Author Topic: CH-148 Cyclone Progress  (Read 703858 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 271,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,320
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #150 on: May 04, 2008, 13:52:38 »
The most cost-effective and pan-AF supportable solution in the big picture for the AF would have been a fleet of EH-101 variants providing: SAR, Maritime and Heavy-lift Transport, each with reasonable and appropriate alterations to tweak them to the missions, absolutely doable.  Chinook for heavy list isn't a bad thing, and definitely gets the "right arc" of fire for lifting in extremis.  The H92, IMO, was born of a two-fold reason: 1) the Libs wanted anything other than an EH-101 so as to keep Chretien's "legacy"  ??? intact, and 2) the navigator mafia were quite vocal about not liking the NH-90 because they couldn't stand up in the thing (even though the NH-90 is arguably a very, nice MH machine by many accounts.)  Folding rotors and tail and new FBW should most surely have been portents of the troubles to come on H92/CH148.  There is so much legacy pressure on anything "helicopter" in Canada, I am astounded.  What is it with helicopters that successive governments feel compelled to screw the Departement over on?  ???

G2G

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #151 on: May 04, 2008, 14:11:42 »
and we still don't know why the 92's are late and over budget . . . . 

The government side has gone public, we need to hear from Sikorski.  Wouldn't be the first time in contracting history that Change Orders have changed dates & budgets so much finger pointing has resulted. 


A fleet of 92's would also fit the bill for single type medium lift helicopter for both Navy & Army use, with a heavy lift squadron of Chinooks for the big stuff and squadron of Griffon's for light/utility.  We just need a government with a majority and the will to make the $$'s happen.

Assuming the 92's do what Sikorski advertising says they will do.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,043
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #152 on: May 04, 2008, 14:39:18 »
Quote
2) the navigator mafia were quite vocal about not liking the NH-90 because they couldn't stand up in the thing (even though the NH-90 is arguably a very, nice MH machine by many accounts.)

Tell you what- you go move 200lb stokes litters around or load sonobuoys hunched over or on your knees in the back of bouncing helicopter with a cabin just over 5 feet high.  Let me know how it works out for you.  Even the Sea King is a pain for taller AES Ops and Navigators to work in.   

As you well know, NH-90 is a nice machine- but it fell out of the running for the same reasons as another nice machine (the Seahawk).  It is just too small for the manner in which we operate Maritime Helicopters in Canada.  Sadly, we are forced to be all things to all people, because we are only going to get one airframe type.  That implies a larger aircraft.

Time will tell how this is going to all play out.  In the mean time, Sea King serviceability has never been better.  There will be a near record amount of Dets on simultaneous deployment this summer.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 271,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,320
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #153 on: May 04, 2008, 14:47:52 »
Tell you what- you go move 200lb stokes litters around or load sonobuoys hunched over or on your knees in the back of bouncing helicopter with a cabin just over 5 feet high.  Let me know how it works out for you.  Even the Sea King is a pain for taller AES Ops and Navigators to work in.   

SKT, that's also busting some chops, I know.  Honestly, though, you should get the AESOP to do all the hard work, so you don't mess up your manicure.  :-*

Seriously though, if you had your take of 101 (with Ti half-hub), H-92 or NH-90 tomorrow (as in 2009-2010ish), which would you go for?

Cheers, bro.
G2G

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,043
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #154 on: May 04, 2008, 14:52:02 »
Can't believe I'm actually saying this but-

EH-101 with the new tail rotor.  There. said it.

*disclaimer- my comments are mine alone and do not represent Canadian Govt, CF or Air Force Policy.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 271,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,320
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #155 on: May 04, 2008, 14:55:55 »
Can't believe I'm actually saying this but-

EH-101 with the new tail rotor.  There. said it.

*disclaimer- my comments are mine alone and do not represent Canadian Govt, CF or Air Force Policy.

Dude, come on...that's not nearly as bad as me saying 101 for heavy-lift!  I'm going straight to "Chez Beelzebub" for that one!  ;D

Offline KJK

    is enjoying summer.

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 117,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 89
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #156 on: May 04, 2008, 15:57:53 »
One good thing about a fleet of EH 101's to do everything, it sure would simplify maintenance and training. :cdn: :salute: :salute:

KJK

Offline h3tacco

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 144
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #157 on: May 04, 2008, 16:43:20 »
The frigate version of the NH90 is not in service and is having multiple development delays with the undercarriage and mission system. If we had ordered the NH90 we would not have them on time.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2008, 18:28:15 by h3tacco »

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #158 on: May 05, 2008, 01:29:13 »
It's not a great idea to put all of your eggs in one basket. Just imagine the problems that could be created if all of your helicopters developed the same major problem at the same time. Something like a structural failure that required an immediate fix involving a lot of engineering and work. Most of the helicopters that have been around for some time have already gone through their growing pains and problem areas have been identified.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,303
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #159 on: May 05, 2008, 02:00:53 »
Hey guys,

Been reading through the thread, but I didn't see anything on this idea yet.  If I missed it, sorry.

