• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Colin P said:
Would it make sense to have the Astreix/JSS with 2 helo's and the capability to do deeper maintenance? More of fleet support than ASW protection. Basically they can cycle helo's through the escorts and have a spare.

Absolutely that would be the plan, to the extent that the Cyclone maintenance concept allows it.

Asterix has space for two helos, but I don't have any sources for how much aviation maintenance space there is.  Same goes for Protecteur and Preserver.  I also haven't heard if/when 12 Wing intends to build up a larger det for Asterix.  When manning allows it, and the full set of air trials for an embarked det are complete (vice the Ships Without Air Detachment [SWOAD] trials that have been done) my *guess* would be that it would make sense to build up a det that has 2 aircraft with 3 crews, and a split shift maintenance, in order to do more effective first line maintenance activities for a task group.

However, having this maintenance depth at Sea is not the same as 2nd line maintenance.  The old Preserver and Protecteur had avionics labs to do 2nd line recovery of spares, and could also do "streamlined" 2nd line periodic inspections (500 hour) with support from Shearwater.  I am only aware of this being done once, so it wasn't doctrine, but it could be done.  I've attached below, sorry for the long post.  However, the maintenance concept for Cyclone is different.  For example, 2nd line avionics recovery is not even done at Shearwater, it is passed back to the OEM.

So yes, that is the plan, but not to the extent it used to be.  Just as a note, an aircraft carrier does; for example, they have 2nd line engine bays including run-up facilities, and I remember anecdotally they actually carry OEM contractors at times.

Having obtained a suitably upgraded organic air capability, the Canadian Task Group came close to having to do without it. This situation arose in late October, over the issue of replacement of the Task Group. The decision reached by NDHQ was that the cost of refitting three more ships and five additional helicopters would be prohibitive, and crews would be rotated instead. This had profound operational implications, quite aside from the obvious withdrawal of each of the ships from patrol in sequence while the changeovers were affected. Unlike the air task group in Doha, which frequently rotated CF18s from the Canadian bases in Germany, 423 Squadron had no practical way to transport replacement aircraft to the Gulf without a relieving task group. On top of that, back in August, even as the upgrades were being undertaken at Shearwater, MAGHQ had predicted that, with the projected flying rate (proven in actual operations), “[a]ircraft technical requirements in terms of maintainability/sustainability [would be] problematic ... [and] there will be a requirement for one in-theatre periodic inspection per aircraft during a possible six-month deployment." Although direction had been requested from DMAEM, none had arrived.

Now, the problem of diminishing aircraft flying hours reached a crisis, and the investment made in the augmentation of the air maintenance detachment aboard PROTECTEUR reaped its dividend. In the short term, the afloat technicians had proven equal to the task of routine maintenance, keeping all of the aging and temperamental Sea Kings on the ready roster for an astounding 98 per cent availability, but the necessity for periodic inspections presented a longer-term problem. A regular 20‑day-long maintenance routine was required for flight safety reasons on all aircraft every 500 flying hours, and this was a major undertaking involving specialist technical support. Significantly, one had never before been conducted away from home base, let alone on a ship at sea. Together, the five task group helicopters were averaging 12 hours flying per day, or over 350 hours per month. The pace had been determined in part by the intention that the Task Group would return to Halifax in the early months of 1991. At the beginning of November, the total hours remaining were just over 1,250, sufficient to carry through to mid-February at the present rate, which in wartime was expected to rise.

Knowing now that there would be no replacement of the ships or their embarked aircraft until the summer of 1991 at the earliest, the initial reaction of Lieutenant-Colonel McWha was to order a drastic reduction in the hours flown by the air detachments. Henceforth, they were to fly only when necessary and otherwise remain at alert status, but that was only postponing the inevitable. Other than waiving the periodic inspection requirement, there was no alternative to in-theatre inspections. The situation was forced on 5 November when an airframe crack was discovered on one of the aircraft, “grounding” it aboard PROTECTEUR until a specialist metal technician from Shearwater could arrive to effect the repairs. Urgent communications passed from the task group ships at sea to the Canadian theatre headquarters in Manamah and thence to Shearwater and Ottawa, resulting in the decision to take this opportunity simultaneously to begin the 20‑day routine on the stricken helicopter immediately.

