going to be ITAR for some time.


I am sure Bell will kick out a commercial bird based on it - but without stuff that a Military would want in a bird.
   The question is would there be any takers (at least on a commercially feasible scale).

I tend to doubt it - as the tangible benefits won't outweigh the costs for a commercial operator, at least for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Good2Golf

I don’t think there is enough margin to make it worth it to them. With electric-powered Advanced Air Mobility (drone taxis) coming in strong, for shorter range commuting, I’m not sure there’s an aching hole where a tilt-to rot would displace any other means of transport.   That’s why they (Bell) let the 609 program drift over to Leonardo.  Textron Mothership is focused big-time in FLRAA.  That’s where the $$$ is, as far as Texteon is concerned (we’ll, that and shilling TAPVs around the world… 😉)


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> I don’t think there is enough margin to make it worth it to them. With electric-powered Advanced Air Mobility (drone taxis) coming in strong, for shorter range commuting, I’m not sure there’s an aching hole where a tilt-to rot would displace any other means of transport.   That’s why they (Bell) let the 609 program drift over to Leonardo.  Textron Mothership is focused big-time in FLRAA.  That’s where the $$$ is, as far as Texteon is concerned (we’ll, that and shilling TAPVs around the world… 😉)


I am sure if it wins FVL - it will drive a lot of FMS, and certain folks with massive pockets will want their own clone...

Now for my cynical outlook - doesn't the 360 Invictus have a very Comanche look/feel to it


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Now for my cynical outlook - doesn't the 360 Invictus have a very Comanche look/feel to it


Nope….TOTALLY different…not recycling any technology already paid by US DoD to make more profit now…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Nope….TOTALLY different…not recycling any technology already paid by US DoD to make more profit now…
> 
> 
> View attachment 66998


For the rest who maybe didn't get that.

RAH-66 Comache  









						Bell 360 - Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA)
					

Always ready. The future fight requires increased range, speed, agility and lethality. It requires seamless coordination between Army aviation and the maneuver force. It requires persistence, fearlessness, and must own the information domain. The Bell 360 Invictus delivers the U.S. Army’s...




					www.bellflight.com


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I am sure Bell will kick out a commercial bird based on it - but without stuff that a Military would want in a bird.
> The question is would there be any takers (at least on a commercially feasible scale).
> 
> I tend to doubt it - as the tangible benefits won't outweigh the costs for a commercial operator, at least for the foreseeable future.



In a Canadian context, where Twin Otters are still found to have utility, as do civilian helicopters, moving people around would seem to be the first priority.  And developing pilots and users that know the capabilities and limits of the technology.

Before anybody starts to worry about people shooting at them.



3 or 4 "commercial" "non-ITAR" models  (MilCOTs if you will) and a couple of bells and whistles military squadrons.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> In a Canadian context, where Twin Otters are still found to have utility, as do civilian helicopters, moving people around would seem to be the first priority.  And developing pilots and users that know the capabilities and limits of the technology.
> 
> Before anybody starts to worry about people shooting at them.
> 
> 
> 
> 3 or 4 "commercial" "non-ITAR" models  (MilCOTs if you will) and a couple of bells and whistles military squadrons.


To be argumentative  

I don't see the TWOT to be a good comparison - 

Plus don't get me started on MILCOTS - I think the CF got hosed with those.


  The Airframe is a Military design - it has a lot of those bells and whistles built in so when people are shooting at it it doesn't spontaneously combust.
   While you could strip out part of the avionics package, AC built in Weapon power (miniguns), fire control systems, and TFR and other augments - it's still going to be pricey - 
Given the design of the rotors - I am not sure trying to find a "cheaper design" would be cheaper due to additional stresses they take, and the R&D costs to find out.

 I am sure it could be done - but the costs would be significant and Bell would need guaranteed sales of those to justify it.


----------



## Good2Golf

DE-MILSPEC is for sure going to be more expensive than “militarized.”  Taking KevinB’s point to the here and now, there is no large commercial tilt rotor now, so at best you could militarize the AW609 to conduct scout-type tasks.  De-militarizing a V-280 (or V-22 even), only to re-militarize it doesn’t make a who lot of sense…except if SNC Lavelin proposes doing that to the current GoC…then I could see someone trying to explain why it would make sense…


----------



## Kirkhill

I understand both of you.   And it makes sense.  

I guess we'll just have to wait until I'm in the ground before we start seeing VTOLs taking the place of Twotters and snowy gravel runways.

As to the MilCOTS thing, hosed or not, I'd sooner have something than nothing.


----------



## Good2Golf

I think the Twotter will even outlast this year’s recruits entering the CAF…

Re: MILCOTS…yeah, and it depends the platform.  Having both Griffon and Twin Huey time, I gotta say the Griffon as essentially a MILCOTS aircraft, got some tough press, but I’d still to this day take it over the Huey. It (Griffon) is what it is - but except for doing airshows and bringing the occasional tear to a Vietnam Vet’s eye at a flyover, the Huey would be #2 every time in my books.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> I think the Twotter will even outlast this year’s recruits entering the CAF…
> 
> Re: MILCOTS…yeah, and it depends the platform.  Having both Griffon and Twin Huey time, I gotta say the Griffon as essentially a MILCOTS aircraft, got some tough press, but I’d still to this day take it over the Huey. It (Griffon) is what it is - but except for doing airshows and bringing the occasional tear to a Vietnam Vet’s eye at a flyover, the Huey would be #2 every time in my books.


Huey can be deceptive thought  -as the Griffon is still a Huey (Bell 412),  as was the UH-1N (CH-135 Twin Huey) and the UH-1H (CH-118 Iroquois).
   I'll default to your expertise in the seat - but since we are talking about Huey's - this would have been a much be a better version for the CF 








						Bell UH-1Y - The Ultimate Utility Helicopter
					

Perform under punishing conditions. The Bell UH-1Y combines combat-proven power with dependable components—arming you for the toughest missions.




					www.bellflight.com


----------



## Good2Golf

And I’d take the Y over a 412 as well…just that it wasn’t an option at the time.  Ironically, the Y is more Black Hawk (and Cobra) than Huey.  The share the same T700 engines and similar transmission other equivalent components. 

Fun fact:  the only components actually retained from the Marines’ UH-1Ns?  The tail pedals and small side cargo door. USMC for the “O&M refresh” win.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> And I’d take the Y over a 412 as well…just that it wasn’t an option at the time.  Ironically, the Y is more Black Hawk (and Cobra) than Huey.  The share the same T700 engines and similar transmission other equivalent components.
> 
> Fun fact:  the only components actually retained from the Marines’ UH-1Ns?  The tail pedals and small side cargo door. USMC for the “O&M refresh” win.


Lets not announce the Cobra compatibility aspects -- I want the RCAF to get Y's so an enterprising Squadron can assemble a few Z's from spare parts


----------



## Kirkhill

Enterprise is a great thing.








The Helicopter.

A powerpack with stuff bolted on.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> Enterprise is a great thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Helicopter.
> 
> A powerpack with stuff bolted on.




S'funny!  Do we really need to bolt on a pilot?







Pilot and Co-Pilot and Gunners with armoured seats.  Or.  More fuel, ammunition, missiles, and guns.

Optionally manned Griffons?


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Enterprise is a great thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Helicopter.
> 
> A powerpack with stuff bolted on.


Looks like some industrious staff officers got a hold of some MOTS hardware from…CFD (the ‘plank’), GDAS (GAU-19 .50 Vulcan) and LMCO (AGM-114 Hellfire) to make a static proof of concept system-of-systems.  They probably had the numbers worked out with BHTC to confirm the viability of the concept… 🤔


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Looks like some industrious staff officers got a hold of some MOTS hardware from…CFD (the ‘plank’), GDAS (GAU-19/A .50 Vulcan) and LMCO (AGM-114 Hellfire) to make a static proof of concept system-of-systems.  They probably had the numbers worked out with BHTC to confirm the viability of the concept…



All they needed to do next was head down to Radio Shack and by an RC kit, some servo motors and solenoids and they could ditch the crew as well.









						2050.0US $ |Advance Sale 800 Size Airwolf Black Fuselage Helicopter & Mechanik Conversion Kit - Rc Helicopters - AliExpress
					

Smarter Shopping, Better Living!  Aliexpress.com




					www.aliexpress.com
				












Then Kevin and his neat kit could ride in splendid isolation, unbothered by all that chatter from the front seats.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Enterprise is a great thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Helicopter.
> 
> A powerpack with stuff bolted on.


The scares the bejesus out of me 
It appears they have mounted a 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon on that - and I can only imagine the damage to the airframe that will create.

-- the USMC literally ruined their UH-1N's with the M3 .50 (GAU-21) - as the airframe didn't react well to the recoil - and have since opted to keep that on the 53's and mostly go to 7.62 Miniguns on the Huey's - 

 The GAU-19 or Dillions lighter 503D seem to do better than the 21's -  but I've only fired one of those on a GMVW - 

Rockets and Missiles are significantly better tools for attack roles than a 25mm - and don't cause airframe damage - plus knowing what the recoil does to a LAV and Bradley - I can only wonder how a pilot could manage to keep that in the air -


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Looks like some industrious staff officers got a hold of some MOTS hardware from…CFD (the ‘plank’), GDAS (GAU-19 .50 Vulcan) and LMCO (AGM-114 Hellfire) to make a static proof of concept system-of-systems. They probably had the numbers worked out with BHTC to confirm the viability of the concept… 🤔


Uhm - look at the M242 25mm Bushmaster Cannon...


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> The scares the bejesus out of me
> It appears they have mounted a 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon on that - and I can only imagine the damage to the airframe that will create.
> 
> -- the USMC literally ruined their UH-1N's with the M3 .50 (GAU-21) - as the airframe didn't react well to the recoil - and have since opted to keep that on the 53's and mostly go to 7.62 Miniguns on the Huey's -
> 
> The GAU-19 or Dillions lighter 503D seem to do better than the 21's -  but I've only fired one of those on a GMVW -
> 
> Rockets and Missiles are significantly better tools for attack roles than a 25mm - and don't cause airframe damage - plus knowing what the recoil does to a LAV and Bradley - I can only wonder how a pilot could manage to keep that in the air -



I seem to recall a contributor called Loachman making as similar comment about the Minitat mounted on his Kiowa.






But Kev you are looking for the flyshit and ignoring the pepper.

Sure the collection of gear may be sub-optimal.  So choose another toy instead.  There's lots available.  And it is easy to do.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> I seem to recall a contributor called Loachman making as similar comment about the Minitat mounted on his Kiowa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Kev you are looking for the flyshit and ignoring the pepper.
> 
> Sure the collection of gear may be sub-optimal.  So choose another toy instead.  There's lots available.  And it is easy to do.


The Griffon isn't a gunship.
   It's a Bell 412 - it isn't hardened against enemy fire, or have multiple redundant systems as backups.

While I am impressed with the attempt to make a RCAF AH - I believe work could be better spent writing an actual requirement - with justifications that the Griffon isn't the appropriate platform, and showing both an operational and doctrinal need for a real escort AH, as well as support AH for other TacHel operations.

I'm not even a fan of the MH-60 DAP's - and I put the Little Bird into the wannabe AH category too - (and I love the LB's) 

At some point in time you need to accept the fact that you really cannot make an AH out of a commercial helicopter.


----------



## Kirkhill

And as for air frame stresses?

6 pdr / 57 mm anti-tank gun in a plywood aircraft built by piano makers.











						DeHavilland Mosquito FB Mk XVIII "Tsetse"
					

Cannon Fighter-Bomber: Mosquito with 57mm Autocannon [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M00f5RxhxLY[/media]The Molins Gun in the de Havilland MosquitoTHE AIRCRAFT GUN......The RAF then became interested in fitting the Molins Gun in the de Havilland Mosquito, to ...




					forum.warthunder.com
				




Or even






Enterprising Staff Officers.

To their good health!  Slainte!


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> The Griffon isn't a gunship.
> It's a Bell 412 - it isn't hardened against enemy fire, or have multiple redundant systems as backups.
> 
> While I am impressed with the attempt to make a RCAF AH - I believe work could be better spent writing an actual requirement - with justifications that the Griffon isn't the appropriate platform, and showing both an operational and doctrinal need for a real escort AH, as well as support AH for other TacHel operations.
> 
> I'm not even a fan of the MH-60 DAP's - and I put the Little Bird into the wannabe AH category too - (and I love the LB's)
> 
> At some point in time you need to accept the fact that you really cannot make an AH out of a commercial helicopter.




Why do I need to harden the vehicle if it has no crew?  Why do I need redundancy, and the associated weight,  if it is cheap enough that I can afford to build two very light machines?

Just take the existing Griffons, like the US took the existing Kiowas, remove the pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer and gunner, unbolt the armoured seats, remove the redundant systems and add a PLC some servo-motors and solenoids and a couple of cameras.

Who cares if the gun shakes the life out of the air frame.  If you can get 5 missions out of it before spending the next couple of million, so what?


----------



## Dana381

Kirkhill said:


>



This gets my vote for Ground support aircraft, I am not a soldier and it may not be the best for us but it is one BADASS plane!!!


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Why do I need to harden the vehicle if it has no crew?  Why do I need redundancy, and the associated weight,  if it is cheap enough that I can afford to build two very light machines?


Because you don't want it knocked out before it gets to its mission.



Kirkhill said:


> Just take the existing Griffons, like the US took the existing Kiowas, remove the pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer and gunner, unbolt the armoured seats, remove the redundant systems and add a PLC some servo-motors and solenoids and a couple of cameras.


Where then does Canada have TacHel mobility from?



Kirkhill said:


> Who cares if the gun shakes the life out of the air frame.  If you can get 5 missions out of it before spending the next couple of million so what?


I can do the same thing with a few hundred dollar drone and a RC Claymore mine as payload.


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> This gets my vote for Ground support aircraft, I am not a soldier and it may not be the best for us but it is one BADASS plane!!!


It is a fantastic support AC for COIN/OOTW in the night time -- they don't fly during daylight though.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> And as for air frame stresses?
> 
> 6 pdr / 57 mm anti-tank gun in a plywood aircraft built by piano makers.



Planes don't equate to Helicopters @Good2Golf can explain them much better than I.
  But a forward facing gun in an aircraft is directing its energy rearward agains the aircraft thrust - and can be affixed to the fuselage in a manner to spread out the load.
  It is still significant thought - look at an A10 on a firing run - it causes massive decreases in airspeed 

 The Herc is a pretty large platform - apparently use of the 105mm still does cause issues over time.

I've been on MH-60's with the 7.62 M-134 Miniguns are cooking away - you know it - and I've been close enough to USMC N's with the M3 to see how it affects the airframe (they only mounted it on one side - so the pilot does lazy banked circles - and the recoil forces push "up").


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Because you don't want it knocked out before it gets to its mission.
> 
> 
> Where then does Canada have TacHel mobility from?
> 
> 
> I can do the same thing with a few hundred dollar drone and a RC Claymore mine as payload.




Follow a Chinese lead.









						China shows off drones recycled from Soviet-era fighter jets
					

China has for the first time showed off retired 1950s era fighter jets that have been converted to unmanned drones, with satellite photos of two of its east coast bases near Taiwan showing a large number of the jets on site.




					www.defensenews.com
				




Have Bell Textron churn out the cheapest, least survivable Griffon they can in large numbers.
Issue them to the existing TACHEL and CSS Squadrons.
Use them as utility transports until they are down to their last 100 hours of flying time.
Stick a plank and a PLC in them and mount whatever toys you like.  Fill them with claymores if you think that would be a good thing.

Buy lots more cheap, disposable, attritable Griffons.

And buy a few expensive, hardened to within an ounce of their MTOW, aircraft as Command ships and as troop carrying assault craft.

Cats can be skinned many ways.


----------



## Dana381

Kirkhill said:


> Follow a Chinese lead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China shows off drones recycled from Soviet-era fighter jets
> 
> 
> China has for the first time showed off retired 1950s era fighter jets that have been converted to unmanned drones, with satellite photos of two of its east coast bases near Taiwan showing a large number of the jets on site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have Bell Textron churn out the cheapest, least survivable Griffon they can in large numbers.
> Issue them to the existing TACHEL and CSS Squadrons.
> Use them as utility transports until they are down to their last 100 hours of flying time.
> Stick a plank and a PLC in them and mount whatever toys you like.  Fill them with claymores if you think that would be a good thing.
> 
> Buy lots more cheap, disposable, attritable Griffons.
> 
> And buy a few expensive, hardened to within an ounce of their MTOW, aircraft as Command ships and as troop carrying assault craft.
> 
> Cats can be skinned many ways.



That makes too much sense, we NEED a clean sheet design rotary wing UAV with all the latest tech and sensors to protect it from ever getting a scratch.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> I'm not even a fan of the MH-60 DAP's


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Uhm - look at the M242 25mm Bushmaster Cannon...


I hear tell that CFD’s LR-30 (1:06 onwards) is a much better large calibre option than the M242.  I think @Kirkhill may be able to dig up the photo of an LR-30 on a Griffon in place of the GAU-19. 😉

The GAU-19 is a beast, especially on high rate…and a better option for the airframe than the GAU-21 (M3M), IMO.  Its recoil forces transmit through the OMS plank directly into the main structural longerons/stringers, as opposed to angularly through the DAS lugs which introduces tremendous torque moments with little dampening, which is where the Marines’ -1Ns had all the damage.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> I hear tell that CFD’s LR-30 (1:06 onwards) is a much better large calibre option than the M242.  I think @Kirkhill may be able to dig up the photo of an LR-30 on a Griffon in place of the GAU-19. 😉
> 
> The GAU-19 is a beast, especially on high rate…and a better option for the airframe than the GAU-21 (M3M), IMO.  Its recoil forces transmit through the OMS plank directly into the main structural longerons/stringers, as opposed to angularly through the DAS lugs which introduces tremendous torque moments with little dampening, which is where the Marines’ -1Ns had all the damage.



Still looking for the photo.  But came across this thread.






						The Canadian Armed Forces in RD - Page 71 - Eugen Systems Forums
					

Eugen Systems official forums




					forums.eugensystems.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> Kirkhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Follow a Chinese lead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China shows off drones recycled from Soviet-era fighter jets
> 
> 
> China has for the first time showed off retired 1950s era fighter jets that have been converted to unmanned drones, with satellite photos of two of its east coast bases near Taiwan showing a large number of the jets on site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have Bell Textron churn out the cheapest, least survivable Griffon they can in large numbers.
> Issue them to the existing TACHEL and CSS Squadrons.
> Use them as utility transports until they are down to their last 100 hours of flying time.
> Stick a plank and a PLC in them and mount whatever toys you like.  Fill them with claymores if you think that would be a good thing.
> 
> Buy lots more cheap, disposable, attritable Griffons.
> 
> And buy a few expensive, hardened to within an ounce of their MTOW, aircraft as Command ships and as troop carrying assault craft.
> 
> Cats can be skinned many ways.
Click to expand...



Further to this silliness.