What about going with a smaller aircraft, like the S-70B Seahawk (Or whatever the modern version is) - instead of the CH-148??

I know it was discussed earlier that we need a larger, more versatile aircraft due to a single aircraft-type fleet, and limited numbers.  But since the Seahawk would undoubtedly have a lower price tag, could we not purchase more airframes for the same cost as we're paying for the CH-148?

Both are built by the same manufacturer.  The Seahawk is already in service, and any growing pains have been worked out.  There is a steady stream of them on the production line.  And as mentioned before, would we not be able to purchase additional airframes due to lower cost??

*I'm totally outside my lane here, I know.  Just curious to hear what you AF guys think about the concept*
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #160 on: May 05, 2008, 06:29:04 »


 could we not purchase more airframes for the same cost as we're paying for the CH-148?


We can only put so many aircraft at sea on one deployement.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,332
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,002
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #161 on: May 05, 2008, 09:01:52 »
CBH99 reply 136 refers to the Seahawk.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #162 on: May 05, 2008, 10:15:25 »
How about an AF leadership who keeps getting screwed around by the government.  Leadership all across the CF are trying their best to upgrade their equipment, this has nothing to do with leadership not knowing what to do.   There is so much to do and a limited amount of resources the last thing the CF needs is a supplier demanding more money for a contract that has had so many problems getting off the ground, all of which due to government, not AF leadership.


I agree 1000% about the government and lack of $$.  But that's where leadership comes to play.  I do not want to sound negative, but we do have a problem within the AF, a serious problem.  we have "de-fanged" the AF, taken away much of its COMBAT capability.  The role of the airforce is AIR COMBAT, fire, brimstone and death from the sky.  We are the keepers of our nations airborne weapons systems, not the forest fire patrol, not the fisheries department!!  We have been doing everyone elses job for so long we have,at high levels, forgotten what our real focus is and should be, warfighting. 

Being in my position, I have been privy to many a meeting at high level, combat is never discussed, an when brought up quickly dismissed.  I have been in several operations where senior leadership has not been willing or able to make decisions, where, were it not for a few quick thinking capts & majs things would have fallen apart.  Recently the former CAS visited my wing before he retired.  He was given a tour of my unit, briefed on our capabilities and limitations.  He asked no questions until he came into our break room and asked 4 about the pool table!!  I heard similar stories from friends in other units he visited.  we have some serious problems that need fixing.  Aircarft like the Cyclone & Chinook will go a long way to fixing the issues, unless some twit puts them on crop dusting duties.
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 26,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,648
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #163 on: May 05, 2008, 10:21:51 »
I feel for ya peaches.
The army was in those exact shoes for night on 40 years and only got back into the warfighting business after 9/11

Remember - the Government of the day was embarassed to bring up Medak to the Canadian public - at the risk of letting people know that we could still fight.

The ariforce as a service provider should be able to do more than offer .... transport.
Chimo!

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #164 on: May 05, 2008, 10:25:26 »
Right on.  Put the force back into air force.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,597
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #165 on: May 05, 2008, 10:28:03 »
You go try to fit a Chinook on a frigate. Once your done , come back here and let me know how you made out.  ::)

You're such a disbeliever, as long as you maintain a 80-90kt groundspeed on approach the Chinook will fit into the hanger, (as well as the stackflats)  ;D

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,332
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,002
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #166 on: May 05, 2008, 10:30:37 »
Unfortunately when the Air Force and the Navy gets looked upon as a transportation asset of the Army by certain Generals then both services end up being defanged to the detriment of all.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline h3tacco

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 144
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #167 on: May 05, 2008, 10:53:08 »
It should not be a big surprise that the USN and CF Navy operate differently and have different requirements. The USN is currently fielding the MH-60R and MH-60S to replace the SH-60B, SH-60F, HH-60H, CH-46 and left-over UH-1s and UH-3s. The MH-60R is designed to handle all the USN's  warfare missions (ASW and ASuW); it has no additional capability. The aircraft is jammed with equipement and barely has room for 3 crew and 1 pax. It has a radar, ESM, dipping sonar, EO/IR, and sonobouy's. It will primarily embark on the FFGs, DDGs, CGs and to a limited extent CVs. The MH-60S is completely stripped out  and does not have any of the mission equipment of the MH-60R except for the EO/IR. It is actually a variant of the UH-60 and has a different cabin and tail wheel config and does not have a RAST. The MH-60S is designed primarily to conduct VERTREP and SAR but does have a prosposed limited ASuW capabilty albeit without a radar. It is also supposed to replace the MH-53 in the Mine Countermeasures Role, however, there are doubts that it has either the payload or endurance to conduct that mission. It will primarily embarke only on AORs and CVs.