The only outstanding issue was where to undertake it. Both the US and Royal Navies also operated Sea Kings in the Gulf, but they were attached mostly to shore units, and there were sufficient differences between the models that making use of their facilities was not a viable option. In fact, PROTECTEUR’s facilities surpassed anything readily available elsewhere in the Gulf for the Sea Kings, and the embarked maintenance team was quickly set to the task. With their effective confinement on board because of the patrol schedule, the first inspection took only 15 days, and subsequent ones were reduced to 12 days. A sequence was worked out to have the remaining aircraft completed by February, which, with judicious scheduling and barring the outbreak of hostilities, would leave the five aircraft sufficient flying hours to resume the accustomed rate and support task group operations well into 1992.

Sic Itur Ad Astra: Canadian Aerospace Power Studies Volume 5 Wings for the Fleet: Fifty Years of the Canadian Sea King Edited by W. A. March, Chapter 6 Rethinking Maritime Air: Preparing and Maintaining Canadian Sea King Helicopters for Operations in the Persian Gulf 1990–1991 by Richard Gimblett, Page 75 http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/mdn-dnd/D4-7-5-2015-eng.pdf
 
Well, we've ordered/bought 28 of them.  If 15 go the 15 CSC's and 1 each go the 2 JSS, that leave's 11 onshore for training and deep maintenance.  Is that the correct ratio?  Does this mean that some are sitting idle with no jobs to perform? Or does this mean that we don't have enough of them?
From what I've been able to see, we used to have 24 on ships 10yrs ago, out of the 41 ordered.  Six on the Iroquois's, 6 on the replenishment ships and 1 on each Halifax. That's basically the exact same ratio (ship to land) - 58.5% on the Sea Kings' to 60% on the Cyclone's, so I'm going out on a limb here and saying that each JSS will only carry a single Cyclone.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Well, we've ordered/bought 28 of them.  If 15 go the 15 CSC's and 1 each go the 2 JSS, that leave's 11 onshore for training and deep maintenance.  Is that the correct ratio?  Does this mean that some are sitting idle with no jobs to perform? Or does this mean that we don't have enough of them?
From what I've been able to see, we used to have 24 on ships 10yrs ago, out of the 41 ordered.  Six on the Iroquois's, 6 on the replenishment ships and 1 on each Halifax. That's basically the exact same ratio (ship to land) - 58.5% on the Sea Kings' to 60% on the Cyclone's, so I'm going out on a limb here and saying that each JSS will only carry a single Cyclone.

You're forgetting the Harry DeWolf class that has the capability of embarking a Cyclone.
 
Aren't we also forgetting the vessels that are alongside or in for maintenance?

Of the "11-15" CSCs, "5-6" AOPS and "2-3" AORs how many will actually be at sea either on station or in transit?

15+6+3 = 24
11+5+2 = 18

Will there be 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the fleet at sea at any one time?
 
Chief Stoker said:
You're forgetting the Harry DeWolf class that has the capability of embarking a Cyclone.

Good point. But, I do wonder how often they will be used with AOPS. At least initially, I heard the plan was to fly with CCG helo’s and Air Dets. Then, there were some rumblings about Griffons. I got the impression from all this that the Cyclones were going to be too much in demand to be tasked to do whatever the DEWOLF’s will be doing.
 
Chris Pook said:
Aren't we also forgetting the vessels that are alongside or in for maintenance?

Of the "11-15" CSCs, "5-6" AOPS and "2-3" AORs how many will actually be at sea either on station or in transit?

15+6+3 = 24
11+5+2 = 18

Will there be 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the fleet at sea at any one time?

It's more complicated than that; just because a ship is at sea does not mean that she has an air det and helo embarked.

In fact, I've only ever sailed with a helo in 3 situations:
1. Air Workups;
2. SHOAL Trials (barf); and
3. Deployments.

Sometimes we seem to sail with a helo for Task Group exercises, but not always.

So, our demand for ships at sea could be a lot higher than our demand for embarked helos. For example, we could have 4 CPFs and a JSS at sea from the East coast alone, 2 of which are down off the US coast participating in a TGEX, 1 CPF doing trials with the JSS off of Halifax, and 1 on deployment. In this scenario, it's very possible that only the deployed CPF has a helo.

In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:

"The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."

