# Medium/Heavy Lift Helos



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2005)

I was thinking today after watching one fly over Halifax, why don't we consider the MV22 Osprey? I realize it still is having teething problems but would it not fulfill our requirements at par with other previous discussed air frames?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Mar 2005)

Those teething problems have caused costs to skyrocket (unit cost +/- $70million, average cost $100+ million): 

http://pma275.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&news_id=48&page=8

Very cool concept, though (I think DHC was working on something similar way back when).


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

cost might be a factor for not considering it.. also, parts commonality would probably be pretty low compared to a medium-lift S-92 or EH-101


----------



## karl28 (10 Mar 2005)

I like the new comerant / Eh-101 for Med lift chopper . I am not an expert just think that it would be easier maintenance wise to keep with one air frame . Like it was posted by LordOsborne .      But  I think that the MV-22 Osprey would make a could SAR replacement aircraft . The main reason it could perform all the task that an aircraft could  but land like an Hellicopter  bonus for picking up survivors .


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

i'm not sure about the Osprey's cargo lifting capabilities though, and that's a big part of a utility helo's job. certainly you won't be able to go max speed while carrying freight underneath an Osprey, and that's a big selling point of tilt-rotors; the fact that they can fly faster and farther than a helo can.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Mar 2005)

How many Marines has that piece of garbage incinerated?


----------



## mz589 (12 Mar 2005)

I went to the Boeing site to see what i could find out about the new F model Chinook, from the sound of it they are older D models that are being re-manufactured rather than new airframes froms scratch. 

Can anyone confirm this?

EH-101 makes sense but can the government really get away politically with buying them?


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Mar 2005)

The 22 is primarily supposed to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight, leaving the UH-1Y for light util and ltimited recce, the AH-1Z for attack and close support and the CH-53D/E's.   LordOsborne raises a good point about speed and slung loads...270 knots to 60-80 knots is quite the loss of speed and increase in specific fuel consumption for mission accomplishment...that's why the Marines will still use the 53's for med/hvy lift.   22 will be mostly troops and equipmnet ofr quick reaction type forces over larger AORs (ares of responsibility).   For the Canadian point of view (well, actually my point of view    ) I think the place where Osprey might be the most useful is where it won't ever be used...SAR.   While it would come with limitations (not as fast not as great as range as fixed wing, and has some downwash issues in the hover) it would have been interesting to consider Ospreys in place of Cormorants and whatever FWSAR project replaces the Buffalo with.   I think for tactical use in support of land forces, the Canadian AOR's being generally smaller than US AORs would limit the reliance on the Osprey's unique combination of characteristics.

Infanteer, I have firends down at Quantico and at Patuxent river who will tell you that many of the problems with the Osprey is the F***ed-up control system.   Instead of having a dual power quadrant like the Harrier, or a convertible quadrant (fwd pylon, push forward/down = faster;   vertical pylon, pull back/up [like collective in helo] = more hover power) the BellBoeing designers followed the direction of the predominatly fast jet crowd in the Corps. (old A-4, F-4, A-7, F/A-18 guys) and modelled the throttle quadrant after fast air jets...forward/slightly downwards = increased power in all configurations.   Not a problem until you're a predonimantly jet guy flying the Osprey and you have a bit of a hard landing and unfortunately your seat harness isn't locked and you swing forward while your hand is still on the throttle quadrant and the stick gets pushed way forward, then the beast applies full power with essentially a full nose down command and the whole thing somersaults and lands upside down and busrts into flames killing all on board...    Human Factors 101 completely ignored.   Even though the investigation note the issue, the throttle quadrant is not being redesigned...jet guys won out, keeping the config they're more familiar with...sadly.   The design is absolutely counter intuitive...descending towards the ground, all good helo pilots know that pulling up on the collective will apply an upwards, decelerative force...not so on the Osprey...you actually have to push forwards/downwards .   Imagine driving a car is somebody switched the gas and brake pedal!?! ??? :

Alas...maybe the guys will get used to it...

Cheers,
Duey 


p.s.  mz589 - that's old material.  The F-models are brand new, as are the G's (SOF model).  I heard both the US and the International Directors of Busniess Development confirm this to someone.

p.p.s.  Any of the boys here flown on UK HC.3 Merlins (Boznia, 'Stan).  I've heard some not too flattering feedback about both the Merlin and 53's in higher altitude operations.  Confirm?  Deny?  I know they were designed to operate at Sea Level from the outset...using something for other thatn an originally intended role is not always the best plan...remember the CF-104 "Widowmaker"?


----------



## Strike (12 Mar 2005)

Duey,

I'd have to disagree with the Osprey being used for SAR in the same context as the Cormorant.  Remember the photos posted on the CFPLT site with the EH-101 that had to make an impromptu landing in a snow storm?  Imagine the Osprey pulling that off.  Add in the refueling factor on the oil rigs that the EH-101 can get away with.  Sure, the Osprey can get to a site faster which may ultimately mean shorter time en-route, but it's still a consideration.  Maybe having the Osprey replace the Buff or Twin Otter up north to augment our SAR helo capability?