TypeOriginClassRoleIntroducedIn serviceTotalNotesAgustaWestland CH-149 CormorantItaly/UKHelicopterSearch and Rescue (SAR)20001415An order for 50 EH-101 Merlin helicopters to serve in the anti-submarine role replacing CH-113 Labrador was cancelled in 1993. Nine VH-71 Kestrels were bought from the US in 2011 to be used for spare parts.[2] As of 2019, at least two additional Cormorants were to be purchased and the remaining 14 modernized,[3] but plan was delayed as of July 2021, as "unaffordable".[4]Airbus CC-150 & CC-150T PolarisFranceJetTransport/tanker1992558 Wing Trenton - 2 transport; 2 tanker; 1 VIPAirbus CC-295 KingfisherSpainPropellerSearch and rescue aircraft2019316Greenwood, Nova Scotia; Trenton, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba and Comox, British Columbia (418 Search and Rescue Operational Training Squadron). The aircraft will be primarily operated at CFB Comox, where Airbus is building an RCAF Search & Rescue Training Facility for the CC-295BAe CT-155 HawkUKJetTrainer2000162222 delivered to 419 sqn and 2 CFFTS[5]Bell CH-139 Jet RangerUSHelicopterTrainer198213[6]13On contract from KF Defence Programs as trainers.Bell CH-146 GriffonCanadaHelicopterTransport/SAR199585[7]10015 SAR and 85 tactical helicopters. Eight armed in 2009 to escort CH-147 Chinooks in Afghanistan. 9 B412CF Outlaw on contract from KF Defence Programs as trainersBoeing CC-177 GlobemasterUSJetTransport200755At 8 Wing Trenton[8][9] Replaced contracted aircraft or assistance from allies.Boeing CH-147F ChinookUSHelicopterTransport201315Previous D-model variants no longer in service.[10][11][12][13][14][15]Bombardier CC-144 ChallengerCanadaJetTransport1982/2002/202044412(T) Sqn under 8 Wing Trenton, stationed at Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier International Airport. VIP and medevac transport.Canadair CT-114 TutorCanadaJetAir demonstration196226[16]2624 used by "The Snowbirds"; replacement expected by 2020[17] (since delayed beyond 2021).de Havilland Canada CC-115 BuffaloCanadaPropellerSAR19676442 Sqn 19 Wing Comox. To be retired and replaced by new FWSAR aircraft (EADS CASA C-295)[18]de Havilland Canada CC-138 Twin OtterCanadaPropellerTransport/SAR1970s4440 Sqn Yellowknife attached to 17 Wing, Winnipeg.de Havilland Canada CT-142CanadaPropellerTrainer19874402 Sqn 17 Wing, WinnipegLockheed CC-130 HerculesUSPropellerTanker/SAR1964[19]128 Wing Trenton, 14 Wing Greenwood and 17 Wing Winnipeg.[20] 4 equipped for aerial refueling (CC-130HT, modified CC-130H); 8 SAR aircraft to be replaced by new FWSAR aircraft (EADS CASA C-295) from 2018-2022[18]Lockheed CP-140M AuroraUSPropellerMaritime patrol/ASW/SAR19801418[21]14 being modernized and retained in operational status. 14 Wing Greenwood and 19 Wing Comox.Lockheed CP-140A ArcturusUSPropellerTrainer/Maritime reconnaissance/SAR199113404 Sqn 14 Wing Greenwood.[22]Lockheed Martin
CC-130J Super HerculesUSPropellerTransport20101717Replaced Lockheed CC-130 transport variants.McDonnell Douglas CF-188A & BUSJetFighter/attack198276 [23]13898 A and 40 B models originally acquired. 20 lost to accidents, 41 retired. 3 Wing Bagotville and 4 Wing Cold Lake.[notes 1][24] 18 ex-Royal Australian Air Force F-18s being delivered as an interim measure, increasing the fighter fleet to 94 CF-18/F-18A aircraft.[25]Beechcraft CT-156 Harvard IIUSPropellerTrainer2000242624 leased in 2000, 2 added in 2002.[26] Two lost in crashes.[27][28]Sikorsky CH-148 CycloneUSHelicopterASW201523[29]28Replaced CH-124 [30] 23 helicopters in service as of May 2021.[29] One airframe (Stalker-22) lost to crash on operations.[31]IAI CU-170 HeronCanadaUAVSurveillance and target acquisition201123UMS CU-176 GargoyleCanadaUAVSurveillance and target acquisition2020



How many of those aircraft could be converted to "Optionally Manned" configurations?

Starting with the small stuff?

24x Harvard IIs? 26x Tutors? 16x Hawks? = 66 Fixed Wing

13x Jet Rangers? 100x Griffons? = 113 Rotary Wing

Autopilot + PLC + Smartphone + Servomotors + Solenoids?  + FireScout and Loyal Wingman software licences?

179 Close Support UAVs that can also be used as Utility Trainers until they run down their clocks.

And, extending the thought further

84 to 156x Hornets = 84 to 156x Loyal Wingmen?

What does that do to the F-35 calculus?  How many do we need to buy?  How soon?  And at what rate?

We need the F-35 but do we need 84 right away?  Or do we need 4 squadrons of 10 immediately and an ongoing delivery?  Continuous trickle of replacements?  Or a couple of batches of 20 after 7 and 15 years?








We've already done it.  Converting old fighters into drones.  For target practice and as radar targets.

What does the used aircraft availability look like?

PS - ignore the guy in the cockpit.  Surplus to requirement.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> I hear tell that CFD’s LR-30 (1:06 onwards) is a much better large calibre option than the M242. I think @Kirkhill may be able to dig up the photo of an LR-30 on a Griffon in place of the GAU-19. 😉
> 
> The GAU-19 is a beast, especially on high rate…and a better option for the airframe than the GAU-21 (M3M), IMO.  Its recoil forces transmit through the OMS plank directly into the main structural longerons/stringers, as opposed to angularly through the DAS lugs which introduces tremendous torque moments with little dampening, which is where the Marines’ -1Ns had all the damage.


This?  Green. 401. At 1:34.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> Further to this silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> TypeOriginClassRoleIntroducedIn serviceTotalNotesAgustaWestland CH-149 CormorantItaly/UKHelicopterSearch and Rescue (SAR)20001415An order for 50 EH-101 Merlin helicopters to serve in the anti-submarine role replacing CH-113 Labrador was cancelled in 1993. Nine VH-71 Kestrels were bought from the US in 2011 to be used for spare parts.[2] As of 2019, at least two additional Cormorants were to be purchased and the remaining 14 modernized,[3] but plan was delayed as of July 2021, as "unaffordable".[4]Airbus CC-150 & CC-150T PolarisFranceJetTransport/tanker1992558 Wing Trenton - 2 transport; 2 tanker; 1 VIPAirbus CC-295 KingfisherSpainPropellerSearch and rescue aircraft2019316Greenwood, Nova Scotia; Trenton, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba and Comox, British Columbia (418 Search and Rescue Operational Training Squadron). The aircraft will be primarily operated at CFB Comox, where Airbus is building an RCAF Search & Rescue Training Facility for the CC-295BAe CT-155 HawkUKJetTrainer2000162222 delivered to 419 sqn and 2 CFFTS[5]Bell CH-139 Jet RangerUSHelicopterTrainer198213[6]13On contract from KF Defence Programs as trainers.Bell CH-146 GriffonCanadaHelicopterTransport/SAR199585[7]10015 SAR and 85 tactical helicopters. Eight armed in 2009 to escort CH-147 Chinooks in Afghanistan. 9 B412CF Outlaw on contract from KF Defence Programs as trainersBoeing CC-177 GlobemasterUSJetTransport200755At 8 Wing Trenton[8][9] Replaced contracted aircraft or assistance from allies.Boeing CH-147F ChinookUSHelicopterTransport201315Previous D-model variants no longer in service.[10][11][12][13][14][15]Bombardier CC-144 ChallengerCanadaJetTransport1982/2002/202044412(T) Sqn under 8 Wing Trenton, stationed at Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier International Airport. VIP and medevac transport.Canadair CT-114 TutorCanadaJetAir demonstration196226[16]2624 used by "The Snowbirds"; replacement expected by 2020[17] (since delayed beyond 2021).de Havilland Canada CC-115 BuffaloCanadaPropellerSAR19676442 Sqn19 Wing Comox. To be retired and replaced by new FWSAR aircraft (EADS CASA C-295)[18]de Havilland Canada CC-138 Twin OtterCanadaPropellerTransport/SAR1970s4440 SqnYellowknife attached to 17 Wing, Winnipeg.de Havilland Canada CT-142CanadaPropellerTrainer19874402 Sqn17 Wing, WinnipegLockheed CC-130 HerculesUSPropellerTanker/SAR1964[19]128 Wing Trenton, 14 Wing Greenwood and 17 Wing Winnipeg.[20] 4 equipped for aerial refueling (CC-130HT, modified CC-130H); 8 SAR aircraft to be replaced by new FWSAR aircraft (EADS CASA C-295) from 2018-2022[18]Lockheed CP-140M AuroraUSPropellerMaritime patrol/ASW/SAR19801418[21]14 being modernized and retained in operational status. 14 Wing Greenwood and 19 Wing Comox.Lockheed CP-140A ArcturusUSPropellerTrainer/Maritime reconnaissance/SAR199113404 Sqn14 Wing Greenwood.[22]Lockheed Martin
> CC-130J Super HerculesUSPropellerTransport20101717Replaced Lockheed CC-130 transport variants.McDonnell Douglas CF-188A & BUSJetFighter/attack198276 [23]13898 A and 40 B models originally acquired. 20 lost to accidents, 41 retired. 3 Wing Bagotville and 4 Wing Cold Lake.[notes 1][24] 18 ex-Royal Australian Air Force F-18s being delivered as an interim measure, increasing the fighter fleet to 94 CF-18/F-18A aircraft.[25]Beechcraft CT-156 Harvard IIUSPropellerTrainer2000242624 leased in 2000, 2 added in 2002.[26] Two lost in crashes.[27][28]Sikorsky CH-148 CycloneUSHelicopterASW201523[29]28Replaced CH-124 [30] 23 helicopters in service as of May 2021.[29] One airframe (Stalker-22) lost to crash on operations.[31]IAI CU-170 HeronCanadaUAVSurveillance and target acquisition201123UMS CU-176 GargoyleCanadaUAVSurveillance and target acquisition2020
> 
> 
> How many of those aircraft could be converted to "Optionally Manned" configurations?
> 
> Starting with the small stuff?
> 
> 24x Harvard IIs? 26x Tutors? 16x Hawks? = 66 Fixed Wing
> 
> 13x Jet Rangers? 100x Griffons? = 113 Rotary Wing
> 
> Autopilot + PLC + Smartphone + Servomotors + Solenoids?  + FireScout and Loyal Wingman software licences?
> 
> 179 Close Support UAVs that can also be used as Utility Trainers until they run down their clocks.
> 
> And, extending the thought further
> 
> 84 to 156x Hornets = 84 to 156x Loyal Wingmen?
> 
> What does that do to the F-35 calculus?  How many do we need to buy?  How soon?  And at what rate?
> 
> We need the F-35 but do we need 84 right away?  Or do we need 4 squadrons of 10 immediately and an ongoing delivery?  Continuous trickle of replacements?  Or a couple of batches of 20 after 7 and 15 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already done it.  Converting old fighters into drones.  For target practice and as radar targets.
> 
> What does the used aircraft availability look like?
> 
> PS - ignore the guy in the cockpit.  Surplus to requirement.




For that matter - why consider building 5000 hour airframes if airworthy 500 hour airframes can be built faster and cheaper.   Keep them on local civilian sites for emergency call out so they maintain low hours.  And convert them to drones when they start approaching their limits.  Regularly buy replacements employing Quebec workers.

Related concept:









						Green Goddess - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




In the Just-In-Case inventory for 50 years.  



> The *Green Goddess* is the colloquial name for the *RLHZ Self Propelled Pump* manufactured by Bedford Vehicles, a fire engine used originally by the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS), and latterly held in reserve by the Home Office until 2004, and available when required to deal with exceptional events,





> Prior to disbandment, the AFS used the Green Goddess extensively in support of the local fire services throughout the UK. They provided additional water delivery and firefighting capability at times when the regular fire brigades had a major incident to contain. The ability to relay large quantities of water over considerable distances was invaluable in some more remote locations, or where the incident required more water than local water systems could provide. Most UK boroughs had an Auxiliary Fire Service detachment housed alongside the regular brigade equipment.
> 
> After 1968, the vehicles were mothballed, but occasionally used by the Armed Forces to provide fire cover in a number of fire strikes, notably in 1977 and 2002 (see UK firefighter dispute 2002–2003). They were also deployed to pump water in floods and droughts. They were well maintained in storage, and regularly road tested. There was a less significant strike by firefighters in the Winter of Discontent (late 1978 and early 1979), where once again the Green Goddesses were drafted in to cover; it is largely forgotten by many as it occurred at a time when a significant percentage of public sector workers were on strike.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> For that matter - why consider building 5000 hour airframes if airworthy 500 hour airframes can be built faster and cheaper.   Keep them on local civilian sites for emergency call out so they maintain low hours.  And convert them to drones when they start approaching their limits.  Regularly buy replacements employing Quebec workers.


How does one get all those rather large drones into theatre?

   I do not believe that model would work at all for the CF, it would work for China - and Russia - because their general model is pumping out crap, plus they are local to the areas of most likely conflict.


However - do you really want to put people into a faster to produce and cheaper airframe?
   I would postulate that no, that's probably not wanted by anyone.

Military Rotary Wing assist aren't built for frills - they are built for crew survivability and mission success -- stripping out those things just makes junk.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> How does one get all those rather large drones into theatre?
> 
> I do not believe that model would work at all for the CF, it would work for China - and Russia - because their general model is pumping out crap, plus they are local to the areas of most likely conflict.
> 
> 
> However - do you really want to put people into a faster to produce and cheaper airframe?
> I would postulate that no, that's probably not wanted by anyone.
> 
> Military Rotary Wing assist aren't built for frills - they are built for crew survivability and mission success -- stripping out those things just makes junk.



Well, some might fly themselves.  Some might be flown by a person until they got into the theater when optionally manned.









						The Longest Ever Flight Was Over 64 Days In A Cessna 172
					

Often, when we think of long-endurance flights, our first thoughts jump to military operations. Big planes with highly-trained crew will fly for long periods, using air-to-air refuelling to stay al…




					hackaday.com
				




The possibilities are extensive, if not endless.

As for Canada - it has a small number of people scattered all over a large area that need a lift once in a while.  Either a lot of aircraft with low hours or a lot of hours on a small number of aircraft.

Putting people into a faster to produce and cheaper airframe?



			https://www.uber.com/in/en/elevate/
		


And as for survivability, I thought even tanks occasionally got blowed up real good









						Syria Proved that Germany’s Leopard 2 Tank was Far from Invincible
					

Germany’s Leopard 2 main battle tank has a reputation as one of the finest in the world, competing for that distinction with proven designs such as the American M1 Abrams and the British Challenger 2.




					nationalinterest.org


----------



## Dana381

If The Tutor ever gets replaced they could use them, I heard once that there is a warehouse or hanger stuffed with old Tutors for snowbird replacements and parts. It has been armed for ground attack before by the Malaysians. Viking is good at building planes from old drawings, maybe they could make the hardpoints. Have a pilot fly them into theater then run unmanned while attacking.


----------



## KevinB

https://vtol.org/files/dmfile/fvl-v-novdec-2021.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well 6 of these in Gray run by TC and leased to the RCN would be very helpful, right now






						Bell Textron Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard announce delivery of final Bell helicopter under Coast Guard’s Helicopter renewal plan - Canada.ca
					

Today, Bell Textron Canada, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, and the Canadian Coast Guard announced the delivery of a new Bell 429 helicopter to the Coast Guard at Bell’s Mirabel facility. The delivery, which occurred on September 15, marks an important milestone for both Bell Textron Canada...




					www.canada.ca


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> Well 6 of these in Gray run by TC and leased to the RCN would be very helpful, right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bell Textron Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard announce delivery of final Bell helicopter under Coast Guard’s Helicopter renewal plan - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Today, Bell Textron Canada, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, and the Canadian Coast Guard announced the delivery of a new Bell 429 helicopter to the Coast Guard at Bell’s Mirabel facility. The delivery, which occurred on September 15, marks an important milestone for both Bell Textron Canada...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


It's a modern Jet Ranger - what purpose could it serve for the RCN?
   Honestly I get a kick out Bell's webpages as their passenger capacities are all over the place.
 They have 4+8 for the UH-1Y and 1+14 for the 412 (while the Y has a significantly larger payload)


What would be really helpful now is if Canada had 3 (or more) Squadrons of CH-147F instead of one - and a CH-146 replacement already done and fielded.


----------



## Good2Golf

A 429 is tiny.  Slightly bigger than a Kiowa/Jet Ranger, and the BO-105 it replaces, but at 7,500lbs max weight (including fuel), its only a light-utility wagon taking a few people around.  Take the pilot out of the equation and you have about 2200lbs of payload to play with which includes fuel, up to 1250 lbs, so with may fuel, you have just over 900 lbs payload, which would be at most 4 pers with survival suits/gear.  maybe a bit more payload trading fuel for passengers, but adding yet another type of aircraft to the RCAF fleets is a significant institutional load for limited capability (especially taking maintenance quals, life-cycle and logistics support, training, currency of crew, etc. into account).  Just send the 148s inshore to help in utility mode.


----------



## KevinB

Dump 148's at sea after stripping anything useful.
  Move 149's to MH - buy lots more Hooks...

Paint first "new" -F yellow as SAR bird make lots of press.
  buy remainder in Green


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> Tell me again what the opportunity cost is for 50(ish) aircrew to spend a minimum of two weeks per year in Shearwater, on top of sea going deployments?



There is the additional genetic diversity in the valley argument...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> It's a modern Jet Ranger - what purpose could it serve for the RCN?
> Honestly I get a kick out Bell's webpages as their passenger capacities are all over the place.
> They have 4+8 for the UH-1Y and 1+14 for the 412 (while the Y has a significantly larger payload)
> 
> 
> What would be really helpful now is if Canada had 3 (or more) Squadrons of CH-147F instead of one - and a CH-146 replacement already done and fielded.


For the AOP's domestic ops, it can do ice recce, some SAR, sling gear, transport people. The CCG uses this type of helicopter all over the place, everyday and in remote areas. It would mean you have dedicated helicopters for domestic ops and the Caribbean, without tasking your Cyclones or crews, which are already being stretched thin.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> For the AOP's domestic ops, it can do ice recce, some SAR, sling gear, transport people. The CCG uses this type of helicopter all over the place, everyday and in remote areas. It would mean you have dedicated helicopters for domestic ops and the Caribbean, without tasking your Cyclones or crews, which are already being stretched thin.


Another orphan fleet will not help the CF, only hurt.

 More Hooks - or failing that more 149's are needed - but I would go with the Hook as it does much better duty in all the roles except fitting into a smaller space...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not orphaned at all, same helicopter as the CCG, run by the same people, basically the RCN is leasing the crews and aircraft. There are 325 flying globally. These would serve on the AOP's and occasional on the JSS either in place or with a Cyclone. Both the USN and RN use contractors with helicopters to provide non-combat helicopter services to their fleets. The aircraft and personal would be owned by Transport Canada, Civil Aviation branch. Who would look after parts, repairs, maintenance, training and HR.  

It's very unlikely the 6 AOP's are going to have the Cyclones onboard much. Our fleet of naval helicopters is already to small and from what I see here, availability is not likley to improve any time soon. This is politically doable as the contract for the helicopter is based in Canada and does not trigger any new ITAR issues (unless there is a comm upgrade) The crews would be vetted by TC, so you have better security than with a private contractor. When not in use by the ships the helicopters can be tasked with domestic emergency response as required.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> Not orphaned at all, same helicopter as the CCG, run by the same people, basically the RCN is leasing the crews and aircraft. There are 325 flying globally. These would serve on the AOP's and occasional on the JSS either in place or with a Cyclone. Both the USN and RN use contractors with helicopters to provide non-combat helicopter services to their fleets. The aircraft and personal would be owned by Transport Canada, Civil Aviation branch. Who would look after parts, repairs, maintenance, training and HR.
> 
> It's very unlikely the 6 AOP's are going to have the Cyclones onboard much. Our fleet of naval helicopters is already to small and from what I see here, availability is not likley to improve any time soon. This is politically doable as the contract for the helicopter is based in Canada and does not trigger any new ITAR issues (unless there is a comm upgrade) The crews would be vetted by TC, so you have better security than with a private contractor. When not in use by the ships the helicopters can be tasked with domestic emergency response as required.




From the original Statement of Requirement Rev 3 ca 2010



1 The* Canadian Coast Guard is in the early stages of a project to replace its fleet of helicopters*. *The
intent is to acquire 6 medium twin engined helicopters and 16 light twin engined helicopters*. The* likely
candidates* to fill the requirement for medium helicopters are the *Bell 412, the Eurocopter EC 155 and the*
*AgustaWestland AW139*. The likely candidates to fill the requirement for light helicopters are the* Bell
429, the Eurocopter EC 135, the Eurocopter EC 145 and the AgustaWestland AW109*. For the purposes
of this specification and because it has the largest (an thus most demanding) folded dimensions, the
future Canadian Coast Guard medium helicopter is assumed to be the Bell 412 with optional blade folding
kit. Note that Canadian Coast Guard helicopters are operated by Transport Canada on behalf of the
Coast Guard.