The CH148 will have nearly an identical mission equipment fit to MH-60R with the exception of an additional crew member (TACCO) and the without the Hellfire capability. The big difference is with all the mission equipment the CH148 will still be able to handle an additional six passengers and SAR equipment, with the ability to remove some of the mission equipment in order carry additional pax and gear.

Purchasing either the MH-60R or MH-60S would not be satisfactory and purchasing a mixed fleet would require a shift in the way we operate, would likely increase O&M, and provide a loss of operational flexibility (the MH-60S could only embark on the AORs or JSS). Whoever said if it is good enough for the USN then it should be good enough for us does not understand the vast difference in how our two navies are organized or operate.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 10:59:34 by h3tacco »

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 26,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,648
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #168 on: May 05, 2008, 11:27:45 »
Unfortunately when the Air Force and the Navy gets looked upon as a transportation asset of the Army by certain Generals then both services end up being defanged to the detriment of all.

100% agreement from the peanut gallery

Though the Navy has been filling a security / picket role in the Persian gulf & indian ocean... at least that is a "combat/interdiction" role
Chimo!

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #169 on: May 05, 2008, 13:11:29 »
The most cost-effective and pan-AF supportable solution in the big picture for the AF would have been a fleet of EH-101 variants providing: SAR, Maritime and Heavy-lift Transport, each with reasonable and appropriate alterations to tweak them to the missions, absolutely doable.  Chinook for heavy list isn't a bad thing, and definitely gets the "right arc" of fire for lifting in extremis.  The H92, IMO, was born of a two-fold reason: 1) the Libs wanted anything other than an EH-101 so as to keep Chretien's "legacy"  ??? intact, and 2) the navigator mafia were quite vocal about not liking the NH-90 because they couldn't stand up in the thing (even though the NH-90 is arguably a very, nice MH machine by many accounts.)  Folding rotors and tail and new FBW should most surely have been portents of the troubles to come on H92/CH148.  There is so much legacy pressure on anything "helicopter" in Canada, I am astounded.  What is it with helicopters that successive governments feel compelled to screw the Departement over on?  ???

G2G


Agree with everything you say here except for the SAR role.  I do not believe the military should be doing domestic SAR, that is the Coast Guards job, but that's my opinion.  Giving the maritime helo folks the EH101, plus each brigade a sqn of them, and then have 1 Chinook & 1 Apache sqn at division level would make sense for our helo needs.
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,977
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,935
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #170 on: May 05, 2008, 13:25:15 »
Ya that sounds about right. The guys at the bottom of the food chain know the right answer but the further up you go the more politics you run into.   :(


Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #171 on: May 05, 2008, 13:31:19 »
Ya that sounds about right. The guys at the bottom of the food chain know the right answer but the further up you go the more politics you run into.   :(



Could not agree more.  Politics screws everything up.  Takes the simple solution and complicates it for the sake of complicating it.  Like the name Baden guy, I was there as a kid '74-78.  Lived in Wintersdorf.
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #172 on: May 05, 2008, 13:40:09 »
things overall could be worse, we could have ordered A400's instead of buying C17's and we would be waiting, waiting, waiting for our Strat Lift as well.


http://bp1.blogger.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/SB4XQ27OoXI/AAAAAAAAHGk/dkn9z-7PdbE/s1600-h/AIR+-+A400M+6776.jpg




Offline CharlieCF

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #173 on: May 05, 2008, 16:43:37 »
and we still don't know why the 92's are late and over budget . . . . 

The government side has gone public, we need to hear from Sikorski.


I completely agree!!!  They want more money citing a need for a more powerful engine, but don't think this realization of theirs just happened overnight.  It seems that the company has known about these problems (technical and financial) for a while now, but are slowing letting things out of the woodwork.  I don't blame the Canadian government for being upset with this situation.  There is no true deadline established, just a rough figure of 30 months and the aircraft is probably still not operational and definitely won't be by the Jan. 2009 deadline (as everyone knows).  I just want the whole story out of Sikorsky...how long and how much...and most importantly why!