I had a chance to see the bird in Shearwater when they were doing icing trials (seems everyone goes there for that).  Quite a big machine.  It sure would be fun to fly.  Too bad the power system follows the fixed-wing methodology.  They have to ruin everything don't they.   ;D ;D ;D ;D

(Salty)


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Mar 2005)

Strike (Salty    ), 

By my earlier statements, I meant that the SAR-role would have been the best fit for the Osprey's employment in the CF, as opposed to support in a tactical theatre the size of one that Canada normally operates within.   Maybe a good fit for Northern Ops like you mentioned, including 18's FOLs in Iqualuit and Kujuacq(sp?).

I agree about the Cormorant thing...in fact, I would actually take it one step further and say that the "Maple Hook" (CH-47SD) would have been a better SAR machine than even the 101...dual hoisting stations, absolutely rock solid in winds from any direction, operates easily in light icing, AAR option, SAR Techs could bring all the stuff with them they wanted (well, not the Argos and air-droppable BV206 perhaps   ;D )

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## ArmyAviator (15 Mar 2005)

Good day to all.  After months of observing as a guest decided to get involved.  Besides I couldn't let Duey give all the answers and I wanted to add my 2 cents in as a Tac Hel driver.  

I have to agree and disagree with Duey.  I disagree on the usefullness of the MV22 for 1 Wing.  I Think given our domestic AO and some of the overseas mission that we did or should have supported the Army on the 22 would have been an excellent platform.  It has it all.  Speed, range, lift, versatility, etc.  However the costs drive it out of the cost range of being able to purchase a usefull number.  The CH53 and more so the 47F and G can do everything that the V22 can with sacrificing speed and range for a part of the operational profile.  And we can buy two or three of the helicopters for the cost of one 22.  It's nice to dream though 

I look forward to participating more often in this forum.

(Duey, we got to tell SamM about this spellcheck option TOJK)


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Mar 2005)

Welcome ArmyAviator!! Look forward to your posts!!

I must say the AF is building up quite a contingent here!!! [as the Navy guys look down at the deck ... :]


----------



## Sam69 (15 Mar 2005)

ArmyAviator said:
			
		

> (Duey, we got to tell SamM about this spellcheck option TOJK)



Comment noted...  

*To keep things on topic:* I sat in the MV-22 a couple of years ago and the thing that truly struck me was the incredible complexity of the machine; it makes a typical helo look like a wind up toy. And, as I sat in the aft cabin and looked up at the maze of 5000PSI hydraulic lines snaking through the roof of the cabin, it struck me that this is not a machine that is likely to be particularly ballistically tolerant. I would hate to be riding in that thing if a round pierced one of the hyd lines above my head. I remember a USN story from a few years back where a tech went up top on an SH-3H to check out "smoke" coming from the rotor head (#1 running, head disengaged). When he waved his hand through the smoke the 3000PSI hydraulic fluid, which was escaping from a pinhole and creating the "mist," neatly removed several of his fingers like a laser beam. Now imagine 5000 PSI...  

Oh, and if you are wondering why they use 5000 PSI (I wondered), one of the engineers explained to me that to achieve the desired power from their hydraulic actuators they had two choices: 1) increase the size of the actuator (and weight) or 2) increase the pressure. Option 2 was the no brainer when they were already struggling to make weight.

The control setup that Duey alluded to was quite interesting. When asked who adapted to the machine quicker, helo bubbas or jet guys, the test pilot was unequivocal: Harrier pilots. Apparently they grasp the concept of vectored thrust in a more comprehensive manner than the helo or FW guys do. He said his scariest flights were with helo guys who thought they could transition to fwd flight by pushing the stick forward and pulling the power back (up to a helo guy). At least the FW guys were pushing forward on the go fast lever.

And don't get me started on the CH-47s...  ;D

Sam


----------



## Brock (16 Mar 2005)

The only choice the Chinook "Wokka Power".  The Chinook is the ultimate medium lift helicopter.  Yes, the CH-53E is slightly bigger and slighlty more capable, but it is a maintenance nightmare and is supposedly a very tricky helicopter to fly.  The CH-47 is less expensive to procure, support, and fly.  The CH-47F is the US Army's newest standard variant, but not such a good buy as it would have to be modified to Canadian requirements anyway and is not quite as advanced/capable as the "Super D Chinook" or CH-47SD, already sold to Singapore.  The CH-47SD incorporates all the capabilities of the "F"model and more.  It is designed to be easily customizable where the "F" is designed for US Army specific needs.  In addition, the CH-47SD incorporates external long range fuel tanks as standard, thus negating the need for internal long range fuel tanks for self-deployments.  These are taken from the US Army's MH-47E/MH-47G model.
ANother positive for the Chinook is that they could be assembled in Arnprior if desired as Boeing has or at least did have a plant there.