Bell 412 and Bell 429 won.  And the Transport Canada Bell 429 will likely be operating from the AOPS as an OGD on Ice Patrol.

It seems more likely that the AOPS in the North will be working with TC/CCG helicopters than CH-148s with the occasional visit by a CH-149.

In fact, in the North, and probably throughout the EEZ the AOPS will likely be operating more like the NoCGV Svalbard than a frigate.

Noteworthy is that although Norway differentiates between its Coast Guard vessels and it Navy vessels all vessels are armed and subject to the Navy.

Svalbard Armament  NoCGV Svalbard - Wikipedia


Armament
Bofors 57 mm
12.7 mm machine gun
Can carry 1 Simbad Surface to Air missile system[2]


----------



## Kirkhill

2    AOPS Operating Areas
The AOPS will normally operate in the areas of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans and 
contiguous Canadian waters that constitute the Canadian Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, Exclusive 
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf as defined in the Oceans Act.

Notwithstanding the normal operating areas, the AOPS shall be capable of worldwide operations in 
littoral and open ocean conditions.

3    CONCEPT OF AOPS HELICOPTER OPERATIONS

3.1    General
Within the limits and restrictions described below, the AOPS shall be capable of:
a.  controlling an approaching helicopter,
b.  recovering a helicopter to the flight deck,
c.   launching a helicopter from the flight deck,
d.  controlling a departing helicopter,
e.  securing a helicopter on the flight deck, and
f.   fuelling a helicopter on the flight deck.


¹ The Canadian Coast Guard is in the early stages of a project to replace its fleet of helicopters. 
 The intent is to acquire 6 medium twin engined helicopters and 16 light twin engined helicopters.  
The likely candidates to fill the requirement for medium helicopters are the Bell 412, the 
Eurocopter EC 155 and the AgustaWestland AW139.  The likely candidates to fill the requirement for 
light helicopters are the Bell  429, the Eurocopter EC 135, the Eurocopter EC 145 and the 
AgustaWestland AW109. For the purposes of this specification and because it has the largest (an 
thus most demanding) folded dimensions, the future Canadian Coast Guard medium helicopter is 
assumed to be the Bell 412 with optional blade folding kit.  Note that Canadian Coast Guard 
helicopters are operated by Transport Canada on behalf of the Coast Guard.

6 of 47




Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship Helicopter/Ship Interface Requirements Rev 3

The AOPS shall be capable of HIFR in accordance with CFTO C-12-124-A00/MB-002 Shipborne Helicopter 
Operating Procedures (SHOPS) (dated 14 May 2008), Section 3 – Helicopter Fuelling Procedures.

The AOPS shall be capable of VERTREP in accordance with SHOPS, Section 4 – Vertical Replenishment, 
Hoist Transfers and Administrative Flights.

3.2    Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter
The AOPS will operate a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter during deployments to the Canadian Arctic.

The AOPS may operate a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter on occasion during deployments in other 
Canadian waters, including:  the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and 
the Great Lakes.

The AOPS will employ the Canadian Coast Guard helicopter for:
a.  ice reconnaissance,
b.  personnel and light cargo transfer between ship and shore,
c.   medical evacuation, and
d.  Search and Rescue.

The AOPS shall operate Canadian Coast Guard helicopters²:
a.  day and night,
b.  under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)³,
c.   in seas up to and including the top of Sea State 3⁴,
d.  at any ship’s speed,
e.  at any relative heading, and
f.   at any relative wind over the arc from 30 degrees port to 30 starboard at any speed up to 35⁵ 
knots.

The AOPS shall be capable of:
a.  moving a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter from the stowed position in the hangar to the ready 
position on the flight deck,
b.  moving a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter from the landing position on the flight deck to the 
stowed position in the hangar,
c.   sheltering a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter in the hangar,


² These requirements are notional.  Based on discussions with the pilot on CCGS Louis S. St. 
Laurent, neither Transport Canada nor the Canadian Coast Guard has ship motion limits or any other 
formal helicopter clearance criteria; the pilot will fly from and to the ship if he/she believes it 
can be done safely. ³ The future fleet of Canadian Coast Guard helicopters will operate under both 
VFR and IFR.
⁴  From STANAG 4194 Standardized Wave and Wind Environments and Shipboard Reporting of Sea 
Conditions, Table D-1 NATO Sea State Numeral Table for the Open Ocean North Atlantic, Sea State 3 
has significant wave heights ranging from 0.5 metres to 1.5 metres and a modal period ranging from 
5 seconds to 14.8 seconds.
⁵ The limit of 35 knots is an estimate that must be confirmed.  CFTO C-12-146-000/MB-002 CH 146 
(Griffon) Flight Manual, Book 1 of 3, Section 1, 1.9 Airspeed states that the “maximum allowable 
tailwind or crosswind speeds for hover operations … is 35 knots”.


7 of 47




Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship Helicopter/Ship Interface Requirements Rev 3


d.  securing a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter in the hangar,
e.  securing a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter on the flight deck, and
f.   providing logistical support to a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter.

The AOPS shall provide sufficient protection for one Canadian Coast Guard helicopter for it to 
survive the same high sea states experienced by the AOPS.

The AOPS shall provide the facilities and services required to maintain one Canadian Coast Guard 
helicopter for deployments of up to 120 days duration, during which the helicopter is assumed to 
fly for a total of approximately 150 hours⁶.

The AOPS shall carry sufficient aviation fuel to support the assumed operational tempo of one 
Canadian Coast Guard helicopter.

The AOPS shall be capable of supporting personnel and light cargo transfer by a Canadian Coast 
Guard helicopter.


----------



## KevinB

I'd argue it makes a lot more sense for CCG/TC 412's to operate from AOPS, as while I despise the Griffon, it's better than the 429 for that role.


----------



## Good2Golf

Either the 412 or 429 will be spicy!  I’ve flown 135 and 146 from CCGS and RCN ships and let me tell you…skids and anything over Sea State 0.5 don’t mix well…”hover forever” was the preferred option.  Wheels and brakes should at least figure in there somewhere.  I’d rather thrash a 147F onto a ship than any skid-equipped helo. $0.02


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Either the 412 or 429 will be spicy!  I’ve flown 135 and 146 from CCGS and RCN ships and let me tell you…skids and anything over Sea State 0.5 don’t mix well…”hover forever” was the preferred option.  Wheels and brakes should at least figure in there somewhere.  I’d rather thrash a 147F onto a ship than any skid-equipped helo. $0.02


Interesting - never considered the skid versus wheels aspect on that.
   Little disconcerting considering how long some things with skids can skid on wet grass.

Maybe the Bell 525 would have been a better option.








						Bell 525 Relentless
					

The Bell 525 Relentless, featuring the ARC Horizon flight deck system, provides unparalleled crew situational awareness through the use of a fully integrated avionics flight deck coupled with an advanced fly-by-wire flight control system, resulting in enhanced safety levels and mission capabilities.




					www.bellflight.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Either the 412 or 429 will be spicy!  I’ve flown 135 and 146 from CCGS and RCN ships and let me tell you…skids and anything over Sea State 0.5 don’t mix well…”hover forever” was the preferred option.  Wheels and brakes should at least figure in there somewhere.  I’d rather thrash a 147F onto a ship than any skid-equipped helo. $0.02



How about skates instead of skids then?  Isn't the probability of being iced up greater than that of finding a Sea State greater than 0.5 when up north?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG went skids because of all the places they have to go and they run heli ops only when the weather is favourable. The 16 CCG machines have to cover both coasts year round and the North in the summer, I be surprised if the CCG can afford to lend more than one to the RCN. If the RCN asked TC to acquire 6 more 412's to fly off the AOP's that would be great, I suspect the 429 are more doable from a cost.

Atlantic Region
Seven Bell 429s are operated in: Stephenville, Newfoundland and Labrador (1), St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (2), Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (1), Halifax, Nova Scotia (2) and Saint John, New Brunswick (1).
Three Bell 412s are operated in Halifax (2) and St John's, Newfoundland (1).
Central/Arctic Region
Four Bell 429s operate in Quebec City, Quebec; 1 operates in Parry Sound, Ontario
Two Bell 412s are operated in Quebec City (1) and Parry Sound (1).
Western Region
Three Bell 429s operate in Victoria, British Columbia
Two Bell 412s operate from the Seal Cove Base in Prince Rupert, British Columbia. They replaced the two Bell 212s, that operated from Seal Cove Base, in 2017.


----------



## Dale Denton

KevinB said:


> Dump 148's at sea after stripping anything useful.
> Move 149's to MH - buy lots more Hooks...
> 
> Paint first "new" -F yellow as SAR bird make lots of press.
> buy remainder in Green



With SAR being proven so valuable, a beefing up of our rotary wing capability should be an easy win for the RCAF if they really pushed for it. Could help in SAR and be great for all the future LENTUS's (or Lentusi?)

How more valuable would another 2 squadrons of Chinooks be? Would be a boon for mobility as well, less reliance on griffons. Now would be a good time to push for a LPD/LPH that would've been able to be parked off Vancouver right about now.

Could pave the way to buy US concessions for EVs in the infrastructure bill for a full replacement of the Griffons with a Canadianized Bell V-280. We can jump in on the Blackhawk replacement this time, and from the get-go. FVL program should have legs, as long as they aren't outrageously expensive, CDN suppliers would have a lot to gain. What CDN gov't would care about the cost though, to curry favour with QC in Mirabel and Biden at the same time?


----------



## FJAG

LoboCanada said:


> Could help in SAR and be great for all the future LENTUS's (or Lentusi?)



That made me look it up. I'm like that.  😁 

Did you know that "lentus" in Latin is an adjective that translates as: clinging, tough; slow, sluggish, lazy, procrastinating; easy, pliant.

Maybe we should take more care with the names we give to operations.


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:


> That made me look it up. I'm like that.  😁
> 
> Did you know that "lentus" in Latin is an adjective that translates as: clinging, tough; slow, sluggish, lazy, procrastinating; easy, pliant.
> 
> Maybe we should take more care with the names we give to operations.


To defeat the enemy you must become the enemy - Sun Tzu, CAF took it too literally unfortunately and became its own worst enemy.


----------



## KevinB

LoboCanada said:


> With SAR being proven so valuable, a beefing up of our rotary wing capability should be an easy win for the RCAF if they really pushed for it. Could help in SAR and be great for all the future LENTUS's (or Lentusi?)
> 
> How more valuable would another 2 squadrons of Chinooks be? Would be a boon for mobility as well, less reliance on griffons. Now would be a good time to push for a LPD/LPH that would've been able to be parked off Vancouver right about now.
> 
> Could pave the way to buy US concessions for EVs in the infrastructure bill for a full replacement of the Griffons with a Canadianized Bell V-280. We can jump in on the Blackhawk replacement this time, and from the get-go. FVL program should have legs, as long as they aren't outrageously expensive, CDN suppliers would have a lot to gain. What CDN gov't would care about the cost though, to curry favour with QC in Mirabel and Biden at the same time?


The issue would be if Sikorsky won FVL - then Bell would be out...


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> The issue would be if Sikorsky won FVL - then Bell would be out...


----------



## suffolkowner

Maybe the Marines will go with the V-280 and the Army with the SB-Defiant keeping everybody happy and providing options for other allied nations. Is that possible?


----------



## Dale Denton

FJAG said:


> That made me look it up. I'm like that.  😁
> 
> Did you know that "lentus" in Latin is an adjective that translates as: clinging, tough; slow, sluggish, lazy, procrastinating; easy, pliant.
> 
> Maybe we should take more care with the names we give to operations.


I don't think it was a coincidence... I think someone got surprised that they got away with a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Its a gamble for Bell to be chosen, and I doubt we'd want to pick another sikorsky product... 

And we would be _that _guy who has yet another orphan fleet of Bell products. At least they're purpose-built military aircraft... I'd be fine with being the only ones to make and fly them, either way its a big upgrade for us. We could be the ones to offer a cheap Canadian-assembled tiltrotors to our friends (hoping they're cheaper than Sikorsky's Defiant).


----------



## YZT580

does Viking own the rights to the Canadair tiltrotor along with the other licenses they bought?


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:


> does Viking own the rights to the Canadair tiltrotor along with the other licenses they bought?


A company in sweden is building a updated CL-64


----------



## YZT580

MilEME09 said:


> A company in sweden is building a updated CL-64


thanks


----------



## Dana381

MilEME09 said:


> A company in sweden is building a updated CL-64



I believe YZT580 was referring to the CL-84 Dynavert Canadair CL-84 Dynavert - Wikipedia
I don't know whether the designs for it were included in Viking's purchase of Licenses from Bombardier


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> Maybe the Marines will go with the V-280 and the Army with the SB-Defiant keeping everybody happy and providing options for other allied nations. Is that possible?


Right now no - while the USMC is watching FVL they don't have a seat on it.
   Technically the way FVL is structured right now - both Sikorsky and Bell could get dual awards and split delivery.




LoboCanada said:


> I don't think it was a coincidence... I think someone got surprised that they got away with a tongue-in-cheek joke.
> 
> Its a gamble for Bell to be chosen, and I doubt we'd want to pick another sikorsky product...


The CAF has picked a lot of Sikorsky products over the years - the issue is they haven't been the ones the Government of Canada has wanted - hence the CSAF got the Griffon as opposed to the UH-60.

 Also Sikorsky for some reason submitted their dog for Cyclone - as opposed to the SeaHawk - which would have been a better choice (IMHO) as it would have also given the potential to creep in to TacHel.


LoboCanada said:


> And we would be _that _guy who has yet another orphan fleet of Bell products. At least they're purpose-built military aircraft... I'd be fine with being the only ones to make and fly them, either way its a big upgrade for us. We could be the ones to offer a cheap Canadian-assembled tiltrotors to our friends (hoping they're cheaper than Sikorsky's Defiant).


The V-280 is ITAR and only going to go to 5I's folks - who are all watching FVL - so if Bell doesn't win, non of them are going to take it.

 This thread goes to show how truly FUBAR Canada is in procurement -- realistically Canada should have a RCAF presence in FVL and buying in to whomever wins - who cares if Bell doesn't get the job - pick the right tool for the troops - the CAF should not be some imbeciles pork barrel whipping boy


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One would think that Sikorsky would provide a good marine ASW helicopter as they invented the niche. I have no direct knowledge of the Seahawk, but have read that the ASW version is quite cramped and limited. Plus how the USN and the RCN uses ASW helicopters is quite different. Having the bigger airframe does give some significant benefits.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> One would think that Sikorsky would provide a good marine ASW helicopter as they invented the niche. I have no direct knowledge of the Seahawk, but have read that the ASW version is quite cramped and limited. Plus how the USN and the RCN uses ASW helicopters is quite different. Having the bigger airframe does give some significant benefits.


Admittedly I have only gotten to crawl through one while it was parked on the deck of something I was on - the crew liked it - but I dot know if they had a lot of exposure to other things.
    It was the MH-60S - and there seem to be a slew of older models with less room - the MH-60S didn't seem to have any less room that the MH-60G PaveHawk


----------



## Dale Denton

Since when would we pick any alternative to a Canadian-made option? 
At least CAF planners should work with our +150 year history of doing so, or domestic industry not sell their product more aggressively?
If we somehow already made SSKs and fighters in Canada you think we wouldn't've already replaced both?

I'd have us buy off AUKUS membership with fleets of US/UK/AU vehicles/AC/ships as contenders. Ultimately buy Canadian where possible but they'll bite with instantly becoming pre-contenders in all of our projects. 

If Bell is successful in FVL then commit to it in 10 years while refitting Griffons into UH-1Ys and AH-1Zs. Buy the recently mothballed Venoms and Cobras and refit them. Build in Canada an amphib vessel similar to something the USMC would operate from. Train crews on USMC ships in the meantime. The platforms are already navalized. Buy US political figures with strategic buys in congressional districts. It's much more safer politically than making concessions (dairy, grain, etc...) to Biden for some EV grants and US Infrastructure money.


----------



## Dana381

LoboCanada said:


> If we somehow already made SSKs and fighters in Canada you think we wouldn't've already replaced both?



We build ships in Canada but we still haven't replaced the AOR's


----------



## KevinB

LoboCanada said:


> Since when would we pick any alternative to a Canadian-made option?


The problem with that is IF the Canadian made option is terribad...
  Then you get another Griffon or LSVW.


LoboCanada said:


> At least CAF planners should work with our +150 year history of doing so, or domestic industry not sell their product more aggressively?
> If we somehow already made SSKs and fighters in Canada you think we wouldn't've already replaced both?


Part of the point to buying into Allied programs is the industrial offsets locally - you may not build all of it - but you get a decent sized pie.
  Canada has a habit of hacking off an arm for political whims - see EH-101, F-35 etc.



LoboCanada said:


> I'd have us buy off AUKUS membership with fleets of US/UK/AU vehicles/AC/ships as contenders. Ultimately buy Canadian where possible but they'll bite with instantly becoming pre-contenders in all of our projects.


 From my understanding the Navy has opted for that - pick an Allied design - get in with some mods - and build in Canada, given the ship building strategy - 


LoboCanada said:


> If Bell is successful in FVL then commit to it in 10 years while refitting Griffons into UH-1Ys and AH-1Zs. Buy the recently mothballed Venoms and Cobras and refit them.


 If Bell isn't successful - then you have an issue - either getting cast off UH-1Y's, or an orphan fleet of 280's, or sucking up to Sikorsky.
   If you buy into FVL at the onset - you hedge your bets that if Sky won, there would be enough offsets to minimize the fallout from Bell.
Or again the GoC goes full EH-101 and you wait 10 years to get less for more of a the airframe you wanted in the first place...



LoboCanada said:


> Build in Canada an amphib vessel similar to something the USMC would operate from. Train crews on USMC ships in the meantime. The platforms are already navalized. Buy US political figures with strategic buys in congressional districts. It's much more safer politically than making concessions (dairy, grain, etc...) to Biden for some EV grants and US Infrastructure money.


 Lines may stay open for Political reasons - but programs themselves are rarely - as most of the large defense companies are spread out over a large enough areas that they have overlapping fields of fire.
   The RCN seems to have zero interest in the amphibious ships - and without a need specified from the GoC they won't even take that role on.


----------



## Dale Denton

Just let me keep my optimism that we'd at least have a coherent plan that is a part of an overall strategy and not kick this can (along with many others) down the road. 

I'm hedging my bets on things we already could reasonably build (with excessive fine print) or buy from companies with even a mild presence in. It's a more reasonable bet that any gov't would go for these options. 

We don't have an industrial strategy that considers our domestic defence industry. Bell is a big player, so if we cared enough we could build on top of their (and others') infrastructure. 

Build with the tools you have etc...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Replacing the current machines will save money in the long run and make things easier on the maintainers while improving the fleet reliability and capability. Bell and Canada would both benefit and would be a risk free contract with much political goodwill. Particularly as they would be replacing the machines flying domestic ops right now, so it would be a good time to make that announcement. Ditto for the Twin Otters and we could double that fleet and have the extras manned by Reservists. The Helicopters could be replaced in batches of say 20 a year, spreading out the costs and keeping people employed for longer.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin Parkinson said:


> Replacing the current machines will save money in the long run and make things easier on the maintainers while improving the fleet reliability and capability.


The real question is whether it will save money in the next four years (or 18 months).


----------



## Dale Denton

...Or even the next 10 years that it would take to get the project start to the first build.

I mentioned in other threads, but pick a few capabilities and tell industry that if they stay in Canada and even loosely meets our needs, we'll build it.

Commit to: 
Canadian assembly, continuous refining, 10 yr refit, 10 year development of improvements and a first build.

Rotary Wing: Bell takes the big slice, Other companies for subsystems and all other aircraft.

