OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 19,802
- Points
- 1,260
Melt them down and make something useful like knife, fork and spoons for the galley.
CH-148 Cyclone Progress
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,319
- Points
- 1,120
Helicopters are very useful.
The helicopter we have now seems to be mired in so many issues that it is only partially as useful as it could be.
The amount of money to make the current helicopter as useful as we want it to be (all seeing, all knowing, all doing) is not worth spending on what is mostly an orphan fleet.
What other options are there?
Shift to full UAS for the Navy?
The helicopter we have now seems to be mired in so many issues that it is only partially as useful as it could be.
The amount of money to make the current helicopter as useful as we want it to be (all seeing, all knowing, all doing) is not worth spending on what is mostly an orphan fleet.
What other options are there?
Shift to full UAS for the Navy?
- Reaction score
- 15,126
- Points
- 1,160
I suspect that the best UAS can't do a lot of what a Merlin could do. That is not to discount the benefits of a good UAS, but just temper expectations. The UAS will give benefits at a reduced cost, but with limitations.
- Reaction score
- 907
- Points
- 1,010
If they are retired, then a version of this is probably the best course. They are a unique version of the H-92, so are pretty much orphaned now.
- Reaction score
- 907
- Points
- 1,010
Is there a lesson to be gleaned from the USN’s termination of the Fire Scout program?
Are long(‘ish) endurance UAV’s best flown from ashore?
Have we reached the point where autonomous ASW is best conducted with unmanned surface or subsurface platforms?
Can more smaller single sensor platforms networked together better meet the need?
Given the current airworthiness structure in Canada can the RCN reasonably be expected to operate anything but small UAVs? Conversely, with the historic lack of awareness of Naval operations in the Air Force as a whole can they be relied on to provide the proper capabilities and availabilities?
- Reaction score
- 907
- Points
- 1,010
There used to be Maj’s position, is it still there? And if so, is it filled?
- Reaction score
- 2,659
- Points
- 1,090
With Norway getting Type 26's, will they fill them with MH-60R's or EH101's? Im guessing MH-60R's as their EH101 are SAR. Maybe we should copy them?
- Reaction score
- 10,633
- Points
- 1,160
One thing UAVs can't do yet is move people.
Most of these multi-mission ships envision space for a small land force. The Helicopter is still the best ship to shore connector. And the best ship to ship connector.
Flying small armed UAVs to conduct recce and overwatch may make some sense.
Isn't the RCN working with the Saab Skeldar? I think that one has already launched small caliber guided missiles.
Most of these multi-mission ships envision space for a small land force. The Helicopter is still the best ship to shore connector. And the best ship to ship connector.
Flying small armed UAVs to conduct recce and overwatch may make some sense.
Isn't the RCN working with the Saab Skeldar? I think that one has already launched small caliber guided missiles.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 19,802
- Points
- 1,260
As a really outdated infantry guy I would prefer a human flying the helicopter from point a to b vice a UAV
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 40,071
- Points
- 1,160
Um, no. Another (probably smaller) ship is...
- Reaction score
- 907
- Points
- 1,010
Even if the helicopter was the best ship to shore connector (see daftandbarmy's reply), it's not the best use of an an ASW helicopter. The tend to have very expensive sensors hanging off the bottom of them. Hence why in the UK the ASW/Crowsnest force and the Commando force are two distinctly different entities.
- Reaction score
- 10,633
- Points
- 1,160
That might be a matter of opinion. I have climbed from big ships into little ships. I have climbed from little ships into big ships. I have done both in open waters, in high seas, by day and night and in fair and foul.
Frankly I prefer being deposited on deck.
And the prospect of climbing Jacob's Ladder with an angry guy with a gun looking down on me would not appeal.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,459
- Points
- 1,260
Time for RCN Fleet Air Arm 2.0 ?
- Reaction score
- 5,319
- Points
- 1,120
Based on how the RCN risk manages the condition of it's ships, I'll suggest that letting the same organization manage aircraft would be inadvisable.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,459
- Points
- 1,260
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,605
- Points
- 1,010
Exactly, and fly two different models of the EH101: The ASW version, HM1 and HM2, while the RM's fly a commando version, HC3.
Don't you trust your shipmates to safely transfer you by way of a light jackstay?
- Reaction score
- 907
- Points
- 1,010
I think the RCN (and the Canadian Army) are not large enough to take on the management of airworthiness. The Minister of Defence is the responsible Minister for airworthiness of military aircraft, and has directed the CDS to designate the C Air Force as the Airworthiness Authority. The operation airworthiness authority is the Comd 1 Canadian Air Division, the technical airworthiness authority is DGAEPM, and the investigative authority Director of Flight safety. I'd leave all that alone, it works (mostly).
I'd focus on DAR (Directorate of Air Requirments), who is the sponsor for all major air projects and sets requirements (it's equivalents are DMR and DLR). I'd move DAR Maritime (embarked) aviation to DMR, and DAR (Tac Hel) to DLR, with all the associated funding. That way the environmental commanders get to decide what they need, not the RCAF.
I'd also formally move maritime air doctrine to CFMWC, and tac hel doctrine to the land equivalent.
Problem is, even though the RCAF doesn't give a rats ass about embarked aviation and doctrine, they would fight tough and nail to not give up control and funding...