We used to own the older and more maintenane intensive CH-47 "C" model, but we got rid of them under the guise of being "too expensive to maintain" rather than admitted we flew them way more than anyone else and needed like 24 of them rather than 8 we had so of course they were expensive to maintain and overworked.  The Dutch military had no problem with them a bought our 7 remaining Chinook's upgraded them to "D+" standard very similar to the "F" model Chinooks coming online for the US Army.  Then they bought 6 more new model Chinooks to the same standard.  For mass troop lift and cargo operations they are the way to go.  Just look at our experience in Afghanistan.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Mar 2005)

Brock, you're correct about the F / SD models...but also note that the F is no longer a remanufactured D.  

Once the US Army beefed up the numbers of overall 47's, Boeing's business case between rebuild D's and build brand new F's swung over to full new production.  There is apparently a "value added"/economy version of the CH-47 called CHAPS (can't recall the acronym off the top of my head) which is essentially a reconditioned D-model (now that F's are brand new, there will be many D airframes now available for reman / rebuild).  The airframe will not be considered Zero-time, but much of the running gear and the avionics will be new.  Lots and lots of options out there to choose from...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## X-Rigger (18 May 2005)

I quickly browsed the thread and didn't see any discussion on the H-92 as a new medium lift helo possibility.  We're already getting a bunch to replace the SeaThing, so the notion of commonality would tend to point to that as a strong contender for a medium lift helo as well.  And I believe it's classed as such, so why couldn't this work for us instead of the Chinook?  I'm not ignoring the merits of the Chinook, just trying to be realistic.  Any thoughts?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 May 2005)

Isn't the CH47 a Heavy Lift Helo? From my understanding the Air Firce is going the heavy lift route vice medium lift hence the probable lack of discussion on the H92.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2005)

I am positive the CH47 falls into the Heavy Lift catagory, as does the CH53.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 May 2005)

Gents, the DPS was precisely worded as "medium/heavy lift" so as not to limit any options analysis on whether an augmented CH148 fleet (H-92 - medium) or a CH147A (new CH/MH-47) or a CH153 (guess at what a CH-53E/X would be designated) or whatever helo is considered to best meet the stated operational requirement is eventually determined...all choices should still theoretically support the DPS initiatives.   

George/Ex-Dragoon, a CH47 is defined as "Heavy" both by NATO (11 tonnes+) and ICAO/FAA Part 29 (> 12,500lbs).   There is still some debate as to what is medium and what is heavy...US Army still calls the Chinook "Medium Lift" but folks generally acknowledge that anything that can put 20,000+ lbs on the hook is definitely a "heavy" lifter!   

Years ago, I and the RAF CH47 exchange officer set an unofficial CF-lift record of ~26,500-27,000 lbs with the CH147.   We said unofficial since, due to a miscalculation by the folks at Mountainview, the CF101 we tried lifting was significantly heavier than the 19,800 lbs they advertised.   We were actually 5,000 lbs over max all-up wt (i.e. ~55,000 vice 50,000 max gross for a C+ model).    We got the 101 up in the air (using the "clean and jerk" method on the thrust lever, a.k.a. collective in Boeing-speak) but we weren't happy with the limited excess power left over to stop at the other end (AMDU/ATESS in Trenton) and decided to put it back down.   Incidentally this was the same Voodoo (CF101010) that was dropped by my compatriots three days later in the Bay of Quinte due to another configuration error of the drogue chute and departure of the load from controlled parameters during flight.     *splash*

From a pure process (and putting aside my own personal opinion on the BHH    ) there is no logical reason why the S-92 should not be considered as one of the potential options to the "big honking helicopter" that Gen Hillier oftern refers to.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 May 2005)

Appreciate the clarification Duey. Always good to have someone in the know per se.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (2 Jul 2005)

THe only real heavy lift is the CH-47 Chinook.  The question is??? Is it still being built.  If not we will have to find some old airframes and refit them.  

Medium lift, I would pick the EH101 Merlin.  hand down.  :warstory:


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Jul 2005)

It's still being built.  See the link:

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47sd/flash.html


----------



## Zoomie (3 Jul 2005)

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> Medium lift, I would pick the EH101 Merlin.   hand down.   :warstory:



A.K.A. CH-149 Cormorant - comes complete with poorly designed tail rotor half-hubs and two hour maximum flight time.  We would be making a serious mistake if we were to venture down that route again - stick with the "Hook", proven design with 100% of engine power being applied to lift.


----------



## Inch (3 Jul 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> A.K.A. CH-149 Cormorant - comes complete with poorly designed tail rotor half-hubs and two hour maximum flight time.   We would be making a serious mistake if we were to venture down that route again - stick with the "Hook", proven design with 100% of engine power being applied to lift.



What are you talking about amigo? You mean to say that making a pit stop to check out your tail rotor while enroute to the LZ to drop the crunchies off isn't acceptable?  

While I have yet to fly an EH101, I was thoroughly impressed with the S-92 that I flew back in Sept. One piece titanium rotorhead and composite blades that are capable of taking small arms fire with no ill effects, sounds like something the army may be interested in.