Armoured Personnel Carriers: GDLS-C, build all variants on a common LAV 6.0 platform, then transition to the UKs Boxer, growing into a full spectrum of variants.

Shipbuilding: Building OPVs, AORs, and warships


----------



## FJAG

LoboCanada said:


> ...
> Armoured Personnel Carriers: GDLS-C, build all variants on a common LAV 6.0 platform, then transition to the UKs Boxer, growing into a full spectrum of variants.
> ...



Boxer is ARTEC GmbH based in Munich; its parent companies are Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH and Rheinmetall Military Vehicles GmbH on the German side.

The UK's troubled AJAX, however, is by General Dynamics UK. I'd hold off on that one for a long while.

🍻


----------



## Dale Denton

Ya ya but you know what I mean...

Or spend money (sorry, nothings cheap) and work with allies and make the next LAV 8 or APC family.

It's the same thing with Bell (or Viking), build a recent/next generation that our friends are looking to buy too. Decide to only buy in-service or allied next-gen projects that friends are working on. It's an easy way to never buy another orphan fleet. Keeps us in mind of our allies, brings new companies to Canada (with jobs and offices) and makes us easier to work with (cross country/industry).


----------



## KevinB

LoboCanada said:


> Ya ya but you know what I mean...
> 
> Or spend money (sorry, nothings cheap) and work with allies and make the next LAV 8 or APC family.
> 
> It's the same thing with Bell (or Viking), build a recent/next generation that our friends are looking to buy too. Decide to only buy in-service or allied next-gen projects that friends are working on. It's an easy way to never buy another orphan fleet. Keeps us in mind of our allies, brings new companies to Canada (with jobs and offices) and makes us easier to work with (cross country/industry).


Bell is building a next gen Helo - their V-280 for FVL.
   Bell Miracle is not a freestanding entity - they are owned by the US parent and told when to jump and how high.

As I mentioned in the Griffon thread - once FVL hits the streets, the US Army will start retiring UH-60's - a lot of these will go out the door to countries as FMA (Foreign Military Assistance) for free (goodwill), or as fire sale FMS (Foreign Military Sales) - neither Sikorsky or Bell will have a need (or desire) to sell a .mil Helo for some time.

The USMC has a MOU with the Army to get into FVL - they don't need to follow through - but the size of the Army contract means that unless they really dislike the winner and it doesn't meet their needs - that it would be financially foolish not to buy in.
   Which means that there will be UH-1Y and AH-1Z out for sale too.


----------



## Dale Denton

We won't be buying in to those cheap Blackhawks unfortunately, IMO.

I sincerely believe we don't buy certain US mil vehicles due to missing out on a photo op with a distinctly Canadian vehicle. Gov't would imagine avg joe seeing a HUMVEE in the news on an international mission and assume its a US HUMVEE. I bet your average Canadian can identify a LAV in a photo and think "hey the gov't is doing something about [new disaster]". You squander that public relations win if people confused Canadians with Americans.

Replace HUMVEE here with UH-60s, M1 Abrams, Bradleys, LAVs. Ofc we're also super cheap in this front already, but wouldn't it have been cheaper to tack on Canadian orders to these large American orders? I'm sure someone in DND/CF proposed this over the decades, but no bites in how many decades? US interoperability is vital, but public recog is king I guess. Maybe that's reason gov't sprung for the 25mm, to look different than a Stryker perhaps? That's enough assumption from me on that, back on topic...

Yes, easy asks are for ex USMC AH-1s and Venoms being refurbed in Canada. I can't see us getting the double or triple the Chinooks we should have, especially after we just publicly flipped off Boeing. Refurb the rest of the Griffons to the Venom standard or build new ones to replace the worst off. Transfer a chunk for SAR until we get around to replacing the CH-149s in the future. Jobs are more important than capabilities here. Canadians aren't writing to their MPs about the shortfalls of the Griffon, few are even asking why SAR is so underfunded for such a large country with so many natural disasters.

Engage with industry, see what they can deliver on the cheap that will support and grow their Canadian presence, spend $$$ where it makes sense. I really think it's that simple. If they pitch smart and commit heavily to Canada, the more money they get. It's a win-win. Make Daddy see were giving our money to his companies and it'll buy us some favour with them on more important gov't files.


----------



## KevinB

LoboCanada said:


> We won't be buying in to those cheap Blackhawks unfortunately, IMO.
> 
> I sincerely believe we don't buy certain US mil vehicles due to missing out on a photo op with a distinctly Canadian vehicle. Gov't would imagine avg joe seeing a HUMVEE in the news on an international mission and assume its a US HUMVEE. I bet your average Canadian can identify a LAV in a photo and think "hey the gov't is doing something about [new disaster]". You squander that public relations win if people confused Canadians with Americans.
> 
> Replace HUMVEE here with UH-60s, M1 Abrams, Bradleys, LAVs. Ofc we're also super cheap in this front already, but wouldn't it have been cheaper to tack on Canadian orders to these large American orders? I'm sure someone in DND/CF proposed this over the decades, but no bites in how many decades? US interoperability is vital, but public recog is king I guess. Maybe that's reason gov't sprung for the 25mm, to look different than a Stryker perhaps? That's enough assumption from me on that, back on topic...
> 
> Yes, easy asks are for ex USMC AH-1s and Venoms being refurbed in Canada. I can't see us getting the double or triple the Chinooks we should have, especially after we just publicly flipped off Boeing. Refurb the rest of the Griffons to the Venom standard or build new ones to replace the worst off. Transfer a chunk for SAR until we get around to replacing the CH-149s in the future. Jobs are more important than capabilities here. Canadians aren't writing to their MPs about the shortfalls of the Griffon, few are even asking why SAR is so underfunded for such a large country with so many natural disasters.
> 
> Engage with industry, see what they can deliver on the cheap that will support and grow their Canadian presence, spend $$$ where it makes sense. I really think it's that simple. If they pitch smart and commit heavily to Canada, the more money they get. It's a win-win. Make Daddy see were giving our money to his companies and it'll buy us some favour with them on more important gov't files.


You can't make a 412 Griffon into a Yankee very easily.
@Good2Golf pointed out the Yankee has more commonality with the AH-1Z than the UH-1N or 412

I don't think the CAF should get into the UH-60 at this point in time   -- flying over parts of Iraq in a UH-60 and watching ground fire coming up, I saw a USMC V-22 flight just bug out - they had the speed to GTFO, the UH-60 while relatively fast (compared to a Huey) isn't in the same league as the Tilt Rotors, or a Hook (those guys boogey for such a big bird) - in Afghan and Iraq Apaches had to leave early to get in position to escort the Hooks into a LZ, as the Hook would leave them in the dust speed wise.

Given the nature of the terrain in Canada - a Tilt Rotor can get a lot of places significantly faster than a conventional rotary bird.  That aspect is why I prefer the Bell option to the Sikorsky Defiant X, but I am not a pilot - and I will admit my experiences in birds are simply as a GIB.

Now I absolutely would be fine with doing as much to current Griffon fleet to make them as Y'ish as possible until FVL arrives - there is also a Recce/Attack platform for FVL - and while I like the Cobra - the 360 Invictus from Bell or Sikorsky's Raider offer a lot better system - especially for a country that does not have a support network for the Apache or Cobra already.

As for the LAV - the USMC LAV had the 25mm turret, the Stryker didn't as the US Army was banking on RWS systems and the MGS variant to offer more - plus they have the M2 Bradley as an IFV -- I don't think the CAF decision on the 25mm turret was based on anything but a desire to have a cannon armed wheeled APC like the USMC, and I don't think the Stryker lack of cannon had any bearing.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> As for the LAV - the USMC LAV had the 25mm turret, the Stryker didn't as the US Army was banking on RWS systems and the MGS variant to offer more - plus they have the M2 Bradley as an IFV -- I don't think the CAF decision on the 25mm turret was based on anything but a desire to have a cannon armed wheeled APC like the USMC, and I don't think the Stryker lack of cannon had any bearing.


That said, the US Army is up-turreting quite a few of its Strykers into the 30mm Dragoon in its Cavalry regiments in a number of Stryker brigades. The turret is unmanned and the vehicle crew is two - a driver and commander gunner with room for 9 GIBs.

By the looks of things this will change the Stryker BCTs into two versions: the light version equipped as before and the heavy version where half of the Strykers have Dragoon turrets and the other half are equipped with Javelin ATGMs.



> The Army is Upgrading the Stryker Armored Vehicle With a Bigger Gun
> 
> 
> The new Protector turret packs the firepower to take on enemy armored vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com



🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A number of years ago, I suggested here that we should have leased a few V-22 and crews to see how well they work for SAR up here. they come with their own sets of challenges and strengths.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> A number of years ago, I suggested here that we should have leased a few V-22 and crews to see how well they work for SAR up here. they come with their own sets of challenges and strengths.


The Osprey would be a great choice for some missions -- I'd be curious if the rotor wash may been an issue for some SAR missions involving basket recovery - or confined space rescues.   Obviously the best way to check the validity would be like you mentioned with a try before you buy Operational Testing phase.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> I don't think the CAF should get into the UH-60 at this point in time   -- flying over parts of Iraq in a UH-60 and watching ground fire coming up, I saw a USMC V-22 flight just bug out - they had the speed to GTFO, the UH-60 while relatively fast (compared to a Huey) isn't in the same league as the Tilt Rotors, or a Hook (those guys boogey for such a big bird) - in Afghan and Iraq Apaches had to leave early to get in position to escort the Hooks into a LZ, as the Hook would leave them in the dust speed wise.



So more Chinooks then?

Seriously, Canada is unlikely to invest heavily in a new platform like a tilt rotor but your excellent observation about 'survivability' might make a great case for more 'hooks.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> The Osprey would be a great choice for some missions -- I'd be curious if the rotor wash may been an issue for some SAR missions involving basket recovery - or confined space rescues.   Obviously the best way to check the validity would be like you mentioned with a try before you buy Operational Testing phase.


I don’t know if there are any CH-113/113A Labrador folks left in RWSAR, but aside from the marginal power concerns of the Lab at close to all-up weight, all the folks I talked to loved the stability and control of a tandem rotor in the mountains. The rotor configuration actually spreads downward over an expanded oval, which reduced downward velocity compared to a similarly weighted single-rotor helo.  That said, form chatting with some folks who’ve done the rope, rappel and SPIES rig thing from a CV-22 (KevinB, you probably have as well), the downwash of the Osprey’s relatively smaller rotors (compared to a Chinook) makes for some wicked airflow issues…which for the particular mission are worth the risks.  The Osprey is a big beast…similar MGAUW as the Chinook at 55,000lbs (I think it adds a few more thousand in rolling takeoff ferry mode), but it’s rotor disks are 2-1/2 times smaller in total area than a Chinook, which is where the intense/insane/[insert adjective] downwash comes from. Unless the person you’re trying to pluck off the side of the mountain is a specially-trained bubba who knows the drills to be safely recovered, I’m not sure an Osprey is an optimal recovery assets.  Can’t comment on recovering folks from a stricken vessel, that might be a more forgiving recovery environment for an Osprey than mountains…still would probably need a significant hoist height not to blow the cramp out of the crew or rescuee below.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I would just buy more Chinooks and avoid Osprey. You get 90% of the capability at half the price and complexity.

I have experienced the rotor downwash of a 30,000lb Cyclone. Compared to a 20,000lb Sea King, it is pretty wicked and not a lot of fun to work around.


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> I don’t know if there are any CH-113/113A Labrador folks left in RWSAR, but aside from the marginal power concerns of the Lab at close to all-up weight, all the folks I talked to loved the stability and control of a tandem rotor in the mountains.


Funny that you should mention that. I never worked with the Chinooks but I spent much more than my fair share in and under CH113 Voyageurs hooking up guns (for some reason always in mid winter). You were always in a bit of a blizzard but the wash was never an issue other than driving little ice crystals into every gap in your parka.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> Funny that you should mention that. I never worked with the Chinooks but I spent much more than my fair share in and under CH113 Voyageurs hooking up guns (for some reason always in mid winter). You were always in a bit of a blizzard but the wash was never an issue other than driving little ice crystals into every gap in your parka.
> 
> 🍻


That’s okay, FJAG, they were still 450 Sqn tandems…or maybe even 1 THP (Thump) for you! 😉 

Part of my training way back included being on the receiving end of a hook-up (as well as being hoisted). January in Edmonton…it was indeed cold…but once it came in overhead, there was actually a bubble of relatively less cyclonic/hurricanic force (depending which rotor you were closer to 😉) than being outside the rotors and catching the rotor outflow full force.   It gave an appreciation of what the TAMS or gun team was experiencing under the hook.  The new Chinook has significantly wider sponsons given it carries double the fuel of the older Chinooks, and I heard from the TAMS and guns that it’s got a bit of a ‘lull’ (relative) once you’re right under it.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> I don’t know if there are any CH-113/113A Labrador folks left in RWSAR, but aside from the marginal power concerns of the Lab at close to all-up weight, all the folks I talked to loved the stability and control of a tandem rotor in the mountains. The rotor configuration actually spreads downward over an expanded oval, which reduced downward velocity compared to a similarly weighted single-rotor helo.  That said, form chatting with some folks who’ve done the rope, rappel and SPIES rig thing from a CV-22 (KevinB, you probably have as well), the downwash of the Osprey’s relatively smaller rotors (compared to a Chinook) makes for some wicked airflow issues…which for the particular mission are worth the risks.  The Osprey is a big beast…similar MGAUW as the Chinook at 55,000lbs (I think it adds a few more thousand in rolling takeoff ferry mode), but it’s rotor disks are 2-1/2 times smaller in total area than a Chinook, which is where the intense/insane/[insert adjective] downwash comes from. Unless the person you’re trying to pluck off the side of the mountain is a specially-trained bubba who knows the drills to be safely recovered, I’m not sure an Osprey is an optimal recovery assets.  Can’t comment on recovering folks from a stricken vessel, that might be a more forgiving recovery environment for an Osprey than mountains…still would probably need a significant hoist height not to blow the cramp out of the crew or rescuee below.


There is a reason that I was a tad concerned about the rotor wash - I've done very minimal rope work from the 22 - but enough to make me concerned if one was trying to hover over someone, or to go up - or worse trying a basket type recovery in on tight space.

I'd never made the connection about the Hook wash to the size of the rotors - learn something new everyday - but the hook was significantly nicer to rope out of - or even run to on the ground than the Osprey, so I now have that knowledge gap filled (only 99% more gaps to go  )

I'm curious about the draft from the double rotor LockMart craft now...


----------



## Good2Golf

Yeah, that’s why the EH-101 / CH-149’actually has higher speed down wash than a Chinook. 35,000 lbs spread over a single 61’ rotor of the Cormorant versus 55,000 lbs max spread over two 60’ rotors makes a difference.   The only plus to the 101’s downwash I heard of was from an RAF Air Commodore telling me about his experience flying Merlins in Iraq; the downwash was so intense, it actually cleared lighter sand out of the way in an LZ, leaving heavier coarse sand behind that made for marginally better visibility from brownout than other helicopters (including the ‘Chinnies’)


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, that’s why the EH-101 / CH-149’actually has higher speed down wash than a Chinook. 35,000 lbs spread over a single 61’ rotor of the Cormorant versus 55,000 lbs max spread over two 60’ rotors makes a difference.   The only plus to the 101’s downwash I heard of was from an RAF Air Commodore telling me about his experience flying Merlins in Iraq; the downwash was so intense, it actually cleared lighter sand out of the way in an LZ, leaving heavier coarse sand behind that made for marginally better visibility from brownout than other helicopters (including the ‘Chinnies’)



Which reminded me of this allegation, about which I am not qualified in the least to comment!

MoD 'should hang heads in shame' over death of Army hero​
MINISTRY of Defence chiefs were today told by a coroner they "should hang their heads in shame" over equipment shortages that led to the death of a heroic British soldier in Afghanistan.

*Coroner Andrew Walker delivered the damning verdict after hearing that Corporal Mark Wright was killed while trying to help an injured colleague caught in a minefield. The "downwash" from a Chinook helicopter set off a mine.*

The inquest into his death heard that Corporal Wright, 27, and colleagues had requested a helicopter with a winch because of the danger of triggering a mine but were sent the Chinook because nothing with a winch was available.

The decision proved fatal when the air pressure caused by the Chinook's rotors as it approached the ground set off a landmine which inflicted severe shrapnel wounds on Corporal Wright.









						MoD 'should hang heads in shame' over death of Army hero
					

MINISTRY of Defence chiefs were today told by a coroner they "should hang their heads in shame" over equipment shortages that led to the death of a heroic British soldier in Afghanistan.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## Spencer100

US army Hooks from the 101 getting in trouble.  Hmmm the rotor wash get the fans upset?









						Titans flyover now subject of a 'pending investigation,' FAA says
					

The Federal Aviation Administration has signaled an intensified interest in a dramatic helicopter flyover two weeks ago at Nissan Stadium, now describing the incident as the focus of a "pending investigation."




					www.newschannel5.com
				




In this vid...is that the front of a Chinook? 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460620011039567872


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Spencer100 said:


> US army Hooks from the 101 getting in trouble.  Hmmm the rotor wash get the fans upset?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Titans flyover now subject of a 'pending investigation,' FAA says
> 
> 
> The Federal Aviation Administration has signaled an intensified interest in a dramatic helicopter flyover two weeks ago at Nissan Stadium, now describing the incident as the focus of a "pending investigation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newschannel5.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this vid...is that the front of a Chinook?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460620011039567872


No, AH-64.


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> Which reminded me of this allegation, about which I am not qualified in the least to comment!
> 
> MoD 'should hang heads in shame' over death of Army hero​
> MINISTRY of Defence chiefs were today told by a coroner they "should hang their heads in shame" over equipment shortages that led to the death of a heroic British soldier in Afghanistan.
> 
> *Coroner Andrew Walker delivered the damning verdict after hearing that Corporal Mark Wright was killed while trying to help an injured colleague caught in a minefield. The "downwash" from a Chinook helicopter set off a mine.*
> 
> The inquest into his death heard that Corporal Wright, 27, and colleagues had requested a helicopter with a winch because of the danger of triggering a mine but were sent the Chinook because nothing with a winch was available.
> 
> The decision proved fatal when the air pressure caused by the Chinook's rotors as it approached the ground set off a landmine which inflicted severe shrapnel wounds on Corporal Wright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MoD 'should hang heads in shame' over death of Army hero
> 
> 
> MINISTRY of Defence chiefs were today told by a coroner they "should hang their heads in shame" over equipment shortages that led to the death of a heroic British soldier in Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.standard.co.uk


I've always found the MoD using coroner inquests that way to be odd.
   Downwash itself isn't going to setoff a pressure mine, but some of the mines in Afghan had been sitting for a while - so you ended up with both ends of the spectrum - sometimes in the same minefield.
 1) Some got so sensitive that they'd go off if anything jostled them lightly - or
 2) on the other end where either so packed in mud or rendered inert due to time/weather that you could jump on them repeatedly and they wouldn't go off (I don't recommend that method - but people do get bored at times).

Some of the locals started stacking mines as IED's not so much for a Big Bang - but the fact that if you put 3-4 old Russian AT mines in a hole - at least 1 would usually go off with vehicle pressure.   

So Mines where best worked on with something like this - what HALO used to clear mines - the MineDozer.


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> US army Hooks from the 101 getting in trouble.  Hmmm the rotor wash get the fans upset?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Titans flyover now subject of a 'pending investigation,' FAA says
> 
> 
> The Federal Aviation Administration has signaled an intensified interest in a dramatic helicopter flyover two weeks ago at Nissan Stadium, now describing the incident as the focus of a "pending investigation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newschannel5.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this vid...is that the front of a Chinook?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1460620011039567872


FAA rules are guidelines to the Military - they don't control what the Military does with Aircraft.

    I don't think the rotor wash worried anyone - it'e the Debbie downers who want to armchair everyone based on ground perspectives.
 The cables everyone seems to in a roar about aren't even possible to fly under - the issue is the view the ground camera gave - so some people freak out rather than looking at what was done and what was actually possible.

The public would lose their mind to see what happens during a RUT.