 
Swampbuggy said:
Good point. But, I do wonder how often they will be used with AOPS. At least initially, I heard the plan was to fly with CCG helo’s and Air Dets. Then, there were some rumblings about Griffons. I got the impression from all this that the Cyclones were going to be too much in demand to be tasked to do whatever the DEWOLF’s will be doing.

That is correct, they will embark with a CCG helo for the 4 months in the Arctic. However they will be embarking other places as well.
 
Chris Pook said:
Aren't we also forgetting the vessels that are alongside or in for maintenance?

Of the "11-15" CSCs, "5-6" AOPS and "2-3" AORs how many will actually be at sea either on station or in transit?

15+6+3 = 24
11+5+2 = 18

Will there be 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the fleet at sea at any one time?

As I said, the authorized manning for 12 Wing *was* as of my last interaction with it, 3 years ago) based on 15 det equivalents in 11 dets.  That means 15 aircraft, with 7 dets having 2 crews and a "single" maintenance org (11 maintainers and 8 aircrew) with 1 helo, and 4 dets with 3 crews and an augmented maintenance org (forget the actual manning).  This totals 15 aircraft.  Of the remainder, some are back at 423/443 for the remaining people on the squadrons (ie command, ops, and standards and readiness), some are at 406 (the training squadron, whose pipe has to keep flowing to produce dets), and some are at 12AMS in deep maintenance.  The number of aircraft, 28, was the minimum to maintain that org; notice that there are none for attrition.  Originally the EH-101 buy was for 35 plus 15 SAR, but it was cut to 28 before the 93 election, and then obviously cancelled afterwards.  The restarted project was for 28 aircraft.

During non surge ops the dets are deployed 1 in 4; it doesn't mean they are not at sea, but it means they are not on international ops.  So that means at any given time, in non-surge ops, you have approximately 2 single helo dets and 1 two helo dets available for international deployment.  This is also true for the Navy; historically you have have half(ish) of the ships at high readiness, with one task group ready to deploy, 1 ship actually on international ops, and one either getting ready to leave or just coming back.  There is a combined RCAF and RCN committee that plans to match dets and ships based on RCN needs.

From my understanding, the army is also familiar with this construct; it can *sustain* 1 out of 4 deployed.  One is getting ready to go, one is deployed, one coming back, and one regenerating.

My point is, counting aircraft and hulls doesn't give the answer; you need to take into account force generation, maintenance, deployment cycles... it's also not a static organization, it is tailored to the needs of current ops.

It is going to take a long time for 12 Wing to build up to authorized manning, and I'm positive as they learn about the aircraft they'll optimize det organization and number of dets.  It is also going to take the RCN a long time to build up authorized strength *once* they get the hulls as well.  I would think that they will retain the capability to create 2 helo dets for two reasons; depth in the TG, and flexibility if Protecteur / Preserver deploy on ops like humanitarian assistance.
 
Lumber said:
It's more complicated than that; just because a ship is at sea does not mean that she has an air det and helo embarked.

In fact, I've only ever sailed with a helo in 3 situations:
1. Air Workups;
2. SHOAL Trials (barf); and
3. Deployments.

Sometimes we seem to sail with a helo for Task Group exercises, but not always.

So, our demand for ships at sea could be a lot higher than our demand for embarked helos. For example, we could have 4 CPFs and a JSS at sea from the East coast alone, 2 of which are down off the US coast participating in a TGEX, 1 CPF doing trials with the JSS off of Halifax, and 1 on deployment. In this scenario, it's very possible that only the deployed CPF has a helo.

In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:

"The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."

The current reality for det availability unfortunately doesn't match demand, even given that the RCN is currently stretched as well.  You would like to have dets on, for example, the TGEX.  Those don't count towards the 1 in 4 deployed.  As a matter of fact, it is also important for the Wing; part of force generation is embarked training, ie participating in exercises.  But lately manning hasn't allowed what would be liked.
 
Chief Stoker said:
That is correct, they will embark with a CCG helo for the 4 months in the Arctic. However they will be embarking other places as well.

Hopefully I'm not taking up to much of the conversation...

That is what the combined RCAF and RCN helo allocation committee is for; to determine which ships *need* dets for ops, and which ones can *provide* dets with good training opportunities, and then balance out the allocation correctly.
 
Chief Stoker said:
You're forgetting the Harry DeWolf class that has the capability of embarking a Cyclone.