----------



## jmacleod (3 Jul 2005)

Our Ottawa based associates and our Atlantic Canada company is working on the Industrial Regional
Benefits associated with e the MHP Contract to UT Sikorsky for the SH-92. We have been in business for about thirty years, have worked on the MHP and it's previous designated Project, which selected
the EH-101 Merlin, (you all know what transpired on that "committment"). We worked on the NFAP
(New Fighter Aircraft Program) and the LLADS, plus the ILTIS replacement etc.etc. The problem which
is slowly becoming evident on the MHP MCP (Major Crown Purchase) is that it is so complex, thanks
to bureaucrats and "policies" that the SH-92 is not in production for the DND contract - and no metal
for the aircraft will be cut until September 2006. The international helicopter industry will think twice
before entertaining a bid from Canada, for the simple reason that major airframe manufacturers are
profit driven companies, and dealing in Ottawa eats up a lot of unexpected costs  - sad, but true.
Macleod


----------



## Sam69 (3 Jul 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> A.K.A. CH-149 Cormorant - comes complete with poorly designed tail rotor half-hubs and two hour maximum flight time.   We would be making a serious mistake if we were to venture down that route again - stick with the "Hook", proven design with 100% of engine power being applied to lift.



The half-hub issue has not kept POTUS from selecting it as a replacement for his VH-3Ds. I suspect that we will see the t/r issue solved long before POTUS first sets foot in his in 2008.

There is no doubt the the 47 is the gold standard in lift but our Canadian requirements to support the SCTF likely implies the need for a marinized aircraft. As well, we need to think carefully about the costs of introducing another small fleet of complex aircraft when we have two possible substitutes on the books already (148 and 149).

Sam


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (3 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Our Ottawa based associates and our Atlantic Canada company is working on the Industrial Regional
> Benefits associated with e the MHP Contract to UT Sikorsky for the SH-92. We have been in business for about thirty years, have worked on the MHP and it's previous designated Project, which selected
> the EH-101 Merlin, (you all know what transpired on that "committment"). We worked on the NFAP
> (New Fighter Aircraft Program) and the LLADS, plus the ILTIS replacement etc.etc. The problem which
> ...



If you had a Hillier's ear for 10 minutes, and he asked you your candid opinion on what needs to be done, what would you tell him?

Thanks in advance,


Matthew.


----------



## jmacleod (4 Jul 2005)

We would advise him to approve the purchase of about 20 EH101 Merlin helicopters in the latest
Mark/Model, which would fit neatly into the EH101 Cormorant operational and maintenance sector,provide some commonality of parts, commonality for training (aircrews and groundcrews)
all based on common sense and logic. Purchase should be off the shelf, if the Project goes into
the bureaucratic maze it will take years - the BC built "truck" that the Canadian Army uses took
20 years (I kid you not) to acquire - we worked on the Iltis replacement, until common sense
prevailed due to pressure focus on operations in Afghanistan, and the current operational vehicles
were ultimately purchased. MacLeod


----------



## Inch (4 Jul 2005)

Commonality in training for ground crews wouldn't work with the Cormorants, they're maintained by a civilian contractor. Anything that deploys, ie medium lift for the army, would need military techs. Thus, it'd be cheaper to get H-92s than Cormorants.


----------



## Mortar guy (4 Jul 2005)

Here are my choices/opinions re. the "Big Honking Helicopter". (Disclaimer: opinions are those of an infanteer):

1. CH-53X - Great payload and range. Also, it is already marinized and is equipped with a folding rotor and tail which means it will likely fit nicely on our new "Big Honking Ship" and may also fit on the JSS. Finally, the USMC is only re-manufacturing 111 of their 160-odd CH-53Es to the X model which means there are a few left over for us.

2. S-92 - OK payload but will soon be in service in the CF which means parts/training commonality. Also, this helicopter is marinized meaning it is designed to operate easily from a ship. 

3. EH-101 - Good payload, marinized, commonality with CH-149 but more expensive.

I would not include the CH-47F in my list as it is a bitch to operate off a ship (you have to take the friggin rotor blades off if you want to stow the thing). Opinions? Cruel slander?

MG


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> We would advise him to approve the purchase of about 20 EH101 Merlin helicopters in the latest
> Mark/Model, which would fit neatly into the EH101 Cormorant operational and maintenance sector,provide some commonality of parts, commonality for training (aircrews and groundcrews)
> all based on common sense and logic. Purchase should be off the shelf, if the Project goes into
> the bureaucratic maze it will take years - the BC built "truck" that the Canadian Army uses took
> ...



Poor wording on my part....

"How would you recommend fixing the bureaucratic maze so that IF procurement decisions do get dropped into their lap, they address those purchases in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner?"

Thanks,



Matthew.   ;D


----------



## jmacleod (4 Jul 2005)

The "maze" is very complex - we have been working, off and on for the MHP and NSAP etc. for
about 18 years. The bureaucrats awarded a contract to UT Sikorsky, but the EH 101 people
got permission to sue the Canadian government over the award process. In fact, the SH-92
"Cyclone" which Canada purchased does not exist - negotiations are still ongoing by the Contract
Administrator General Dynamics Canada (GDC) - UT Sikorsky CT, USA does not always agree with
their own CA GDC decisions. It goes on and on. Meanwhile, what happens if EH101 win their 
lawsuit? Northrop Corporation LA California sued the Canadian government over sales of the
Montreal Canadair built F-5 - Northrop won. Could the UT SH-92 contract be cancelled? Finding a
procurement method is going to be very difficult, and fraught with problems, but there has to be 
better way - of course as the "Wheeled Vehicle Project" proved, the bureaucrats can move when 
they are compelled to, and make the right decision. MacLeod


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2005)

Gents, don't forget the SCTF is not the only task the TALC (Tactical Aviation Lift Capability) will have.   