----------



## Good2Golf

FAA regs under Part 14 even have a military exemption, as do the Canadian Aeronautical Regulations (CARs).  

The wires to raise the end zone net were no where near a risk. 

Chatter from some of the 101CAB folks is that it was a “pissed off/jealous ‘leg’ (or their dependapotamus) that squealed to the FAA)”.  The CAB CDR (who was flying the lead AH-64 himself) has made it clear to the CoC that he owns how it was flown.  Props to him.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Chatter from some of the 101CAB folks is that it was a “pissed off/jealous ‘leg’ (or their dependapotamus) that squealed to the FAA)”.


Bahahaha that is Navy-level bladery.  

I love it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The real reason navy ships have helicopters


----------



## Dana381

I hope it ends better than these guys.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Colin Parkinson said:


> The real reason navy ships have helicopters


also vertical replenishment at sea


----------



## lenaitch

Dana381 said:


> I hope it ends better than these guys.


Well done.  A disabled boat, relatively calm water, in sight of shore and towing from one skid of a light machine.


----------



## Good2Golf

lenaitch said:


> Well done.  A disabled boat, relatively calm water, in sight of shore and towing from one skid of a light machine.


Yup.  The mind boggles… 🤦🏻


----------



## YZT580

I was and it worked.  It was a lot simpler mechanically than the Boeing but drastically underpowered.


Dana381 said:


> I hope it ends better than these guys.


and least there was a boat nearby for rescue


----------



## Good2Golf

Continued slight tangent…

Not that it can’t be done…


Reference link


> 03/31/2012. Gordon Ashmore was Columbia Helicopters' Maintenance Manager at the time this photo was taken. The following was transcribed from the Columbia Helicopters *website*:
> 
> In June 1982, Columbia Helicopters was hired by Sohio to participate in a test on Alaska's North Slope. The purpose of this test was to evaluate the ability of a helicopter - the Boeing Vertol 107-II - to tow a fully-loaded hover barge over water, snow and ice.
> 
> The test began in Prudhoe Bay on June 17. The Vertol's 600-foot long line was connected to hover barge ACT-100, jointly owned by Global Marine Development and VECO. Air blowers on the 170-ton (340,000 lb, 154,221 kg) barge forced a cushion of air under the barge, which was kept in place by rubberized skirt material.
> 
> This first test was run around Prudhoe Bay with an empty barge, and was successful. During this and subsequent tests, the aircraft often flew with a nose-down angle approaching 25°. Next, ACT-100 was loaded with 40 tons (80,000 lb, 36,287 kg) of cargo for another close-in test run. Once more, the helicopter showed it could move the barge despite the additional weight. The final aspect of the test was to tow the hover barge over a 50-mile course to a drill site named Alaska Island where Sohio had just completed an oil well.
> 
> During the tow to the island, headwinds over 30 knots were encountered, and snow and ice buildup were also factors. Regardless, the Vertol was able to bring the empty barge to the island successfully. On the return trip to Prudhoe Bay, when this photo was taken, the barge carried 50 tons (100,000 lb, 45,359 kg) of cargo, bringing the total weight to 220 tons (440,000 lb, 199,581 kg). As with the previous tests, this task was accomplished successfully.
> 
> This photograph is one of longtime Columbia Helicopters' photographer Ted Veal's most famous photographs. The use of a powerful telephoto lens makes it appear as though the helicopter is closer to the ice than is actually the case.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They converted one of those barges to a full blown hovercraft. Hovercraft were never big on directional stability, but these were apparently the worst my experienced captain had flown/driven, going into a 360 turn while in a whiteout at 40+ knots is a tad unnerving.


----------



## Good2Golf

I thought the hover barge wasn’t controlled in any manner other than under tow by the helicopter.   Yowza! Trying to imagine half a million pounds of equipment careening around on the ice! 😮


----------



## YZT580

Question: sure it works but why would you bother using a helicopter for propulsion?  Go to all the expense of equipping a barge with an aircushion system might just as well finish the job and gear it for propulsion.  That way you get your directional control and propulsion all in one package.  Seems like a make work project.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There was a mine I was reviewing that was planning to use a hover barge, pulled by this:


The tractor was never built, but the hoverbarge was. The project failed to get off the ground.


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe since the helos are there anyway, it makes the machinery less complex (and saves on pers manning the craft?


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> There was a mine I was reviewing that was planning to use a hover barge, pulled by this:
> View attachment 67765
> 
> The tractor was never built, but the hoverbarge was. The project failed to get off the ground.



Or you could just rig a rope tow system.  Like a ski tow.  That would work with the minimum friction platform,  give you a high efficiency pull, require a small traction motor and also supply directional stability from the trailing drag rope.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not sure how I feel about the unprotected prop in the back.


----------



## PuckChaser

Both the Blackhawk and Griffon have exposed tail rotors, though they're higher off the ground. From what I understand from the Defiant design, even if that rear prop is damaged itll still fly just at a reduced speed. Not true with traditional helos.


----------



## suffolkowner

the prop is clutch controlled so shouldnt be running when landing?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:


> Both the Blackhawk and Griffon have exposed tail rotors, though they're higher off the ground. From what I understand from the Defiant design, even if that rear prop is damaged itll still fly just at a reduced speed. Not true with traditional helos.


That would get damaged easily, it appears the bottom of the arc is only a foot or so off the ground, which means that it will suffer a lot of dirt and crap erosion.


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> the prop is clutch controlled so shouldnt be running when landing?


That looks like how it will be operated, based on the test flights I’ve seen.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Tangentially....

I liked this guy. Greg Kinnear played him on the Battle for LZ X Ray on 'We were soldiers'

He made alot of sense. Like the part where he noted the Huey gunships were better than the Cobras, which were getting shot down because they couldn't hear the incoming fire and didn't have door gunners.

About 9.07


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> Tangentially....
> 
> I liked this guy. Greg Kinnear played him on the Battle for LZ X Ray on 'We were soldiers'
> 
> He made alot of sense. Like the part where he noted the Huey gunships were better than the Cobras, which were getting shot down because they couldn't hear the incoming fire and didn't have door gunners.


Based on my experiences, you don't hear ground fire until it pierces the AC - doesn't matter if you are door open or not.  Night time - you see the green tracer incoming (and then the impact with your bird) and it doesn't matter if your buttoned up or not.
   The early Cobras where not nearly as armored against ground fire as the current ones, they where just a skinny airframe with the Huey power plant.   Having seen what a current (ish) Cobra can do in combat, versus a UH-1N gunship - it's night and day.  I totally disagree with his bad buy comments on the Cobra ~ 10:46, that airframe got AH's to what they are today.

Interesting video though


----------



## Good2Golf

^ This.  

Back in the late-60s, did a UH-1B gunship/rocketship put down more than an AH-1?  Sometimes, sometimes not. Respect to Kinnear (and any MoH recipient) but his argument, while there may have been some merit to it back in the day, would today hold no water…up-armed utility helos are still utility helos.  AH are key to operations where close interdiction of the enemy from the air is a requirement.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> ^ This.
> 
> Back in the late-60s, did a UH-1B gunship/rocketship put down more than an AH-1?  Sometimes, sometimes not. Respect to Kinnear (and any MoH recipient) but his argument, while there may have been some merit to it back in the day, would today hold no water…up-armed utility helos are still utility helos.  AH are key to operations where close interdiction of the enemy from the air is a requirement.


Totally does make me want a AH-47 though, no passengers - all guns, rockets and missiles,  we could call it the AH-47F "Porcupine"


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Totally does make me want a AH-47 though, no passengers - all guns, rockets and missiles,  we could call it the AH-47F "Porcupine"


You mean this thing?









						ACH-47A Guns-A-Go-Go
					

“This small piece of metal is all that remains of “CO$T OF LIVING” after her fatal crash on May 5th, 1967 near Bong Son, Vietnam. Luckily, someone had the foresight to hack t…




					www.armyaviationmuseum.org


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Totally does make me want a AH-47 though, no passengers - all guns, rockets and missiles,  we could call it the AH-47F "Porcupine"


While he didn’t specifically mention the AH-47, he was appropriately laudatory of the beast! 😉


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> You mean this thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACH-47A Guns-A-Go-Go
> 
> 
> “This small piece of metal is all that remains of “CO$T OF LIVING” after her fatal crash on May 5th, 1967 near Bong Son, Vietnam. Luckily, someone had the foresight to hack t…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.armyaviationmuseum.org


A fully Modern one would be neat.


----------



## KevinB

Best quote though "my cooks, clerks and Maj's from the staff, where all filling that door gunner spot"
   Necessity breeds inovation


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> Best quote though "my cooks, clerks and Maj's from the staff, where all filling that door gunner spot"
> Necessity breeds inovation



I liked the part about him leading in over 700 air assault operations. 

He acknowledged that the LZs were not all 'hot', but still.... that's alot of 'things could go sideways'.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> Totally does make me want a AH-47 though, no passengers - all guns, rockets and missiles,  we could call it the AH-47F "Porcupine"


I'm in, I'll man a gun. Sounds like fun,


----------



## calculus

Holy hell. Defiant will presumably have 2 of these?

Honeywell to power Defiant X compound coaxial helicopter

15,000 SHP!


----------



## Good2Golf

calculus said:


> Holy hell. Defiant will presumably have 2 of these?
> 
> Honeywell to power Defiant X compound coaxial helicopter
> 
> 15,000 SHP!


It’s a solid engine!  50% more power than the Chinook’s T55, and more than 10% more efficient.


----------



## suffolkowner

looks like too much machine for us

HP = $$?


----------



## Dana381

From what I found it has 7x the HP (1,890shp vs 15,000shp) of the Blackhawk to lift essentially the same load. Blackhawk payload is 9000# and the Defiant X is undisclosed but presumed to be around 10,000#. That is a lot of power to not even double the speed. 159kn vs 250kn 

Specs for the V-280 are similar except its a little faster with 280kn cruise and 300kn max. That is a lot of extra power to get those speeds. A CH-47F can lift 2.5 times the weight at a decent 160kn cruise speed. 

I think the V-280 and the Defiant X are really cool helicopters but I can't see smaller militaries like ours justifying the extra cost just for the speed advantage. With the global pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions I see these being a tough sell outside the US.


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> looks like too much machine for us



Why is that?  FLRAA or equivalent such as NGRC (NATO equivalent of US Army FVL program) is what will likely replace the Griffon, leveraging to an existing MILSPEC program.  



suffolkowner said:


> HP = $$?



Not directly.   Newer HP comes with greater relative efficiency and maintainability as a general rule.  HTS7500 will have reduced Maint costs the same way that the existing T55-GA-714s of Canada’s CH-147F are more powerful and easier to maintain than the original 147’s T55-LS-11SCs.


----------



## calculus

Dana381 said:


> From what I found it has 7x the HP (1,890shp vs 15,000shp) of the Blackhawk to lift essentially the same load. Blackhawk payload is 9000# and the Defiant X is undisclosed but presumed to be around 10,000#. That is a lot of power to not even double the speed. 159kn vs 250kn
> 
> Specs for the V-280 are similar except its a little faster with 280kn cruise and 300kn max. That is a lot of extra power to get those speeds. A CH-47F can lift 2.5 times the weight at a decent 160kn cruise speed.
> 
> I think the V-280 and the Defiant X are really cool helicopters but I can't see smaller militaries like ours justifying the extra cost just for the speed advantage. With the global pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions I see these being a tough sell outside the US.


More like 4x - the Blackhawk has 2 engines, or 3780 SHP.

I wonder if that pusher prop at the rear requires all that extra power?


----------



## Dana381

calculus said:


> More like 4x - the Blackhawk has 2 engines, or 3780 SHP.
> 
> I wonder if that pusher prop at the rear requires all that extra power?



Your right, I don't know how I messed that up. OOPs. Thanks for pointing it out


----------



## Good2Golf

Power required is second-order exponential time speed, ie. Preq ≈ Speed^2

159kts > 250kts:   Pwr = (250/159)^2 = 1.57^2 = 2.5 times the power.


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> I think the V-280 and the Defiant X are really cool helicopters but I can't see smaller militaries like ours justifying the extra cost just for the speed advantage. With the global pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions I see these being a tough sell outside the US.


Speed, Range, Less Cost / Blade Hr, more efficient engine.

 Speed is life in many situations.


----------



## Dale Denton

Bell launches 407M light attack helo​Source - Janes
Source - Bell 407M product page


> As with the 407GT, the 407M leverages the 407-derived OH-58D Kiowa Warrior that, until recently, served as the US Army's scout helicopter. According to company specifications, the 407M features a Garmin G1000H NXi cockpit with TekFusion Global Pathfinder mission and weapons management systems, has a night-vision goggle (NVG)-compatible cockpit, an electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) sensor turret, and a CFD International two or four station weapons wing. With a 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) external maximum gross weight, the platform's weapons include 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm gun pods or pintle-mounted guns, seven-shot rocket pods, 70 mm Hydra/APKWS rockets, and Hellfire or Griffin air-to-surface missiles.
> 
> The 407M is equipped with armoured crew seating, defensive countermeasures, a self-sealing fuel system, ballistically tolerant main rotor blades, an IR suppression system with a 30-minute run-dry capability, and roll-over bulkheads for increased crash survivability. Performance specifications (at maximum gross weight) include a top speed of 140 kt, a range (at long-range cruise speed) of 624 km, and an endurance of up to four hours.


----------



## calculus

More on Defiant:






						DEFIANT helicopter slaloms, lifts external loads and demos single-engine capability
					

In three demonstrations during the same flight, the Lockheed Martin Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 DEFIANT helicopter demonstrated it is not only maneuverable, survivable and fast, but also provides the critical external lift capability of traditional rotorcraft. With DEFIANT X, the team’s offering for...




					airrecognition.com


----------



## CBH99

calculus said:


> More on Defiant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DEFIANT helicopter slaloms, lifts external loads and demos single-engine capability
> 
> 
> In three demonstrations during the same flight, the Lockheed Martin Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 DEFIANT helicopter demonstrated it is not only maneuverable, survivable and fast, but also provides the critical external lift capability of traditional rotorcraft. With DEFIANT X, the team’s offering for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airrecognition.com


Lockheed, Sikorsky, and Boeing all in together developing the next generation of vertical lift?

Doesn’t leave much room for competition…


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Dale Denton said:


> Bell launches 407M light attack helo​Source - Janes
> Source - Bell 407M product page


So, an upgraded Kiowa?


----------



## KevinB

Retired AF Guy said:


> So, an upgraded Kiowa?


Looks to be a budget version of the -D, no targeting dome, and considering the D was inadequate...


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> Lockheed, Sikorsky, and Boeing all in together developing the next generation of vertical lift?
> 
> Doesn’t leave much room for competition…


Lockheed acquired Sikorsky - they are still "integrating" RMS into one team.
  Bell/Boeing is the other competitor.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Lockheed, Sikorsky, and Boeing all in together developing the next generation of vertical lift?
> 
> Doesn’t leave much room for competition…


So aside from Bell Textron with the V-280 Valor, who else should be considered?  Kaman?  They sub to Bell, Boeing and Lockheed/Sikorsky. 

What other manufacturers are there out there upon which the US can absolutely guarantee its supply chain?


----------



## calculus

Good2Golf said:


> So aside from Bell Textron with the V-280 Valor, who else should be considered?  Kaman?  They sub to Bell, Boeing and Lockheed/Sikorsky.
> 
> What other manufacturers are there out there upon which the US can absolutely guarantee its supply chain?


This, perhaps, from Europe:









						Five European allies sign on to build NATO’s next medium-lift helicopter
					

France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Greece each signed letters of intent to participate in the program, dubbed “Next-Generation Rotorcraft Capability,” or NGRC.




					www.defensenews.com
				












						NATO progresses next-generation helicopter project as six-country agreement takes shape
					

Six European NATO members are gearing up to sign an agreement later this year to advance the alliance's plans to field a next-generation medium-lift helicopter by the mid-2030s.




					www.flightglobal.com


----------



## Good2Golf

Do you think the US considers a foreign manufacturer a reliable defense supply chain partner?


----------



## calculus

Good2Golf said:


> Do you think the US considers a foreign manufacturer a reliable defense supply chain partner?


Probably not, though the UH-72 Lakota shows it is not outside of the realm of possible. I was more thinking for Canada this could be an option.


----------



## Good2Golf

UH-72 is not a combat aircraft for deployed ops, it is a domestic Guard utility and training capability upon which no active duty US soldier would have to depend on in operations.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Speed, Range, Less Cost / Blade Hr, more efficient engine.
> 
> Speed is life in many situations.



Off hand the V280, with its engine package looks to me a bit like an early DASH-8 that is swapping some cargo capacity for vertical lift.









						De Havilland Canada Dash 8 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




MTOW is 15,600 kg  for the Dash 8-100 vs 14,000 kg for the V280
Pax is 38 for the Dash 8 vs 14 for the V280
Range is 1889 km for the Dash 8 vs 1480 to 3900 km for the V280.
Speed is 500 km/h for the Dash 8 vs 520 km/h for the V280.

If the price of the V280 (exclusive of all the military doodads) were comparable to the Dash 8 I reckon it would be a fair trade.

On the other hand












How much is that Vertical Take off and Land worth compared to an equivalent number of modern DHC-5 with the same military doodads?


----------



## KevinB

calculus said:


> Probably not, though the UH-72 Lakota shows it is not outside of the realm of possible. I was more thinking for Canada this could be an option.


As @Good2Golf pointed out it's a training domestic bird - , the scout role of the OH-58D was basically replaced operationally by UAV's.

The Coast Guard has the Europcopter MH-65 Dauphin for domestic roles where the Blackhawk isn't needed as well.

But given that Bell/Boeing have the V-280 flying and LM/Sik have the Defiant X - as well as both have flying Scout/Attack helicopters for that portion as well.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> How much is that Vertical Take off and Land worth compared to an equivalent number of modern DHC-5 with the same military doodads?


While I have never tried to extract a building under fire onto a fixed wing craft --- I'm not sure that it would work very well


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> While I have never tried to extract a building under fire onto a fixed wing craft --- I'm not sure that it would work very well



I have confidence.  I am sure you could figure something out.  






On the other hand.  You might be right and a few of them could come in handy.   But in a battle for dollars.  How many do you really need?  And how much of the role could be handled by Chinooks and Buffalos - or even Hercs?  I am leaving the Kingfisher out of the discussion for the moment.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oh, and by the way, you could probably reduce the power requirements necessary if you left the building behind while you were being extracted.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> I have confidence.  I am sure you could figure something out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand.  You might be right and a few of them could come in handy.   But in a battle for dollars.  How many do you really need?  And how much of the role could be handled by Chinooks and Buffalos - or even Hercs?  I am leaving the Kingfisher out of the discussion for the moment.


It's been used with people - but it's not exactly a very practical method.

I love the Hook - but it's not a great platform for tight spaces, and it's fairly big - so if you are running a 6-14 man team it's a little over kill.
   I am of the believer with aerial platforms for air assault that more is more -- meaning - it is often better to bring more AC than less -- it gives the enemy more to shoot at .

This is a Blackhawk (or Griffon for those of you rotary challenged  ) replacement - it's not a Hook replacement.

Fixed wing planes can't hover -- and often you need that ability.
  Rotary and Fixed Wing craft have different roles - and you need both.


----------



## Kirkhill

Retired AF Guy said:


> So, an upgraded Kiowa?


Or









						Northrop Grumman MQ-8C Fire Scout - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Optionally manned?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Good2Golf said:


> So aside from Bell Textron with the V-280 Valor, who else should be considered?  Kaman?  They sub to Bell, Boeing and Lockheed/Sikorsky.
> 
> What other manufacturers are there out there upon which the US can absolutely guarantee its supply chain?


Leonardo??


----------



## Good2Golf

Retired AF Guy said:


> Leonardo??


If Lockheed is subbing them, perhaps, but Lockheed would be prime and take the extra measures to ensure supply chain.  I would highly doubt Leonardo as a separate entity would ever get a prime, anymore than say Airbus…


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northrop Grumman MQ-8C Fire Scout - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Optionally manned?