I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's. 

I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....

So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.
 
Czech_pivo said:
I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's. 

I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....

So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.

Like was already explained in multiple posts the CCG will embark while in the Arctic, other than that in other areas the Cyclone could be operated and probably will and not all deployments warrant a Cyclone. As for the number of Cyclones purchased and their use I would say that was factored into the planning process so rest easy.
 
Czech_pivo said:
I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's. 

I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....

So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.

Again, not the best comparison:

When we ordered 41 Sea Kings, it wasn't to meet the current deployment conops.  Remember, at the time, we had an aircraft carrier and were also developing flying big helicopters off little ships.

A good time snap would be when I first joined 423, at he beginning of '93.  Although we were revering from op friction, we had *approximately* this org:
- at 423, on the east coast, 5 steamer dets, 1 2 helo 280 det, and one 2 helo tanker det
- at 443, on the west coast, 1 steamer sdet, 1 2 helo 280 det, and one 2 helo tanker det
That's pretty close to the planned force structure; only difference is there will be less dets east (4+1+1) and more west (3+1+1).

So, 14 helos in dets, and there were *around* 32 left (using http://www.rwrwalker.ca/CAF_Sea_King_detailed_list.htm); we lost a few more after that.

It was also anticipated that the new aircraft would need less deep maintenance, and in fact the Cyclone maintenance requirements were spec'd for that.  Time will tell...

Leadmark 2050 explains that the RCN's ambition is to provide on high readiness task group, consisting of  1 CSC, 2 or 3 Halifax, 1 Protecteur / Provider, several CH-148, and 1 Victoria (Canada in a New Maritime World LEADMARK 2050, Page 43 http://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/rcn_leadmark-2050.pdf).  Of those, you could expect sustained 1 ship deployed and 1 going or coming back.  So the basic structure that 12 Wing org is based on is still correct.

The Harry DeWolfs through a slight curve ball, but that is were balancing of needs comes in.

So no planning mistake, the basic structure on both sides remains sound.  Unless attrition jumps up and bites...


Edditted to add: or, put more simply, what Chief Stoker said...
 
Contracting out helicopter services for the Astreix would alleviate some of the demand on the helo's as well. Contracted helo does personal and cargo. If they have a Cyclone aboard it can provide some protection or do boarding party support, etc.
 
Colin P said:
Contracting out helicopter services for the Astreix would alleviate some of the demand on the helo's as well. Contracted helo does personal and cargo. If they have a Cyclone aboard it can provide some protection or do boarding party support, etc.

Other nations will also do similar, but contracted out from a local airport.  So, for example, if deployed in the Persian Gulf, have a contracted helo in Bahrain to do HDS (Helicopter Delivery Service).
 
Colin P said:
I understood both the RFA and the USN use contracted helicopters based on their vessels?

They may well do, but I've never saw it.  I do know people who have been exchange officers on board RN Sea King dets on RFAs.  All the USNS (auxiliaries are not USN) I saw where either CH-46 Sea Knights or SH-60s.

But definitely I've seen that the USN uses contracted helos from ashore in the Persion Gulf.  The used to have Sea King dets for that (the example I saw were Italy and the Gulf).
 
@Baz:  How many flight crews per det?  Or is the det number flexible (Ie: AOR might take one det but its larger compared to a CPF....).  So for example you said earlier that there are 8 flight crew pers per det, which means two flight crews total (two in the front and two in the back).  Or am I getting this mixed up.
 
Underway said:
@Baz:  How many flight crews per det?  Or is the det number flexible (Ie: AOR might take one det but its larger compared to a CPF....).  So for example you said earlier that there are 8 flight crew pers per det, which means two flight crews total (two in the front and two in the back).  Or am I getting this mixed up.

A "normal" det is two crews so 8 aircrew (2 pilots, 1 ACSO, and 1 AESOP per crew).

A 280 det was normally 3 crews if they sailed with 2 helos; if one helo it was a "normal" det.

A tanker det could have 1-3 helos, and as low as 1 crew plus an LSO (which is a pilot), or as high as 4 crews.

When I say 15 det equivalents in 11 dets, the four dets that have 2 helos would have 3 crews normally.

All of this is subject to mission tailoring, but "normal" dets normally stay normal.
 
Back
Top