Concurrently, it must optimally meet the SCTF, MSTF and SOG requirements in a single type...see Defence Policy Statement here   for more info (page 30 in particular).   




> The Air Forces will be able to:
> 
> provide assured airlift to support international operations;
> 
> ...



...the SCTF will drive some element of marinization, as will SOG requirements.   SOG and MSTF will also drive hot/high requirements.   Only one lift type helo will be procured to address all these requirements.   That aircraft will have to span all three demands as best as possible.   Standby to see how this one develops... Anyone taking bets on what beast is procured... ???

p.s.   Does anybody have any feedback on how the RAF likes the HC.3 Mk1 Merlins in Iraq (or how the SAS does or does not like it in the SOF support role)?

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## devil39 (5 Jul 2005)

Duey,

I was going to ask you for input on the Merlins.  

Having flown in Merlins in Bosnia, and having a fair bit of Chinook Air Assault experience, I was extremely impressed with the Merlin.  I don't know what the performance in heat or at altitude would be like, but I would imagine you should be able to extrapolate if you had some decent specs.

I found the Merlin to have awesome lift, and I figured I could get 30-ish troops in there, with rucks, seats out.  With the ramp and the large side door I figured I could empty the aircraft much faster than we were able to exit a Chinook.


----------



## jmacleod (5 Jul 2005)

EH101 Merlin is reviewed in some detail on the CASR DND 101 site (Stephen Priestly). The Merlin
is in our opinion the best choice - it is in fact an operational aircraft, currently in front line service
with the RAF and RN. The Sikorsky SH-92 "Cyclone" (Sikorsky wanted to call it the Hawk II) does
not in fact exist - production on this aircraft will not commence until September 2006 - the people
in DND who opted for this non-existant aircraft over a proven, in production operational aircraft
should have their asses kicked in both official languages - plus the fact that they precipitated a
law suit, which in our opinion, EH will win. Once the Canadian media get focused on the MHP,
the shit will hit the well known fan - and the good old Sea Kings will be on the front line until
about 2010-2012, at enormous cost of course, making the contractors who have been rebuilding
them richer. I am old enough to remember when the first Sea Kings arrived in HMCS Shearwater
in April 1963 - in April 1963, President Kennedy was still alive, and the Canada was a much different country, and the Sea King was the best on the block -still is. MacLeod


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jul 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> The Sikorsky SH-92 "Cyclone" (Sikorsky wanted to call it the Hawk II) does
> not in fact exist - production on this aircraft will not commence until September 2006 - the people
> in DND who opted for this non-existant aircraft over a proven, in production operational aircraft
> should have their asses kicked in both official languages - plus the fact that they precipitated a
> ...



The most Agusta Westland can sue for is their profit expectation [if any] from the loss of economic opportunity. They cannot sue to get the contract to build the machine. They lost their attempt to have an injunction against the contract being awarded to Sikorsky. The Cyclone is a done deal, it will go into production whether the machine was the right selection or not. 

The Brits are already in the process of upgrading the EH 101, which in a few respects is already out of date:  http://navy-matters.beedall.com/merlin.htm

"In June 2003 Lockheed Martin UK Ltd, teamed with Westland Helicopters Ltd (now AgustaWestland), was awarded by the MOD a 18-month Assessment Phase study worth approximately  £18 million to evaluate obsolescence issues with the Merlin HM1, and assess possible upgrades."

The feds have really painted themselves into tight corner with all of these helicopters and years of delay, and no one is going to throw them off track with the Cyclone, because if a Sea King goes down with loss of life and a replacement program is still mired in the court system, there will be lawsuits, injunctions and defence policy decisions of a wholly different and much more ominous variety. Nobody who gives a shit about defence will permit that to hapen at this stage of the game.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jul 2005)

Funny how the Sea King types seem to be more looking forward to the Cyclone vice the Merlin......but then again when does the opinion of those using or needing the tools count?

As been said on this board numerous times Sikorsky is not a newbie when it comes to helo manufacture. Afterall as Inch as pointed out several times they made the Sea King and that is _still_ flying after 40 plus years.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jul 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Funny how the Sea King types seem to be more looking forward to the Cyclone vice the Merlin......but then again when does the opinion of those using or needing the tools count?
> 
> As been said on this board numerous times Sikorsky is not a newbie when it comes to helo manufacture. Afterall as Inch as pointed out several times they made the Sea King and that is _still_ flying after 40 plus years.



I am in total agreement with every point made with that statement. The machine "is what it is, and will be what it will be." Time to move on, there is the whole issue of mission suites to be explored yet.


----------



## devil39 (5 Jul 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I am in total agreement with every point made with that statement. The machine "is what it is, and will be what it will be." Time to move on, there is the whole issue of mission suites to be explored yet.