What one does with OH-58D's when one has the replacement sorted...

Stay paint over the cockpit glass and install the stuff you need to run remote.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> What one does with OH-58D's when one has the replacement sorted...
> 
> Stay paint over the cockpit glass and install the stuff you need to run remote.
> 
> View attachment 68783


Why paint over the windows.  The passengers might like the view.  An extra seat now that that noxious pilot is gone.  Or a bucke more ammunition.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Why paint over the windows.  The passengers might like the view.  An extra seat now that that noxious pilot is gone.  Or a bucke more ammunition.


If pilots were a welcome departure, then a self-loading meat-bag poking at switches in the cockpit being ousted would be just as much a relief to HAL9000 as the pilot. 😉


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> If pilots were a welcome departure, then a self-loading meat-bag poking at switches in the cockpit being ousted would be just as much a relief to HAL9000 as the pilot. 😉



It's OK, big aerospace companies like Boeing have your back...


Former Boeing 737 MAX Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud​A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Texas returned an indictment today charging a former Chief Technical Pilot for The Boeing Company (Boeing) with deceiving the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Evaluation Group (FAA AEG) in connection with the FAA AEG’s evaluation of Boeing’s 737 MAX airplane, and scheming to defraud Boeing’s U.S.‑based airline customers to obtain tens of millions of dollars for Boeing.​








						Former Boeing 737 MAX Chief Technical Pilot Indicted for Fraud
					

A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Texas returned an indictment today charging a former Chief Technical Pilot for The Boeing Company (Boeing) with deceiving the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Evaluation Group (FAA AEG) in connection with the FAA AEG’s evaluation of...




					www.justice.gov


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> Lockheed acquired Sikorsky - they are still "integrating" RMS into one team.
> Bell/Boeing is the other competitor.





Good2Golf said:


> So aside from Bell Textron with the V-280 Valor, who else should be considered?  Kaman?  They sub to Bell, Boeing and Lockheed/Sikorsky.
> 
> What other manufacturers are there out there upon which the US can absolutely guarantee its supply chain?


🤦🏼‍♂️

I had a total brain fart yesterday.  It’s been a while since I’ve thought about FVL…

The way I read the article, my brain (which was _not_ functioning) read that Lockheed/Sikorsky/Boeing were all working together on one proposal… duh moment for me 🤦🏼‍♂️

That’s why I was asking myself…. “Well wait, who does that leave?”


----------



## Good2Golf

Easy to do, programs cross-cross and change-up from time to time and it’s often hard to track the ‘Frienemy’ relations of various companies at any one time. Lol


----------



## daftandbarmy

A view from the Russian side of the line:

Donetsk, Lugansk republics announce evacuations of civilians amid Donbass escalation​Russia’s southern Rostov Region has reported that it is ready to receive Donbass residents

The situation at the engagement line in the east of Ukraine escalated on Thursday morning. The Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics reported the most intensive bombardments by the Ukrainian military in recent months. There has been no data on casualties yet; however, it has been reported that the bombardments have damaged some civil infrastructure facilities.









						Donetsk, Lugansk republics announce evacuations of civilians amid Donbass escalation
					

Russia’s southern Rostov Region has reported that it is ready to receive Donbass residents




					tass.com


----------



## Good2Golf

So with more than half the entire Russian Army within kilometers of the UKR border, they (RUS) forces had to depend on civvies phoning in some shells to the local police?  No hard-core RUS counter-battery radar plots proving inbound shells from UKR forces?  Just a bunch of conscripts digging holes in the middle of the night to then drop some BM-21 rocket casing bits in, to pretend that UKR “massive bombardments” were causing the Russian emigrants to UKR in the Donbas to want to get back into Mother Russia?


----------



## Dale Denton

Really? Nigeria before us??

Nigerian army to get Bell Textron AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters​Source
POSTED ON TUESDAY, 19 APRIL 2022 13:16


> The Government of Nigeria has requested to buy twelve *(12) AH-1Z Attack Helicopters; twenty-eight (28) T-700 GE 401C engines (24 installed, 4 spares); and two thousand (2,000) Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) guidance sections. *Also included is Night Vision Cueing Display (NVCD); commercial variant GPS with Standard Positioning Service (SPS); communication equipment; electronic warfare systems; AN/AVS-9 Aviator’s Night Vision Imaging System; M197 20mm machine gun; Target Sight System (TSS); support equipment; spare engine containers; spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training and training equipment; Mission Planning system; U.S. Government and contractor engineering; technical, and logistics support services; U.S. Government and contractor assistance and oversight of facilities construction to include the provisioning of plans, drawings and specifications; $25M of case funds will be allocated for institutional and technical assistance to the Armed Forces of Nigeria (AFN) to continue Air Ground Integration (AGI) program, which includes developing targeting processes that are legally compliant with International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict; and other related elements of logistics and program support. *The total estimated program cost is $997 million.*


----------



## Good2Golf

Before? 🤔 


Canada will NEVER get attack helicopters.


----------



## suffolkowner

Dale Denton said:


> Really? Nigeria before us??
> 
> Nigerian army to get Bell Textron AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters​Source
> POSTED ON TUESDAY, 19 APRIL 2022 13:16


Its right in the name "attack" it doesnt say convening helicopter


----------



## rmc_wannabe

"Attack" isn't a verb used in the Pearsonian definition of peacekeeping the Liberals adhere to. 

You'd have a better chance of selling ice to Polar Bears.


----------



## Good2Golf

rmc_wannabe said:


> "Attack" isn't a verb used in the Pearsonian definition of peacekeeping the Liberals adhere to.
> 
> You'd have a better chance of selling ice to Polar Bears.


The problem is when people, usually ultra-progressive Liberals, entirely miss the entire history of Pearson.  

Mind blowing (for some) question: who pushed for and achieved the supply of American nuclear weapons on Canadian soil…Diefenbaker or Pearson?


----------



## Dale Denton

If only we cared the rifleman/civilian in danger enough to protect them using these 'evil' machines.

RCAF/gov't hasn't done enough to assure people it deserves money for XYZ. It needs to be present on the TV/Internet.


----------



## Dana381

Good2Golf said:


> Before? 🤔
> 
> 
> Canada will NEVER get attack helicopters.



Paint them rainbow colored and put fancy socks on them and the Liberals will buy thousands


----------



## Good2Golf

Dana381 said:


> Paint them rainbow colored and put fancy socks on them and the Liberals will buy thousands


We could call them ‘Convening Choppers’


----------



## Spencer100

Well looks like the Euro NATO countries are worried about the FVL programs.  With the  NH-90 is not faring well in Norway and Australia they are looking to get together on something. 

Hey Canada signs on as observer!  We love to not fully commit to anything.  (not that I would in this program)  









						Six NATO countries sign agreement to collaborate on next-gen helo
					

Six NATO nations signed an agreement to collectively develop concepts for a future helicopter in Brussels on June 16.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> Well looks like the Euro NATO countries are worried about the FVL programs.  With the  NH-90 is not faring well in Norway and Australia they are looking to get together on something.
> 
> Hey Canada signs on as observer!  We love to not fully commit to anything.  (not that I would in this program)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Six NATO countries sign agreement to collaborate on next-gen helo
> 
> 
> Six NATO nations signed an agreement to collectively develop concepts for a future helicopter in Brussels on June 16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


😂 



> …The goal is also to develop a common airframe for both land, air and maritime variants, although the agency allows for the possibility of separate platforms if a common airframe proves too contentious…



The NH90 was kept to only 17 different variants for the 19 participating nations. 

It would be interesting to see how the participating nations decide on a single configuration (or two…). 😉


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:


> 😂
> 
> 
> 
> The NH90 was kept to only 17 different variants for the 19 participating nations.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how the participating nations decide on a single configuration (or two…). 😉


The RCAF would only need 3 different configurations naval, SAR, Green...

Oh forgot a super secret special CSOR trim level too.. ....


----------



## KevinB

I was about to post that link.  I was too busy LoL’ing during reading that I was late.  

I suspect it will fair about as well as most Euro airframe programs of late….


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> I was about to post that link.  I was too busy LoL’ing during reading that I was late.
> 
> I suspect it will fair about as well as most Euro airframe programs of late….


In ‘fairness’ to the NH90, the Aussies getting rid of NH90 variant #18, the MRH90 Taipan, weren’t really Euro/NATO, so that makes only Norway turning down Euro-based consortium-smashed-together helos by a NATO country… 😉


----------



## KevinB

EuroCraptor…
  I’m coining it.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> EuroCraptor…
> I’m coining it.


WHAT? Not the EuroRaptor?


----------



## Underway

I was amazed by the size difference between the NH90 and the Cyclone.  I understood the Cyclone is relatively big (second only to EH101 for frigate helo's) but did not really understand the difference until I saw it.


----------



## CBH99

OldSolduer said:


> WHAT? Not the EuroRaptor?


Can't get ahead of one's self...their 6th Gen isn't even off the drawing board yet


----------



## MTShaw

CBH99 said:


> Can't get ahead of one's self...their 6th Gen isn't even off the drawing board yet


🏆


----------



## Spencer100

This one is for Kevinb


----------



## Spencer100

Well the FVL and really the FLRAA (Blackhawk replacement) program is do or die for Bell.  

But I have earlier the army will have to give Bell one program at a minimum or they will lose a competitor and that will not be good for the industrial supply base.

Bell/Textron Says Keeping Future Vertical Lift On Track Is Critical To Renewing The Rotorcraft Industrial Base

Also as the Canadian angle Bell is Canada's industrial OEM supply base so there is that.


----------



## Kirkhill

MQ-8C /  Bell 407

How many 407s could be carried by the AOPSs and the CSCs instead of the CH-148s?  As an alternate/complementary load out - not necessarily as a replacement.

2?  3?









						Amphibious Operations: Ship-Launched MQ-8C Fire Scout Drone Massively Extends Future Warfighting Options - Warrior Maven: Center for Military Modernization
					

“Fire Scout is the Navy’s only unmanned helicopter with the ability to deploy from a ship or land with ISR&T at the extended range required for future warfighting,”




					warriormaven.com


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> MQ-8C /  Bell 407
> 
> How many 407s could be carried by the AOPSs and the CSCs instead of the CH-148s?  As an alternate/complementary load out - not necessarily as a replacement.
> 
> 2?  3?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amphibious Operations: Ship-Launched MQ-8C Fire Scout Drone Massively Extends Future Warfighting Options - Warrior Maven: Center for Military Modernization
> 
> 
> “Fire Scout is the Navy’s only unmanned helicopter with the ability to deploy from a ship or land with ISR&T at the extended range required for future warfighting,”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> warriormaven.com


Canadian content will be covered nicely.

But if you would like some type of completive bidding Leonardo (UK) will have a similar unmanned helicopter soon too. It may already be in the final stages of development before flight. 









						Royal Navy sets sights on drone helicopters
					

The UK Ministry of Defense has awarded a £60 million contract to Leonardo to design and develop an uncrewed helicopter for the Royal Navy.




					www.navaltoday.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> MQ-8C /  Bell 407
> 
> How many 407s could be carried by the AOPSs and the CSCs instead of the CH-148s?  As an alternate/complementary load out - not necessarily as a replacement.
> 
> 2?  3?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amphibious Operations: Ship-Launched MQ-8C Fire Scout Drone Massively Extends Future Warfighting Options - Warrior Maven: Center for Military Modernization
> 
> 
> “Fire Scout is the Navy’s only unmanned helicopter with the ability to deploy from a ship or land with ISR&T at the extended range required for future warfighting,”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> warriormaven.com


Get the government to buy 12x Bell 429, give them to TC, paint them grey and they lease the helicopters and crew to the RCN. This is how the CCG does it and it works well. Certainly good for domestic ops and lessens the demand on the Cyclones. They can work off of the AOP's mainly but also AOR's


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> Get the government to buy 12x Bell 429, give them to TC, paint them grey and they lease the helicopters and crew to the RCN. This is how the CCG does it and it works well. Certainly good for domestic ops and lessens the demand on the Cyclones. They can work off of the AOP's mainly but also AOR's


Better yet set up a company lets call it Spencer100 Helos Ltd. (similar cough cough Federal Fleet Services) to buy them wet lease them to the RCN.  Perfect! Who's in?   

Thinking....will need money, pilots, techs, and PR people....PR people first....Oh and a Liberal bagman.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Spencer100 said:


> Better yet set up a company lets call it Spencer100 Helos Ltd. (similar cough cough Federal Fleet Services) to buy them wet lease them to the RCN.  Perfect! Who's in?
> 
> Thinking....will need money, pilots, techs, and PR people....PR people first....Oh and a Liberal bagman.....




Reduce your costs Spencer -  pilots optional  



> The *Northrop Grumman MQ-8C Fire Scout* (known as the *Fire-X* during development) is an unmanned helicopter developed by Northrop Grumman for use by the United States Navy. The MQ-8C also has autonomous take-off and landing capability.


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> Reduce your costs Spencer -  pilots optional


Oh crap....What was I thinking.   

Leads me to a question.   Does a civilian company that would operate said drone (I know RPAS)  require a full licensed pilot? Are there different degrees?  Does the Fire Scout have any autotomy?  One cost save would be in the not requiring an "officer pilot"   Can one licensed Pilot in command of multiple RPAS with lesser "drone pilots"  Can it be done in a office in Nova Scotia an not on the Ship? Big saving there! 

Damn can anyone write a good business plan up?


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Well the FVL and really the FLRAA (Blackhawk replacement) program is do or die for Bell.
> 
> But I have earlier the army will have to give Bell one program at a minimum or they will lose a competitor and that will not be good for the industrial supply base.
> 
> Bell/Textron Says Keeping Future Vertical Lift On Track Is Critical To Renewing The Rotorcraft Industrial Base
> 
> Also as the Canadian angle Bell is Canada's industrial OEM supply base so there is that.


Bell isn’t going to win. 
   Sikorsky (LocMart) will replace Sikorsky. 

There is a discussion with the MG running the CFT for FVL.


----------



## DBNSG

Colin Parkinson said:


> Get the government to buy 12x Bell 429, give them to TC, paint them grey and they lease the helicopters and crew to the RCN. This is how the CCG does it and it works well. Certainly good for domestic ops and lessens the demand on the Cyclones. They can work off of the AOP's mainly but also AOR's


Why not buy the Griffin or the Bell 412 EP  as it known to the Coast Guard. I would feel a little better with more lift, range, and internal space when going North.


----------



## KevinB

DBNSG said:


> Why not buy the Griffin or the Bell 412 EP  as it known to the Coast Guard. I would feel a little better with more lift, range, and internal space when going North.


Maybe ask the Naval and Tac Helo folks as to why they hate Maritime ops with skids as opposed to wheels on the birds...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

DBNSG said:


> Why not buy the Griffin or the Bell 412 EP  as it known to the Coast Guard. I would feel a little better with more lift, range, and internal space when going North.


We used small and large on the buoy tenders, the smaller ones fit into the hanger, not sure if the 412's would fit an AOP's hanger or they have folding blades?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> Maybe ask the Naval and Tac Helo folks as to why they hate Maritime ops with skids as opposed to wheels on the birds...


The weather/sea state requirements would be different than Naval aircraft. I am proposing the 75% solution, using a government framework already in existence, using Canadian produced aircraft and creating more helicopter capability for the CAF without the person year requirements. Political and fiscally it's quite doable and somewhat similar to what the RN and USN does with contracted helicopter companies. Using government employees will solve some security issues and optics.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> The weather/sea state requirements would be different than Naval aircraft. I am proposing the 75% solution, using a government framework already in existence, using Canadian produced aircraft and creating more helicopter capability for the CAF without the person year requirements. Political and fiscally it's quite doable and somewhat similar to what the RN and USN does with contracted helicopter companies. Using government employees will solve some security issues and optics.


25% solution...

The areas where one needs additional blades - are areas that 1) contract services will be super $... 2) challenging environments for less capable birds that don't have all the EO/IO bells and whistles 3) area that the CAF needs to show the flag, not a contractor.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> 25% solution...
> 
> The areas where one needs additional blades - are areas that 1) contract services will be super $... 2) challenging environments for less capable birds that don't have all the EO/IO bells and whistles 3) area that the CAF needs to show the flag, not a contractor.


Mostly I am thinking Arctic, domestic ops and humanitarian. The AOP's are apparently not "Warships" so rarely will need "Warship type helicopters". It does not preclude carrying a Cyclone. But do you need a Cyclone for doing ice recce?


----------



## suffolkowner

Do the Coast Guards 429's and 412's currently operate off ships for ice navigation or do they use something else?


----------



## suffolkowner

interesting I just saw this on the drive. Bell's old stretched uppowered huey. Coming soon to a RCAF base near you!









						Bell's Bizarre Looking Stretched Huey Turned Out To Be A Rare But Sought After Workhorse
					

Originally developed for Iran, the helicopters never saw service in that country, but have become popular with contractors supporting U.S. forces.




					www.thedrive.com
				












						Bell 214ST - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Skysix

Spencer100 said:


> Oh crap....What was I thinking.
> 
> Leads me to a question.   Does a civilian company that would operate said drone (I know RPAS)  require a full licensed pilot? Are there different degrees?  Does the Fire Scout have any autotomy?  One cost save would be in the not requiring an "officer pilot"   Can one licensed Pilot in command of multiple RPAS with lesser "drone pilots"  Can it be done in a office in Nova Scotia an not on the Ship? Big saving there!
> 
> Damn can anyone write a good business plan up?


Warrant Officer pilots, like the US uses or the RAF Flight Sgt's of WW2

License wise yes, a UAS pilot license. Condiderably easier and cheaper to get


----------



## Skysix

Good2Golf said:


> 😂
> 
> 
> 
> The NH90 was kept to only 17 different variants for the 19 participating nations.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how the participating nations decide on a single configuration (or two…). 😉


And it didn't work well for any if them


----------



## Skysix

Good2Golf said:


> Do you think the US considers a foreign manufacturer a reliable defense supply chain partner?


Yes. At least for mission critical (but cheaper) semiconductors


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:


> Do the Coast Guards 429's and 412's currently operate off ships for ice navigation or do they use something else?


If they run them like the last fleet in my time, the 429's would stay on the ship as it went about it's tasks, operating as required. Arctic ships always had a heli tasked to them. The 412 would fly out to a airport/heliport in range of the task site. The Ship would bring up the equipment and the 412 would meet the ship and then sling stuff off of it. I recall a 412 ferrying us to a light station from a 1100. but I don't think he ever shut down onboard. The above was for getting stuff like radar huts and met stations to the top of mountains or heavy gear to a lightstation.


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> interesting I just saw this on the drive. Bell's old stretched uppowered huey. Coming soon to a RCAF base near you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bell's Bizarre Looking Stretched Huey Turned Out To Be A Rare But Sought After Workhorse
> 
> 
> Originally developed for Iran, the helicopters never saw service in that country, but have become popular with contractors supporting U.S. forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bell 214ST - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


It is an interesting bird.
   I never realized they had them with wheels too -


----------



## suffolkowner

KevinB said:


> It is an interesting bird.
> I never realized they had them with wheels too -


I'm sure we could have done the same just a couple extra million dollars handed over at Mirabel


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> It is an interesting bird.
> I never realized they had them with wheels too -


I was offered to take an ST for a spin around the block years ago down in Fort Worth…can’t remember why I didn’t, but I should have…Super Duper Huey with Apache/Black Hawk levels of power…or in single engine format (‘B model’) with a single Chinook engine…gotta hand it to the Bell dudes at the time…they were putting out some nice machines!


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> I'm sure we could have done the same just a couple extra million dollars handed over at Mirabel


It would have made a slew more sense than the Griffon.
   In fact one probably could have gotten way with it for a SAR and MH bird too.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Spencer100 said:


> Oh crap....What was I thinking.
> 
> Leads me to a question.   Does a civilian company that would operate said drone (I know RPAS)  require a full licensed pilot? Are there different degrees?  Does the Fire Scout have any autotomy?  One cost save would be in the not requiring an "officer pilot"   Can one licensed Pilot in command of multiple RPAS with lesser "drone pilots"  Can it be done in a office in Nova Scotia an not on the Ship? Big saving there!
> 
> Damn can anyone write a good business plan up?