I know I have said it before, but what even makes Sikorsky think that their H-92 (CH-148) proposal for the US CSAR-X competition is going to do any better.  It is the same freakin' aircraft.  I think that Sikorsky is stretching out these delays in their hope to win the US CSAR competition which will give them extra funding to upgrade the aircraft, thus they are letting any true reasons for the delay out and will not confirm a delivery date.  The delivery will be sooner if they win the US competition, much later if they don't.     But, if the USAF picks Sikorsky with all of their problems in Canada with the same platform, that is their fault.  Still going to be delays and problems with Sikorsky.

Offline CharlieCF

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: CH-148 Cyclone Progress
« Reply #174 on: May 06, 2008, 16:34:21 »
So, I constructed this timeline from news I have seen from Sikorsky, trying to encompass the story of the company's delays and see if their was any indication of where it started.  I find it interesting how from going through the history, you can see the Canadian government's initial support turn into frustration and low-confidence in the company and aircraft.

Let me know what you guys think.

05/08: More powerful engine needed for extra lift capacity because of the type of operations flown
05/01/08 – Canada refuses to pay extra $500M for helicopters according to Public Works Minister.  DM MacKay: “We obviously want to avoid-and I emphasize not at all cost-but we want to avoid a further delay.”
04/30/08 --  Defense Minister Peter MacKay: "We're not threatening anything until we have an opportunity to sit down and have a detailed discussion with Sikorsky about when these aircraft are going to be delivered."
04/08 -- Federal officials say that the Cyclones need a more powerful engine to meet Canada's requirements, no reason given.
04/08 – Canada Public Works:  "Once we have completed our review of the contractor's claimed reasons for delay, we will be in a position to determine Canada's next steps.  Canada is keeping all of its contractual and legal options open to minimize delay in procuring new maritime helicopters.” No delivery date in sight.
04/08 -- Federal officials are threatening to cancel a $5-billion contract with Sikorsky Inc. because the U.S.-based helicopter maker is asking for up to $500-million in extra funds
04/08 –Sikorsky Canada Inc. has a number of influential lobbyists working on their behalf, which include Patrick O’Donnell of CFN Consultants, Pierre Laguex and George MacDonald also of CFN, and Walter Robinson of Tactix Government Consulting Inc.
02/08 – Canada Public Works statement: “In Nov. 2007, the project marked the three-year milestone in the implementation phase… Government representatives are currently a detailed review of all aspects of the contractor’s schedule to determine how to minimize the impact of these delays and to ensure that they will not affect the key performance and airworthiness requirements of the Canadian Forces.  Other components of the project such as construction of the Training Center building in Shearwater, NS, and ship modification work on HMCS Montreal have progressed well and are on schedule.  The project is currently running within its authorized budget.”
02/25/08 – S-92 on cover of Aviation Week and Space Technology
01/08 – Canada Public Works statement: “We are addressing the implication of what a delay on the delivery of the maritime helicopters will have on the operational requirements of DND and PWGSC is considering all possible options with respect to Sikorsky’s default on the timely delivery of the Maritime Helicopters.”
01/08 - Sikorsky announces delivery of the CH-148 Cyclones could be delayed by 30 months. He says new engineering requirements -- likely a result of technology advances in certain aircraft components, which weren't foreseen in 2004 -- mean the original contract must now be reworked.   No specific technology advancement given…FBW?  Canada threatening to deeply penalize Sikorsky “thousands of dollars” for each day the choppers are late.  $36 million maximum penalty.
12/07- First H-92 helicopter to feature FBW has completed its first successful flight
07/07 – Still doing FBW ground testing – was to have had actual flight test in 02/07
01/07 -- Replacement helicopters for Canada's geriatric fleet of Sea Kings will be delivered at least 5 1/2 weeks late from Sikorsky International because of a strike at the company's factory in the United States.  However, the federal government says the delay is reasonable, and it is forgoing the late penalty provisions in the contract.  Delivery for Jan. 2009
07/06 – www.flightglobal.com – A test bed for the MH-92’s FBW technology flight control system will fly in 02/07, with delivery of the first of 28 Canadian aircraft (CH-148) scheduled for 11/08
06/05 – Sikorsky and NRC Aerospace win award for helicopter FBW flight control system for H-92
07/04 – Sikorsky H-92 selected as New Canadian Forces Maritime Helicopter—delivery for Nov. 2008
11/03 – FBW flight control for Sikorsky S-92 and H-92 helicopters to use BAE Systems CsLEOS Real-time Operating System
09/03 – BAE Systems developing FBW flight controls for Sikorsky S-92 and H-92 helicopters – under agreement BAE also becomes Sikorsky’s preferred supplier for future FBW systems
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 18:02:06 by CharlieCF »