Sure enough... but the title of this thread is Medium/Heavy Lift Helos, not Maritime Helicopter.  I would suggest that leaves discussion of EH 101 (Merlin) wide open.


----------



## Sam69 (5 Jul 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Funny how the Sea King types seem to be more looking forward to the Cyclone vice the Merlin......but then again when does the opinion of those using or needing the tools count?



That probably has more to do with what they (we) are getting vice what was implied by the SOR. The community preference was clearly slanted towards the EH-101 in the period before the selection. However, now that a decision has been made I think people are just happy to be moving to a new and modern machine and will be happy to finally give the Sea King the respectful send-off into retirement that it has earned.

As to the medium helicopter question, I remain of the firm opinion that it would be lunacy, from an affordability and sustainability viewpoint, to introduce a completely new helicopter type into the CF when we will be operating two completely viable medium helicopter types in the CF by 2010 anyway. Either the 92 or the 101 will most likely be fully capable of meeting the operational requirements in 95% of the environmental conditions extant in the areas we expect to be operating. 

The SCTF and the BHS are cornerstones of the new defence policy to support operations in the littorals and backwaters of the world where the vast majority of people live and where we expect to be operating for the foreseeable future. The ability to rapidly and and effectively project force ashore from a sea base will be critical to our ability to mount operations in many of these areas.

Sam


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jul 2005)

You're right. I was principally responding to last summer's decision between the 101 and the Cyclone. With medium/heavy lift, the machine is the sum of the argument. With MH, it is only half. Personally, I am in favour of the Sea Dragon for ship based heavy lift for the army- however, whatever helo is chosen, storage and operability aboardship is going to be one of the determining factors. This would seem to rule out the Chinook and probably the Sea Dragon if reasonable practicality is factored in.


----------



## devil39 (5 Jul 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> You're right. I was principally responding to last summer's decision between the 101 and the Cyclone. With medium/heavy lift, the machine is the sum of the argument. With MH, it is only half. Personally, I am in favour of the Sea Dragon for ship based heavy lift for the army- however, whatever helo is chosen, storage and operability aboardship is going to be one of the determining factors. This would seem to rule out the Chinook and probably the Sea Dragon if reasonable practicality is factored in.



I would tend to agree.  I have not been able to find any data that would allow a comparison between Chinook and EH-101 for performance in heat and at altitude.  I would be interested in any informed opinion on that comparison.  

As an Army guy, it would be hard for the Airforce to find anything worse than Griffon, so we could probably select by a game of "pin the tail on the donkey helicopter".


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jul 2005)

Surely somebody who lurks or posts here would have a fair approximation of what the Cormorant is capable of in terms of heat, altitude. That would be a rough approximation, anyway.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jul 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Duey,
> 
> I was going to ask you for input on the Merlins.
> 
> ...



Devil, am I reading correctly in between the lines that have you worked with the 16th AAB?   No doubt Merlin is a smooth flyer and fairly good size.   I do know it's optimized for sea level performance though, and I don't think it's quite in the sling 10,000kg at 7,000' density altitude.   Is Merlin's ramp really that big?   I've seen 44 jump out the back of my 'hook pretty darned fast!   ;D

I have to be honest here, I did ask a bit of a loaded question above...      I have had the opportunity to speak with some lads/operators who have used Merlin, Chinook, Puma, Lynx, Gazelle, Scout and most recently Mi-8/17 Hip for their operations and received very candid feedback.   Of course it's not the kind of feedback that contractors will be using to flesh out their press releases...but fair's fair...101 design wasn't optimized for hot/high/abrasive environmnets.   From what I understand, the majority of those 'operators' are not at all fans of the 101 for what it is they have to do.   Already one of the Merlins has apparently had to be returned to AW in Italy to be put in the jig since it has already had its windscreen replaced three times (windscreen is 'structural' in a 101, formaing a load bearing portion of the forward fuselage, so if it cracks it must be replaced, and after the third time replaced, must be re-jigged to ensure proper airframe alignment)   Interestingly, some of these issues are purportedly what drove the RAF to lease Mi-8/17 Hips for use in Iraq, flown by SH and SF aircrew, since the qty of HC1 Mk2/2A Chinook are limited until the Mk3's come on line after testing in Boscombe Downs is completed. 

Interestingly, lots of folks are jumping on the "must be fully marinized, since it will be on a ship sailing as part of the SCTF" wagon...   

I won't take more than a second to point back to my earlier post about all the things that the TALC is being required to do...SCTF, being transported on a ship and then deployed inland and relaying troops and material to/from that BHS notwithstanding, I think it will be the "lightness" of the land force element embarked and how it will depend on aviation support that will be the critical factor...not whether the big honking helicopter should actually be more of a fleet of CH148 Cyclones.   I mention CH148 Cyclones, since any kind of fully marinized, blade folding 101 that the CF could conceivably procure will be a 3rd a/c type anyway...remember, the CH149 Cormorant is not a full marine-spec, blade folding machine...and it's maintained by a civilian technician base...