Smaller UAS (up to 25 kg) operating in what we call the Open Category (a set of rules to be followed) can operate up to 5 UAs depending on the type of airspace it is operating into as long as the UAS is designed to be operated that way.  All folks need is a license to operate (DLN course with some practical training) and an authority to procure the systems (which is often the limiting factor - the UAS WSM is really rigid in what we can procure).


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> Smaller UAS (up to 25 kg) operating in what we call the Open Category (a set of rules to be followed) can operate up to 5 UAs depending on the type of airspace it is operating into as long as the UAS is designed to be operated that way.  All folks need is a license to operate (DLN course with some practical training) and an authority to procure the systems (which is often the limiting factor - the UAS WSM is really rigid in what we can procure).











						Fire Scout
					

Fire Scout is a combat-proven, autonomous helicopter system providing real-time Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Target-acquisition (ISR&T), laser designation and battle management to tactical users without relying on manned aircraft or space-based assets.




					www.northropgrumman.com
				




It is a Kiowa with a remote kit - I am guessing the RCAF would want a much more 'real' helicopter pilot than a DLN class for something like this.


----------



## Kirkhill

Knowing what a fan of the Blackhawk Kevin is perhaps he would like to ride this?  All that's necessary is to punch in the co-ordinates and let Google do the rest.









						UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter Achieves Pilotless Flight - Warrior Maven: Center for Military Modernization
					

The Black Hawk performed a 30-min mission including pedal turns, maneuvers and various autonomous adaptations to specific mission environments.




					warriormaven.com


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Knowing what a fan of the Blackhawk Kevin is perhaps he would like to ride this?  All that's necessary is to punch in the co-ordinates and let Google do the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter Achieves Pilotless Flight - Warrior Maven: Center for Military Modernization
> 
> 
> The Black Hawk performed a 30-min mission including pedal turns, maneuvers and various autonomous adaptations to specific mission environments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> warriormaven.com




And people think Bell has a chance in FVL…


----------



## Kirkhill

Now if only Sikorsky could get all those Cyclones flying.....


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Now if only Sikorsky could get all those Cyclones flying.....


Why, Sik has no motivation to support that orphan fleet.


----------



## Kirkhill

Northrop Grumman and Bell wouldn't be an improbable pairing for Canada


Fire Scout RQ-8A


> Bell, Sikorsky, and a collaboration of Teledyne Ryan and Schweizer Aircraft submitted designs. The Ryan-Schweizer UAV was selected as the winner in the spring of 2000. The _RQ-8A Fire Scout_, as it was named, was a derivative of the Schweizer three-passenger, turbine powered _330SP_ helicopter,




Fire Scout MQ-8B


> Northrop Grumman pitched a range of improved configurations to anyone who was interested. As it turned out, the U.S. Army was very interested, awarding a contract for seven improved _RQ-8B_ evaluation machines in late 2003. In 2006, it was redesignated _MQ-8B_.



Fire Scout MQ-8C



> The *Northrop Grumman MQ-8C Fire Scout* (known as the *Fire-X* during development) is an unmanned helicopter developed by Northrop Grumman for use by the United States Navy. The MQ-8C also has autonomous take-off and landing capability. It is designed to provide reconnaissance, situational awareness, aerial fire support and precision targeting support for ground, air and sea forces. The MQ-8C airframe is based on the Bell 407, while the avionics and other systems are developed from those used on the MQ-8B Fire Scout. It first flew in October 2013[3] and achieved initial operational capability on 28 June 2019.[1]



Bell Arapaho / 407



> The *Bell ARH-70 Arapaho*[1][2] was an American four-bladed, single-engine, light military helicopter designed for the United States Army's Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) program. With a crew of two and optimized for urban combat, the ARH-70 was slated to replace the Army's aging OH-58D Kiowa Warrior.
> 
> Excessive delays and growth in program costs forced its cancellation on 16 October 2008, when the Department of Defense failed to certify the program to Congress. The ARH-70 was touted as having been built with off-the-shelf technology, the airframe being based on the Bell 407.



Lakota LUH



> The *Eurocopter* (now *Airbus Helicopters*) *UH-72 Lakota* is a twin-engine helicopter with a single, four-bladed main rotor. The UH-72 is a militarized version of the Eurocopter EC145, built by American Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters, Inc.), a division of Airbus Group, Inc.
> 
> Initially marketed as the *UH-145*, the helicopter was selected as winner of the United States Army's Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) program on 30 June 2006. In October 2006, American Eurocopter was awarded a production contract for 345 aircraft to replace the aging Bell UH-1H/V Iroquois and Bell OH-58A/C Kiowa helicopters in the US Army and Army National Guard fleets. The UH-72 performs logistics and support missions within the US for homeland security, disaster response missions, and medical evacuations.





> The Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno stated that the UH-72A was developed for domestic operations and is not considered to be operationally deployable to combat zones. The UH-72 is employed by the US Army National Guard in a utility role in the US, releasing UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters to deploy overseas



Not everything needs to be combat ready.  

And if the pilot stays home even an unmanned LUH has combat value.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Lakota LUH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everything needs to be combat ready.
> 
> And if the pilot stays home even an unmanned LUH has combat value.


It’s a training bird. 
  Only acquired for foreign offsets


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> Why, Sik has no motivation to support that orphan fleet.


Which does not say much about their corporate integrity. For a company that started the concept of a Maritime patrol helicopter, they sure failed hard at it this time around. Sikorsky must be crying in his grave.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> Which does not say much about their corporate integrity. For a company that started the concept of a Maritime patrol helicopter, they sure failed hard at it this time around. Sikorsky must be crying in his grave.


If the Liberals (Martin, but Chretien’s supporters were right there pressing) hadn’t pressed for an admittedly undeveloped aircraft to be selected as a means to protecting Chretien’s legacy (upholding the ‘I take my pen and write a big line tru dis…zip, zilch, zero ‘elicopters!’ cancellation of the EH-101), then we wouldn’t be here.  In the end, with the LDs (liquidated damages) paid, SIK has met all terms and conditions of the contract. Don’t hate the player; hate the game.


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:


> If the Liberals (Martin, but Chretien’s supporters were right there pressing) hadn’t pressed for an admittedly undeveloped aircraft to be selected as a means to protecting Chretien’s legacy (upholding the ‘I take my pen and write a big line tru dis…zip, zilch, zero ‘elicopters!’ cancellation of the EH-101), then we wouldn’t be here.  In the end, with the LDs (liquidated damages) paid, SIK has met all terms and conditions of the contract. Don’t hate the player; hate the game.


Hey there maybe a bright side. If the Sikorsky Marine One contract fails (there are some problems) we will be able to buy the VH-92 helicopters at a big discount and use as replacement parts!  Worked for the VH-71.


----------



## dapaterson

Relying on failed US procurements for spares for our orphan fleets isn't the power flex you seem to think it is...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:


> Relying on failed US procurements for spares for our orphan fleets isn't the power flex you seem to think it is...


It seems to be becoming a sustainable model for us. When the Halifax's start breaking, maybe we buy the LCS's in Reserve to fill the gap as well.......


----------



## Spencer100

dapaterson said:


> Relying on failed US procurements for spares for our orphan fleets isn't the power flex you seem to think it is...


Hey bit of related topic. Anyone know about this. I had read if Sikorsky sells the H-92 (CH-148) to another third party government or military Canada will receive money back in form of royalties for the cost of the R&D in marinizing and mil spec'ing the helicopter.  And also the cost of the fly by wire system.  I had read this in regards to the Germany FYI for maritime helicopters.  Does the VH-92 count in that? They will be using the fly by wire system.  Or does LM just rack up some other fee and call it a wash?


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> It seems to be becoming a sustainable model for us. When the Halifax's start breaking, maybe we buy the LCS's in Reserve to fill the gap as well.......


I would think there are people deep Ottawa looking at that plan as we speak.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> It seems to be becoming a sustainable model for us. When the Halifax's start breaking, maybe we buy the LCS's in Reserve to fill the gap as well.......



It worked for the Subs.


----------



## KevinB

Future Vertical Lift: DEFIANT X®
					

The best solution for the Army’s mission today, and the only solution able to adapt to the threats of tomorrow.




					lockheedmartin.com


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Future Vertical Lift: DEFIANT X®
> 
> 
> The best solution for the Army’s mission today, and the only solution able to adapt to the threats of tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lockheedmartin.com


Can’t lie, I like the ‘X’ better than the 280…it’s got good chops and looks good doing it.  Also the footprint similar (close) to a 60 is solid, Vice a sideways 47-like space.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Good2Golf said:


> Can’t lie, I like the ‘X’ better than the 280…it’s got good chops and looks good doing it.  Also the footprint similar (close) to a 60 is solid, Vice a sideways 47-like space.


Yes, I like the "X" as well for much the same reasons. Anything that can increase the number of available "LZs" is all right in my book.


----------



## Skysix

Not to mention all the bugs of a new aircraft and learning curve crashes. Going to be more with a tilt rotor due to complexity and unlearning how to fly (RW or FW) and learning how to fly tilt.

Plus hovering a tilt next to a cliff face at 10k' plus for a longline or hoist? I'll wait for the GSAR team..


----------



## KevinB

Skysix said:


> Not to mention all the bugs of a new aircraft and learning curve crashes. Going to be more with a tilt rotor due to complexity and unlearning how to fly (RW or FW) and learning how to fly tilt.
> 
> Plus hovering a tilt next to a cliff face at 10k' plus for a longline or hoist? I'll wait for the GSAR team..


Having been in hovering Osprey’s- they do it really well.  The down wash - well that’s not great.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Having been in hovering Osprey’s- they do it really well.  The down wash - well that’s not great.


No. No it is not.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

SeaKingTacco said:


> No. No it is not.


As bad as a Chinooks?


----------



## Good2Golf

Retired AF Guy said:


> As bad as a Chinooks?


Seriously worse.

Edit to add: Whem you’re bored, take a read through, especially pages 166-168 to see the difference between UH-60, CH-53, CH-47 and V-22.  Downward induced flow (aka rotor wash) is proportional to rotor system thrust  / rotor area, in the case of the study, measured in psf (lbs/sq.ft) at their respective minimum and maximum all-up weights.

As a data set of representative rotorcraft, below is an extract of the report from worse to better:

MV-22: 10.7-22.3 psf (Min/Max AUW)
CH-53:   9.5-15.0 psf (Min/Max AUW)
UH-60:   8.2-9.2 psf (Min/Max AUW)
CH-47:   6.2-9.3 psf (Min/Max AUW)

So yes, the Chinook moves a lot of air…a lot, but that weight (mass) of air is spread over a very large area and wide slower moving blades than any of the other craft (including the Black Hawk, ironically).




			https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA607614.pdf


----------



## dapaterson

The downdraft of an Osprey is nearly as powerful as a pilot's ego


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> The downdraft of an Osprey is nearly as powerful as a pilot's ego


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Seriously worse.
> 
> Edit to add: Whem you’re bored, take a read through, especially pages 166-168 to see the difference between UH-60, CH-53, CH-47 and V-22.  Downward induced flow (aka rotor wash) is proportional to rotor system thrust  / rotor area, in the case of the study, measured in psf (lbs/sq.ft) at their respective minimum and maximum all-up weights.
> 
> As a data set of representative rotorcraft, below is an extract of the report from worse to better:
> 
> MV-22: 10.7-22.3 psf (Min/Max AUW)
> CH-53:   9.5-15.0 psf (Min/Max AUW)
> UH-60:   8.2-9.2 psf (Min/Max AUW)
> CH-47:   6.2-9.3 psf (Min/Max AUW)
> 
> So yes, the Chinook moves a lot of air…a lot, but that weight (mass) of air is spread over a very large area and wide slower moving blades than any of the other craft (including the Black Hawk, ironically).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA607614.pdf


A V-22 taxied directly on top of me in Kuwait.  I though the (50,000 lb) aircraft was going to flip. It threw a bunch of rocks and garbage up and on the airframe.  It wasn’t fun but luckily there was no damage.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> A V-22 taxied directly on top of me in Kuwait.  I though the (50,000 lb) aircraft was going to flip. It threw a bunch of rocks and garbage up and on the airframe.  It wasn’t fun but luckily there was no damage.


Wow, almost surprising, SSM, but not.  Their downwash is insane!  I’ve caught the edge of it as an observer on the ground and can only imagine the influence with a bunch of aerodynamic surfaces in play.   My previous holy crap downwash moment was hover taxing a 146 past a 53 on the ground at 100% Nr…was probably 3-4 rotors away, but still!  I have no doubt that even a MUAW Hook would be bounced around like a kid in a bouncy castle by an Osprey.


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Wow, almost surprising, SSM, but not.  Their downwash is insane!  I’ve caught the edge of it as an observer on the ground and can only imagine the influence with a bunch of aerodynamic surfaces in play.   My previous holy crap downwash moment was hover taxing a 146 past a 53 on the ground at 100% Nr…was probably 3-4 rotors away, but still!  I have no doubt that even a MUAW Hook would be bounced around like a kid in a bouncy castle by an Osprey.


I remember seeing a video of a flyover of a SAR bird at the LtGov's residence in B.C. The downwash blew tables over and caused mayhem. The title of the video was something along the lines of" New CAF helicopter makes impression."  LMFAO.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> I remember seeing a video of a flyover of a SAR bird at the LtGov's residence in B.C. The downwash blew tables over and caused mayhem. The title of the video was something along the lines of" New CAF helicopter makes impression."  LMFAO.


The EH-101/CH-149 is up around the CH-53 for downwash intensity, so I’m not surprised, Weinie…


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> The EH-101/CH-149 is up around the CH-53 for downwash intensity, so I’m not surprised, Weinie…


CH-148 Cyclone is the worst I have ever seen for downwash. It is downright unpleasant to work under the helicopter and it can be difficult to not get blown off your feet.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> CH-148 Cyclone is the worst I have ever seen for downwash. It is downright unpleasant to work under the helicopter and it can be difficult to not get blown off your feet.



Well, they put almost EH-101/CH-149 weight into a footprint slightly larger than a Sea Hawk…the math sucks…are more accurately, blows…a LOT!  It has a weight loading of 11.1psf, so between a Black Hawk and a Super Stallion.


----------



## Good2Golf

All said, where bouncy castles and big tents are involved….it doesn’t take much pressure to get them moving… 😉


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> MV-22: 10.7-22.3 psf (Min/Max AUW)
> CH-53:   9.5-15.0 psf (Min/Max AUW)
> UH-60:   8.2-9.2 psf (Min/Max AUW)
> CH-47:   6.2-9.3 psf (Min/Max AUW)



Because I haven’t read it yet (as I wasn’t sure I would fully understand it)  is the min number at hover, and max pull all up being the most it will push when the pilot is clawing for air with max collective/throttle?


----------



## suffolkowner

how would the downwash on the defiant compare?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Because I haven’t read it yet (as I wasn’t sure I would fully understand it)  is the min number at hover, and max pull all up being the most it will push when the pilot is clawing for air with max collective/throttle?


It has to do with how heavy the helicopter is. AUW= All Up Weight


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> It has to do with how heavy the helicopter is. AUW= All Up Weight


This, KevinB.  The figures are for relative comparison in a stabilized hover at the light/heavy extreme of weight.  Hover can occur either In or Out of Ground Effect (HIGE/HOGE) which also affects downwash (HIGE results in lower downwash due to the cushion effect of the air being compressed between the low hovering helicopter, versus high OGE).  That’s why sometimes skid-equipped helos would hover much lower than standard when hover taxiing near other aircraft…particularly if not secured/tied down well.  The report gets into other factors as well, but the psf disc loading figures are a very decent comparative representation amongst various rotorcraft.



suffolkowner said:


> how would the downwash on the defiant compare?



I haven’t seen detailed specifications, but roughly think with a similar main rotor disc area and approx 50% greater gross weight than the Black Hawk, they’ll see a moderate increase in thrust/rotor psf on the Max AUW end of the weight spectrum.   I’d guess something like 8.5-13.0 psf, so between a Black Hawk and Sea Stallion.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

An added problem on the Cyclone are the massive sponsons which create an incredible burble of disturbed air that does not separate cleanly from the fuselage…


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> An added problem on the Cyclone are the massive sponsons which create an incredible burble of disturbed air that does not separate cleanly from the fuselage…


Chinook: Here, hold my beer!


…just kidding…those sponsons while both large and long, are well shaped to have much smoother airflow than even the standard Hook sponsons.


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Chinook: Here, hold my beer!
> View attachment 73321
> 
> …just kidding…those sponsons while both large and long, are well shaped to have much smoother airflow than even the standard Hook sponsons.


And the rear view is even better.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Chinook: Here, hold my beer!
> View attachment 73321
> 
> …just kidding…those sponsons while both large and long, are well shaped to have much smoother airflow than even the standard Hook sponsons.


I fuckin love those helicopters, my favorite aircraft bar none. Hercs are a close second. But then again y'all know what I eat....


----------



## KevinB

Army Futures Command incorporates international partners into annual demonstration
					

DUGWAY PROVING GROUND, Utah – Army Futures Command’s Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team kicked off its annual Experimental Demonstration Gateway...




					www.army.mil
				












						Army's Future Vertical Lift eyes future skies
					

AUSTIN, Texas — Future conflict is likely to occur over wide areas and across multiple domains, according to recent Army assessments of the future opera...




					www.army.mil
				




Rumor has an award is imminent for FLRAA - with the decision on FARA in 2023.


----------



## Spencer100

KevinB said:


> Army Futures Command incorporates international partners into annual demonstration
> 
> 
> DUGWAY PROVING GROUND, Utah – Army Futures Command’s Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team kicked off its annual Experimental Demonstration Gateway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army.mil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army's Future Vertical Lift eyes future skies
> 
> 
> AUSTIN, Texas — Future conflict is likely to occur over wide areas and across multiple domains, according to recent Army assessments of the future opera...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army.mil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rumor has an award is imminent for FLRAA - with the decision on FARA in 2023.


Bets anyone? 

FLRAA Lockheed

FARA  Bell

Since they won't want to give both to thr same company.


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Bets anyone?
> 
> FLRAA Lockheed
> 
> FARA  Bell
> 
> Since they won't want to give both to thr same company.


Bell was in Benning last week for a Hail Mary on the V-280 -- I think they know that ship sailed though.
  Given the V-22 issues in SOCOM, I don't see Tilt Rotor getting the nod -- plus the size requirements for the landing area is much larger than the Defiant X.

 I am not so sure they won't give both to LocMart, the Boeing partnership really made tough, as the Army is already all in on LocMart (Sikorsky) and Boeing, and it looks like the Hook replacement will also be a JV between the two.

Bell only has standing with the USMC, so no sacred cows to provide top cover for them with anything in FVL


----------



## Good2Golf

Bell has had a tumultuous journey after the Huey…bookkeepers may agree with your prognostications @KevinB.


----------



## KevinB

Interestingly enough the Hook replacement is scheduled to start for 2030, with 2040 service adoption, but Boeing says 2060 is a more realistic time frame. 
   Given they and LocMart are the only game in town…


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Interestingly enough the Hook replacement is scheduled to start for 2030, with 2040 service adoption, but Boeing says 2060 is a more realistic time frame.
> Given they and LocMart are the only game in town…


Just on momentum alone, HVL is likely not going to hit the 2030-2040 band without a 12-15 year ROLEX right…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Just on momentum alone, HVL is likely not going to hit the 2030-2040 band without a 12-15 year ROLEX right…


Yeah, albeit, I did double check my trusty https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN32045-ATP_1-02.1-001-WEB-3.pdf
  ROLEX is supposed to be Min or Hrs +/- not years 

Given that FLRAA is just about to be entering contract award, and not expected to be a fleet replacement until 2030 (to which I am still snickering -- my guess is 2035), I don't see any ambition to try to shoehorn FLRHA into 30-40, I am guessing start at 40, and 55-60 would be fleet conversion (baring any major incidents that could slow it down).


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> ROLEX is supposed to be Min or Hrs +/- not years


Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures…


Come on - this not a Canadian procurment


----------



## KevinB

Italy Air Force chief wants in on US next-gen helicopter tech — pronto
					

Gen. Luca Goretti said Italy urgently needs to get in on the ground floor of development of the technology to avoid playing catch-up later.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> Italy Air Force chief wants in on US next-gen helicopter tech — pronto
> 
> 
> Gen. Luca Goretti said Italy urgently needs to get in on the ground floor of development of the technology to avoid playing catch-up later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


Very astute of the Italians IMO.


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> Very astute of the Italians IMO.


Word has it FLRAA will be announced after AUSA next week. 
   LocMart/Sik will have the Defiant at their pavilion (I don’t know or care about Bell).


----------



## KevinB

A few months old - but with the FLRAA award  expected on Thursday it is timely 








						Army’s Future Vertical Lift Competition Could Have A Devastating Impact On The Industrial Base
					

Thousands of jobs are on the line as the Army seeks a successor to its Black Hawk helicopter.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## calculus

Looks like we will have to wait awhile longer for a decision: 









						Army's next-gen FLRAA helicopter will be chosen in 'next few months,' McConville says - Breaking Defense
					

The timeline for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft award is unclear after senior leaders seemed to push it back from an expected October announcement.




					breakingdefense.com


----------



## KevinB

calculus said:


> Looks like we will have to wait awhile longer for a decision:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army's next-gen FLRAA helicopter will be chosen in 'next few months,' McConville says - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> The timeline for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft award is unclear after senior leaders seemed to push it back from an expected October announcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com


Some have hinted it was Budget driven and there needs to be more monies allocated.


----------



## KevinB

KevinB said:


> Some have hinted it was Budget driven and there needs to be more monies allocated.


Others more cynical than I (if that was possible) have hinted they need to wait till after the midterms to avoid political fall out.

Given the issues on the Osprey tilt rotor that has been flying for years, and it still has issues, I tend to doubt the Army wants to jump into the business with the Bell V-280.   I really like the concept of the tilt rotor (speed is life), and was a big proponent of the Osprey - but admittedly I'd rather be in a Hook than an Osprey these days, and by default a Defiant than 280.


----------



## Good2Golf

Texas can’t get everything all the time…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Texas can’t get everything all the time…


PA and CT would be devastated, I doubt the Administration wants that as well.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> PA and CT would be devastated, I doubt the Administration wants that as well.


Agreed, and TX still has a bunch of 35 happening in it. 👍🏼


----------



## KevinB

Color me legitimately shocked.








						US Army makes largest helicopter award in 40 years
					

The Army has selected who will build its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft to replace the iconic Black Hawk helicopter.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> Color me legitimately shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Army makes largest helicopter award in 40 years
> 
> 
> The Army has selected who will build its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft to replace the iconic Black Hawk helicopter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



Wowzers....

"Ideally, FLRAA will be capable of traveling roughly 2,440 nautical miles (or 2,810 miles) without refueling, but also must be agile enough to maneuver troops into dangerous hot spots."


----------



## YZT580

KevinB said:


> Color me legitimately shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Army makes largest helicopter award in 40 years
> 
> 
> The Army has selected who will build its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft to replace the iconic Black Hawk helicopter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


puts Mirabelle in a good position for bidding on a Canadian need


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:


> puts Mirabelle in a good position for bidding on a Canadian need


This bird would probably make a great Griffon replacement......so we won't get it


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> This bird would probably make a great Griffon replacement......so we won't get it



You're probably right. I hear Ukraine has some refurbished Mi-8s we can snag up cheap. 

We don't need "Cadillac 'Elicopter" after all 😉


----------



## ArmyRick

MilEME09 said:


> This bird would probably make a great Griffon replacement......so we won't get it


First we need to see what gender impact it can have, Climate impact, cultural impact, regional benefit, etc, etc. 

So we get either A. A slightly upgraded Griffin with a cool but useless gadget or B. we get 4 x V280 Valors in 35 years


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> This bird would probably make a great Griffon replacement......so we won't get it


We’ll get it…


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Color me legitimately shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Army makes largest helicopter award in 40 years
> 
> 
> The Army has selected who will build its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft to replace the iconic Black Hawk helicopter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



Well,  the programme was called the Future LONG RANGE Assault Aircraft.  And the Indo Pacific was the preferred theatre.



daftandbarmy said:


> Wowzers....
> 
> "Ideally, FLRAA will be capable of traveling roughly 2,440 nautical miles (or 2,810 miles) without refueling, but also must be agile enough to maneuver troops into dangerous hot spots."





MilEME09 said:


> This bird would probably make a great Griffon replacement......so we won't get it



Don't know about a Griffon replacement but how about a C295 Kingfisher, Twotter, Cormorant replacement that could be additionally purchased to supplement the Griffon and the Chinook?  Leave the Griffon for the domestic utility role and add the Valor to move the companies of the Light Battalions and CSOR rapidly around North America (and Scandinavia).


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> We’ll get it…



I so hope you are right.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Well,  the programme was called the Future LONG RANGE Assault Aircraft.  And the Indo Pacific was the preferred theatre.


Tilt Rotor issues and the landing area required for the Valor had me expecting the LocMart/Sik/Boeing Defiant to come out on top.   Not to mention the whole aspect of the LocMart/Sik production line workforce of the BlackHawk.  In an era of ensuring supply chains are maintained, adding Bell to the Army was very unexpected.  
    Conneticut is going to be gutted.  




Kirkhill said:


> Don't know about a Griffon replacement but how about a C295 Kingfisher, Twotter, Cormorant replacement that could be additionally purchased to supplement the Griffon and the Chinook?  Leave the Griffon for the domestic utility role and add the Valor to move the companies of the Light Battalions and CSOR rapidly around North America (and Scandinavia).


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Tilt Rotor issues and the landing area required for the Valor had me expecting the LocMart/Sik/Boeing Defiant to come out on top.   Not to mention the whole aspect of the LocMart/Sik production line workforce of the BlackHawk.  In an era of ensuring supply chains are maintained, adding Bell to the Army was very unexpected.
> Conneticut is going to be gutted.



Unless, perhaps, there is a lifeline of sorts here?









						Pilotless UH-60 Black Hawk Trialed In Recent U.S. Army Test
					

The pilotless UH-60 showed how the Army can perform autonomous resupply and that's just a taste of how it could be used in the future.




					www.thedrive.com
				




As to the landing area, if we are looking at long range applications, especially in a Canadian context, the Valor may not use a conventional helipad but there would be an awful lot of dirt strips, open fields, frozen lakes and sea ice that would make for usable landing grounds.  Along with ships decks?


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Unless, perhaps, there is a lifeline of sorts here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilotless UH-60 Black Hawk Trialed In Recent U.S. Army Test
> 
> 
> The pilotless UH-60 showed how the Army can perform autonomous resupply and that's just a taste of how it could be used in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com


Congress plussed up the Blackhawk contract last week, but I didn’t think that was anything significant.   

The Autonomous Blackhawk is not solely a LocMart thing, so any copter can be converted.  

I expect a LocMart protest, it will be interesting to see what occurs then.


----------



## Spencer100

Thinking from an industry angle.  It sends a message to Lockheed and Boeing. I think for the long run it's important to keep Bell in the race.  With Marine contracts coming to an end this was important to Bell.  Without this Bell as a military contractor would be doubt.  I think the Bell should have gotten based on that alone.   Both Lockheed and Boeing will be find without it not so much Bell.  Smart move.  

Well Sikorsky will get the FARA then.


----------



## Skysix

KevinB said:


> Tilt Rotor issues and the landing area required for the Valor had me expecting the LocMart/Sik/Boeing Defiant to come out on top.


I HIGHLY doubt the claimed range is roundtrip with full combat load of troops. That would more likely be about 800 miles.


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Thinking from an industry angle.  It sends a message to Lockheed and Boeing. I think for the long run it's important to keep Bell in the race.  With Marine contracts coming to an end this was important to Bell.  Without this Bell as a military contractor would be doubt.  I think the Bell should have gotten based on that alone.   Both Lockheed and Boeing will be find without it not so much Bell.  Smart move.
> 
> Well Sikorsky will get the FARA then.


You’re missing several angles. 
   The USMC has an insignificant Helicopter fleet compared to the Army.  The end of Bell for the DoD as an aviation provider shouldn’t have been a concern as far as product numbers. 

140 UH-1Y and  ~150 AH-1W/Z mix that’s a farce compared to over 2,400 Blackhawks that Sik has fielded to the US Army. 



Given the stakes, I’m curious to see how things shake out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

This is an interesting turn of events…


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> This is an interesting turn of events…











						Bell V-280 Valor - Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA)
					

The Bell V-280 is a Future Long Range Assault (FLRAA) aircraft purpose-built to revolutionize the U.S. Army's reach and effectiveness of each mission while offering unmatched maneuverability, reduced downtime and elevated mission safety.




					www.bellflight.com
				




One of the Test Pilots I know still is curious how the Crew Chiefs are going to use gun positions - when some of the Aviation folks in Benning where asking the same question about gun arcs at the Bell booth, the Bell folks went kind of quiet.
    When the Valor is in forward flight - the gun position is limited to a fairly narrow rear arc - the blades are virtually next to them, so the positions will likely have closed windows - and internally stored weapons 

As opposed to how the Blackhawk is run currently 


The Valors rear windows are unusable due to the door placement (which was one of their stock answers until someone pointed out the whole sliding door can't slide through a gun position...

Something that the LocMart team didn't have an issue with (almost like they have experience with this sort of thing) 








						Future Vertical Lift: DEFIANT X®
					

The best solution for the Army’s mission today, and the only solution able to adapt to the threats of tomorrow.




					www.lockheedmartin.com


----------



## CBH99

Kirkhill said:


> Well,  the programme was called the Future LONG RANGE Assault Aircraft.  And the Indo Pacific was the preferred theatre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about a Griffon replacement but how about a C295 Kingfisher, Twotter, Cormorant replacement that could be additionally purchased to supplement the Griffon and the Chinook?  Leave the Griffon for the domestic utility role and add the Valor to move the companies of the Light Battalions and CSOR rapidly around North America (and Scandinavia).


At first I read this as sarcasm, but on second reading that might actually be a good idea.

Obviously wait until the bugs get worked out (I'm with KevinB on my feelings about the Osprey) and we obviously wouldn't replace the 295 so early in its service life anyway.

But once the bugs are worked out & it starts to enter service around 2030, that actually makes sense.  

The Cormorants will need replacing, and the Griffons will probably be nearing replacement around that time also.  

Since its tiltrotor, it could replace both the Cormorant and the Kingfisher with a common airframe with advantages the Osprey didn't have when we kicked those tires.



(The Australians knew shortly after they got the NH90 & Tiger they were turds, yet they tolerated them for how long?  We are stuck with the Kingfisher for a while guys...)


----------



## FJAG

> Bell Textron V-280 VALOR Chosen For US Army FLRAA | Joint Forces News
> 
> 
> Textron’s Bell V-280 VALOR chosen as the new US Army LRAA (Long-Range Assault Aircraft) to replace the Black Hawk helicopter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.joint-forces.com



🍻


----------



## KevinB

It appears LocMart is still waiting on the debriefing to make a determination if they will protest.









						Three questions following the Army's FLRAA decision - Breaking Defense
					

Douglas Bush, the assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, told reporters Monday that the service’s FLRAA schedule has “accounted” for a protest but did not disclose what amount of buffer has been factored into the timeline.




					breakingdefense.com
				












						A Reality Check On The Army Picking V-280 Valor Over SB>1 Defiant
					

There are strong opinions on the Army's choice for its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, but there's still much to learn about the decision.




					www.thedrive.com
				




Take a look at one of Bell's images at the bottom of this article - using the unusable crew chief window for the Minigun...








						U.S. Army picks Bell V-280 Valor for FLRAA
					

The U.S. Army has named the Bell V-280 Valor as the winner of its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft contract, designed to provide a replacement for the venerable Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk in the U.S. Army fleet.




					verticalmag.com


----------



## Good2Golf

😮 Hope the pintle has stops on it…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> 😮 Hope the pintle has stops on it…


I notice that artist rendering there is missing a bunch of avionics and others physical aspects (like totally rearranging the front landing gear) that allow the gunner to be there too…


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> I notice that artist rendering there is missing a bunch of avionics and others physical aspects (like totally rearranging the front landing gear) that allow the gunner to be there too…


Who needs avionics when you have speed, range and a gun? 😉


----------



## Kirkhill

@KevinB 



> *Army aviation is entering into an existential crisis of sorts*. *The force was built for short-range conflicts* in Europe and, to some degree, in the Middle East, not the vast expanses of the Pacific. When combat radius is measured in a couple of hundred miles, thousands of helicopters suddenly have much less to do during a peer-state conflict in that theater. Basing UH-60 Black Hawks and AH-64 Apaches forward close enough to make an impact in terms of most types of operations would put them squarely in the crosshairs of a very watchful and aware enemy. And even operating deep within the enemy's anti-access space puts traditional helicopters at extreme risk. *With range and speed, the Army buys back relevance*. It's as simple and hard to swallow as that. And no, that doesn't mean those factors solve all the Army's rotor-wing relevancy problems. Survivability is still a huge issue alone, but it goes a long way to making a case as to its value in a future conflict.











						A Reality Check On The Army Picking V-280 Valor Over SB>1 Defiant
					

There are strong opinions on the Army's choice for its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, but there's still much to learn about the decision.




					www.thedrive.com
				




I sense the issue of the Door Gunner fits within the A-10 envelope.  The Warthog, the Apache, the Armed Huey all arise from Vietnam and were translated to Germany with the Airland Battle.  Iraq was the first real world trial of the Airland Concept and as I recall the experience was not the best.






						Ambush at Najaf | Air & Space Forces Magazine
					

Was it just poor tactics or some deeper problem that caused the failed Apache mission?




					www.airandspaceforces.com
				




Does the question really go back to:

What is Close Air Support?
Who can you trust to deliver it?

Additional questions

Is the F35 an effective Close Air Support platform?
Can Long Range Precision Fires adequately prep a Landing Zone?


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Who needs avionics when you have speed, range and a gun? 😉



Eggzackly


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> @KevinB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Reality Check On The Army Picking V-280 Valor Over SB>1 Defiant
> 
> 
> There are strong opinions on the Army's choice for its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, but there's still much to learn about the decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sense the issue of the Door Gunner fits within the A-10 envelope.


The Crew Chief positions in the Aviation world down here man the guns.  They are an integral part of local/self defense. 
   Or else any idiot with an RPG or Ak will take a crack at you.  





Kirkhill said:


> The Warthog, the Apache, the Armed Huey all arise from Vietnam and were translated to Germany with the Airland Battle.  Iraq was the first real world trial of the Airland Concept and as I recall the experience was not the best.


The Apache was a major hero in GW1 and did stellar duties in GWOT. 
  More and more Helo’s for door (and ramp) guns due to GWOT lessons learned. 


Kirkhill said:


> Ambush at Najaf | Air & Space Forces Magazine
> 
> 
> Was it just poor tactics or some deeper problem that caused the failed Apache mission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airandspaceforces.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the question really go back to:
> 
> What is Close Air Support?
> Who can you trust to deliver it?


For some fighting CAS requires a slower speed than even an A10 can manage. 
   The advantage AH’s have is their loiter time on scene, where fast movers either drop from way way way above or are in and out and headed back for their luncheon and Tee Time.  







Kirkhill said:


> Additional questions
> 
> Is the F35 an effective Close Air Support platform?


The F35 can be dependent upon Munitions, Pilot, and just as important the JTAC/FAC.  


Kirkhill said:


> Can Long Range Precision Fires adequately prep a Landing Zone?


Maybe, maybe not, but it’s a terrible time to find out not when one is trying to insert.


----------



## KevinB

As Anticipated, Lockheed Martin-Sikorsky Has Protested the Army’s FLRAA Selection
					

Despite a delay stemming from the Army source-selection board’s self-audit of its choice of Bell’s V-280 Valor as its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft which pushed the award announcement into early December, the losing Lockheed Martin-Sikorsky-Boeing team has officially protested the decision.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Good2Golf

Will be interesting to see how the review unfolds.


----------



## KevinB

The LocMart team took their time on the review, they clearly believe there was something missing in the evaluation.  

I’m rooting for Team Defiant, not because my wife works for LocMart RMS, (though that doesn’t hurt), but because I think it’s the better platform for the US Army at this juncture.


----------



## Good2Golf

I haven’t flown an Osprey in real life, but flew HMX-1’s FSim and it wasn’t a very intuitive power quadrant to me as a fling-wing guy.  The Harrier pilots definitely won out over the helo pilots during the design phase.  Thrust/power control through the TCL (thrust control lever), not to be confused with the TCL of a Chinook (‘thrust’ is used on a tandem rotor helicopter in place of a single-rotor helicopter’s ‘collective’ control lever), moves linearly forward and aft with increasing power settings in the forward direction, so in hover mode the TCL is pushed forward to rise instead of a pure helicopter’s collective/thrust control levels pulling up/back to rise.  Having flown the Defiant X FSim at an Army Aviation exposition, it felt a lot more intuitive, where control of the aft propellor was digitally blended into what most helo pilots would know as the cyclic control lever.  That’s not the be all to end all, but in a pinch or critical moment, if the necessary immediate action is counter-intuitive, there may possibly (will) be situation where the outcome may not be as guaranteed as it might otherwise be.  We shall see what the end result is.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> I notice that artist rendering there is missing a bunch of avionics and others physical aspects (like totally rearranging the front landing gear) that allow the gunner to be there too…


Not to mention they hacked through a bunch the building on their left to land and no apparent downdraft.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:


> I haven’t flown an Osprey in real life, but flew HMX-1’s FSim and it wasn’t a very intuitive power quadrant to me as a fling-wing guy.  The Harrier pilots definitely won out over the helo pilots during the design phase.  Thrust/power control through the TCL (thrust control lever), not to be confused with the TCL of a Chinook (‘thrust’ is used on a tandem rotor helicopter in place of a single-rotor helicopter’s ‘collective’ control lever), moves linearly forward and aft with increasing power settings in the forward direction, so in hover mode the TCL is pushed forward to rise instead of a pure helicopter’s collective/thrust control levels pulling up/back to rise.  Having flown the Defiant X FSim at an Army Aviation exposition, it felt a lot more intuitive, where control of the aft propellor was digitally blended into what most helo pilots would know as the cyclic control lever.  That’s not the be all to end all, but in a pinch or critical moment, if the necessary immediate action is counter-intuitive, there may possibly (will) be situation where the outcome may not be as guaranteed as it might otherwise be.  We shall see what the end result is.


I have read similar for when the Osprey was introduced, that fixed wing pilots adapted faster than rotary wing types.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have read similar for when the Osprey was introduced, that fixed wing pilots adapted faster than rotary wing types.


The major issue is that for FLRAA they are all Rotary wing pilots.
  Now speaking to a few pilots who did fly the 280, they said the system is better than the Osprey, but still not conducive to an easy transition.
*I don't know how many hours they have on either, one of the guys used to be a 58-D pilot, and not sure what else he is qual'd on.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> The major issue is that for FLRAA they are all Rotary wing pilots.
> Now speaking to a few pilots who did fly the 280, they said the system is better than the Osprey, but still not conducive to an easy transition.
> *I don't know how many hours they have on either, one of the guys used to be a 58-D pilot, and not sure what else he is qual'd on.



When you say "easy transition"  do you mean pilots transitioning to the V-280 or do you mean the V-280 transitioning between horizontal and vertical flight?


----------



## Good2Golf

Transition (and sometimes conversion) describes the steps from a basic rotary qualification (or previous operational experience on another type) to the new target aircraft.  The majority of US Army aviators will pass through the gates at Fort Novosel (previously Fort Rucker) in Alabama, and as KevinB notes, this is a US Army program. Who knows what the USAF, USN and USMC will do for their future rotary lift systems.


----------



## OldSolduer

Can we get laser beams attached?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No! They are not friking sharks.

That wille be One Million Dollars!


----------