Sam's right about the SCTF and BHS being [one of] the cornerstones of the defence policy, but don't underestimate the other things that the Chief wants us to be doing.   Once folks start looking at the MSTF and the SOA/SOG requirement, things will no doubt get interesting.   Any selected helo will likely require IFR gear (in-flight refuelling) and a bunch of other things that don't immediately come to the fore when people are talking simply about being transported on a boat somewhere, then off loading and working primarily inland.   Things will become clearer when a number of things occur, including the CDS issuing his planning guidance for the SCTF development and the stand-up of the SOG.   Also don't forget that there will still be MH as part of the maritime task force supporting the SCTF (perhaps even armed escort for the BHH) as it takes the boys inland to the AO.


Devil, unfortunately the Army's in a bit of a glass house when it comes to Griffon...it was Comd FMC himself, LGen Foster, not the Air Force, who sought removal of the Chinook, Kiowa and Twin Huey from service to be replaced (only in part) by the Griffon.      Don't think we were overly thrilled by the prospect...heck, I was the copilot who actually flew Marcel Masse to Mirabel on 29 April 1992 (I date permanently etched (scarred?) into my memory) to make the announcement of the 100 412's.....   


Personally, I think some people are getting carried away with how marinized the med/hvy lift helo has to be, and forgetting the work that will be demanded of then for the MSTF and the SOG.   Brits still sent 4 x HC1's on Atlantic Conveyor to the Falklands, and the UH-3H's won't last forever...

Cheers,
Duey

p.s.   Whiskey, I have a very good idea how may tons a 'hook will lift up to some very high altitude, and on a single engine in many cases at sea level.   I'll check on releasability for the info I have.   I'm not really able to comment on Cormorant as I haven't seen a flight manual for the beast, perhaps folks who are proponents of the 101 can squeeze out some specs for it.


----------



## devil39 (6 Jul 2005)

Dewy, no 101st.  PM me brother I'm incognito 

As far as I am concerned if we can't find something that reasonably approximates a Chinook, then let us buy a Chinook.  They work quite well, even if they are rather large targets.

When it comes to exiting the aircraft, with the Merlin, it wasn't the size of the Merlin ramp, it was actually rather small.  The Merlin had a fairly large door on the starboard side (I do believe).  I would exit through both doors if I had my way, and it would be much faster than the push from the front of a Chinook with 100 lb rucks.

I am certainly not sold on Merlin, however It was impressive on the occasions I had to ride in it in Bosnia.  I wondered if It would have a similar lift at altitude to the Chinook however, which is something we need to consider.  

If Merlins don't like sand and dust we might also wish to reconsider.


----------



## jmacleod (6 Jul 2005)

I was aked to provide my opinion focused on a new Medium/Heavy Lift Rotary Wing aircraft for
the CF - nothing I have read since my post changes my opinion. My point is however focused on
the process of acquisition. No professional company could operate like NDHQ because they would
be bankrupt within a year. The process of purchasing/leasing an appropriate aircraft will take years
and years. NDHQ selected a radar system for the CP140 that was scheduled in at about $50 million
but is now over $300 million - how can this be justified? The entire system of military procurement
must be changed - the MHP Contract is beyond control of the Canadian government and is in the
hands of a contract administator (a US company) and UT Sikorsky. Know United Technologies and
all their divisions well - have worked on several major contracts with them, and they have invested
a lot of money in Canada (which was equalled by the Canadian government) - but Canadian taxpayers
are on the hook for the MHP, and have virtually no input into the project. The Industrial Regional 
Benefits (IRB's) generated by the MHP are very important to the Canadian Economy, but the US
Department of Commerce define IRB's as contrary to the provisions of NAFTA - and they are right,
a factor overlooked in NDHQ and PW&GS Canada. No question UT Sikorsky build fine aircraft, but
that is not the point - accelerated procurement and support for the troops is the point. MacLeod


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

I too thought we should've gone with the EH-101. It's too bad that military procurement is so politicized.

If we had gotten the EH-101s we might have been able to replace the Griffins down the line too.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Jul 2005)

After reading Duey's and Devil's comments on the Merlin I am more so sold on the opinion not to get any more for the CF. The 101 is sounding more and more like a lemon....(the Air Force's Victoria anyone...oh wait that is the Griffon isn't it? )


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jul 2005)

I suppose folks will feel the way they feel and hold the opinions they hold based on experience and their own individual situations.  To be fair to Merlin, I should note that I have not flown an EH-101, just Boeing, Bell and [a wee bit of] Sikorsky products, so I am only relaying other's experiences or confirmable facts for what they are.

Auntie Liz pays me to plan and operate a weapon system to conduct tasks in support of a mission.  She doesn't pay me to prefer one machine over another, I do that on my own time.  I'm not particularly fussed what they give me to do the job, so long as it can do the job...if it can't, I scale the achievable task back accordingly and brief the command chain why I'm not able to do what was originally asked of me and my fellow aviators, maintainers and supporters.  If I really can't, I hump my arse in a staff job to make a difference and get back to the flight line ASAP.  ;D

A 'hook will lift a platoon of 36 guys (incl Pl HQ) or ~145000 lbs to a hover out-of-ground-effect at 8,000' DA within a 120 nm radius of action, this decently supports a single-lift of a Lt Forces Coy reasonably (i.e. very) well within foreseeable AOs (sea-based or land-locked).  It does that not caring what azimuth the wind is coming from and has plenty of remaining capacity for a few M134 7.62mm mini-guns.  A "G's" boom will let me fly for as long as my arse holds out...great for several ops where time and space places significant demands on a machine.  ;D

only 2 ¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2005)

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/sep/Navy_Marine.htm

AH-1Z/UH-1N,   CV-22, CH-53X

USN/USMC procurement plans 

http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/companyInfo/pressReleases/PR_BellWinsARH.cfm

Just throwing in this ARH reference for good measure.  Not medium but it is made in Montreal!! ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Aug 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Gents, don't forget the SCTF is not the only task the TALC (Tactical Aviation Lift Capability) will have.
> 
> Concurrently, it must optimally meet the SCTF, MSTF and SOG requirements in a single type...see Defence Policy Statement here   for more info (page 30 in particular).
> 
> ...





In for a penny, in for a pound: 
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,,CLI1_DIV69_ETI922,00.html


----------



## Sf2 (19 Aug 2005)

SOG will be getting Chinook G's...no question.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> After reading Duey's and Devil's comments on the Merlin I am more so sold on the opinion not to get any more for the CF. The 101 is sounding more and more like a lemon....(the Air Force's Victoria anyone...oh wait that is the Griffon isn't it? )



Ex-Dragoon, to be fair to future procurement contenders, the comments I passed on were for the existing Merlin.   I think the next generation 101 (with 3000hp GE engines and a new "BERP 4" blade that provides for better hot/high performance than the current BERP3 blade optimized for sea-level performance) would actually be a fair contender, but keep in mind...it would definitely NOT be a Cormorant painted green.  Mk4 Merlin / US-101 / HH-101 will be a significantely more capable machine than our yellow/red SAR Cormorant for sure.

That said, my spidey-sense tells me it was probably still a good thing to save the flight manual and checklist from the last time I flew Chinooks... ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Aug 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> SOG will be getting Chinook G's...no question.



Matches what I've been hearing...


----------



## Sf2 (22 Aug 2005)

i wouldn't consider the Griffon a lemon.  Its servicability is quite good, its just ill-suited for certain tasks.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2005)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Production Begins on New Boeing CH-47F Chinook for the U.S. Army 
  
  
(Source: Boeing Co.; issued Oct. 3, 2005)


----------



## kj_gully (7 Oct 2005)

Maybe we can trade in a few " next to new" Cormorants, and get new SAR birds on the contract.... the way its going right now, whichever 'copter wins will be covering standby a fair bit for the 101....


----------



## Sf2 (7 Oct 2005)

> I too thought we should've gone with the EH-101. It's too bad that military procurement is so politicized.
> 
> If we had gotten the EH-101s we might have been able to replace the Griffins down the line too.



Oh the irony!!  Given that GRIFFONS are replacing the cormorants in Trenton as we speak.


----------



## kj_gully (7 Oct 2005)

I thought it odd that the forces went with the S92, vs eh101, Cormorant Merlin whatever, but see now they were dodging the bullet we're swallowing in SAR. Maybe the US 101 ( beefed up tail rotor) will kick butt, but it is purely a guess.the Danes are delaying acceptance of their 101's until this tail rotor thing gets sorted. I think Chinook is the way to deploy an expiditionary force for sure, but here's one for you green rotor heads, How do we protect big lumbering targets making loud Whup Whup noises from the JSS to shore and beyond? Not too much talk about that yet...


----------



## Sf2 (8 Oct 2005)

gully, that's where the F18's come in - as they do in the marines - they perform the SEAD task before the EF arrives (SEAD - surpression of enemy air defence).  Although its near impossible to defend against MANPADS, which is what the real threat is in today's environments, not huge SAM setups.  All you can really do against manpads is fly low, fast, and unpredictable, and hope you have decent ASE system and effective redundant aircraft systems, which TAC HEL guys have been doing for years.  Even with armed escorts, like a cobra or something, you can't defend against those MANPADS because they're so small and mobile.


----------



## kj_gully (8 Oct 2005)

How do our F-18's get there? I suppose we can pre pos them ashore somewhere, since ships are notoriously slow. the USMC also has harriers, as well as the requisite attack choppers. It seems to me there must be a hole in the plan to shuttle Canada's Marines ashore by Helo, if there is no protection for theAirships crew and troops. Off topic a bit (ok alot), who fetches the aircrew if they do get shot down? Yipes scary thought for me! To end back on topic, The Chinook is the way to go, based on its Canadian attributes of adaptability robust construction and proven track record. Alas, the 101 is too high maintenance to take the punishment. Is there new varient Sea Stallion/ voyageur/Labradors out there? Sigh... dare to dream


----------



## Inch (8 Oct 2005)

The Americans fetch the aircrew, and only if they're Advanced SERE trained. I've been told that even if only 1 guy isn't trained, they probably wouldn't go get them.


----------

