CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Nfld Sapper]

can we give the Cyclone a chance it the CF before we start condemning it..... :

My thoughts excatly Ex-Dragoon.

 

[Haletown]

My thoughts excatly Ex-Dragoon.

Vote # 3 here.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can only assume you mean the Bell 412, Colin, as the 214 is either a heavy-lift machine of the same size as the 212/412 but with bigger blades and a single big stove (214B), or it's a large-cabin heavy twin (214). 

If you were referring to the 412, then you're right, there are many more 206's and A-Stars (a 207 is a small fixed wing a/c) than 412's.  However, a 206 is a light (typically four-place) and an A-Star is an intermediate (six-place), while a 412 is a 15-place twin in the medium category.  A 206 can be has for under $500,000, an A-Star for a couple million, and a 412 starts at $10,000,000, so that's why you'll not see too many 412's on civvie street.  You will see lots of 205's and 212's, which have the same size cabin as the 412, because they lift better, are cheaper to operate, and cost much less.

As far as Bell mediums being too big or too small, they are like any other machine: for certain jobs they are just right.  For instance, as a SAR machine (provided capacity for flight into known icing isn't required) they're an excellent platform.

Thanks, I meant the 407 when I said the 207. The 407 is an impressive machine and flying in them on the tight spots in BC mountains makes you feel safer than a 206 struggling through the air! Trying to keep the model number right from memory is a sure way to fail. The 214 uses twin 1875hp P & W turbines correct?

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks, I meant the 407 when I said the 207. The 407 is an impressive machine and flying in them on the tight spots in BC mountains makes you feel safer than a 206 struggling through the air! Trying to keep the model number right from memory is a sure way to fail. The 214 uses twin 1875hp P & W turbines correct?

Negative, 214 comes in two flavours:

1) 214ST (Super Transport), 2 x T700s (actually civy CT-7s) just like the Blackhawk and Apache; and

2) 214B (Heavy Lifter), 1 x Honeywell(Lycoming) T-55 (a.k.a. Chinook engine). 

Both variants of the 214 are noticably bigger than a 212 (but they [212 and 214] are all two-bladed rotor helos).

The 412 variants (fuselage the same size as the 212/UH-1N) sport the PT6T-3B or -3D P&WC Twin Pac (from 1800 ESHP ratings - eqvlt HP is thermodynamic maximum, but the pac is flat rated (de-rated) to about 1350 HP continuous...a main transmission power limit)

Cheers
G2G

 

[ezbeatz]

The S-92 (Cyclone) is substantially less expensive than comparable aircraft like the NH-90. In fact, so much so that the German Navy was considering foregoing the NH-90 for the S-92 even with a hefty cancellation fee.

What do you guys think about the Cyclone eventually replacing the griffin? It can carry nearly 3x as many troops and would allow the air force (pilots, ground crew, parts) further standardization.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Here's the point:

Right now, 1 Wing has,effectively, stood up a whole new unit overseas and added a whole new fleet with no increase in manning. There are only two Tac Hel Squadrons to rotate into and out of theatre - manning both fleets - with some augmentation from two Reserve-Heavy Squadrons, and possibly occasional augmentation from the OTU and 427 Squadron.

The MH community will soon be introducing a whole new fleet while doing their best to continue to operate during the conversion process. Fleet conversions are always highly disruptive and pull people out of the daily operation. There will be barely enough new machines to conduct the missions for which they were bought in the first place, and barely enough people to fly and fix them.

Both communities are short of people, and even shorter of experienced people.

Any CH148s applied to non-MH tasks would have to come from a new purchase. Unless we reduce the CH146 fleet, possibly to the point where it cannot be sustained, crews and maintainers would have to be created or poached from other already-hurting communities.

Tac Hel and MH jobs are very different. They are more than driving or fixing a particular machine.

Again, CH148 is too big and expensive for the escort/recce/surveillance role.
We already have CH147 for lift in theatre.

Would we have a role for a Tac Hel CH148 version in future conflicts or other ops? I personally do not think so.

Presuming that we do eventually get CH147F, then I'd much rather see our CH146s upgraded to or swapped for UH1Ys or replaced with UH60 for the utility role and something else purchased for the armed/recce role.

I think you'll find, if you actually read a thread, someone might have already answered your question. 

 

[aesop081]

What do you guys think about the Cyclone eventually replacing the griffin? It can carry nearly 3x as many troops and would allow the air force (pilots, ground crew, parts) further standardization.

I hear you can also make orange juice with apples now.......

 

[Good2Golf]

...What do you guys think about 1) the Cyclone eventually replacing the griffin? It can carry nearly 3x as many troops and 2) would allow the air force (pilots, ground crew, parts) further standardization.

1) You do know we're getting Chinooks, right?  They can carry 5x as many troops as a Griffon, and

2) Standardization?  So get rid of a fleet of almost 100 helicopters and buy more of a new helicopter so we'll be more like the 28 that we haven't got yet?  ???

Perhaps I'm the only one scratching my head at this...

G2G

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Standardization?  So get rid of a fleet of almost 100 helicopters and buy more of a new helicopter so we'll be more like the 28 that we haven't got yet?  ???

Ok ok...that one cracked me up. 

 

[Loachman]

What do you guys think about the Cyclone eventually replacing the griffin? It can carry nearly 3x as many troops and would allow the air force (pilots, ground crew, parts) further standardization.

Firstly, it's Griffon. Capital "G and an "o" before the "n".

We could also buy a giant LAV that carries a whole platoon in one vehicle. Good idea?

There are reasons for different types and sizes of helicopters, just as there are reasons for different types and sizes of ground vehicles.

Bigger is not always better, and neither is standardization beyond a logical point.

Also, do not consider aircrew and groundcrew to be trained to a common standard between two different roles. Yes, basic driving and fixing would be the same, but there are large differences in operating tactics, techniques, and procedures, and living environments. MH guys live on ships and have to be proficient in all aspects of that. Tac Hel guys live in the field, and have to be proficient in defensive and logistical aspects of that. Each also has to have intimate knowledge of their respective customers. There are similarities between the Combat Arms too, but we differentiate between the four of them for good and valid reason.

Thanks to EITS for reposting my previous post, and for the RTFT (Read The ****ing Thread) reminder.

 

[GAP]

Chinooks will fly too late for Afghanistan
Daniel Leblanc Globe and Mail Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009 04:28AM EDT
  Article Link

Ottawa bought 15 Chinook helicopters Monday after three years of delays that pushed back the delivery to 2013, two years after the end of the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan.

The purchase prompted a debate over the relevance of the slow-moving procurement and the Conservative government's handling of the $5-billion contract.

Shortly after coming to power in 2006, the Harper government said the transport helicopters would protect Canadian troops from the dangers of roadside bombs in places like Afghanistan.

“The helicopters … will reduce cases in which our men and women in uniform must drive overland, exposing themselves to the risk of ambush, land mines and improvised bombs,” then-defence minister Gordon O'Connor said at the time.

However, the government announced Monday the large helicopters will only enter operations in four years, well after the scheduled 2011 pull-out of Afghanistan.

The seven-year delay between the initial announcement and the first delivery has forced the government to change its narrative and emphasize the domestic usefulness of the helicopters, which are built by Boeing.

“The new CH-147F helicopters will be used to assist civil authorities in responding to emergencies such as floods, forest fires and earthquakes, helping to keep Canadians safe and secure,” the department of National Defence said in its information package.
More on link

 

[ezbeatz]

1) You do know we're getting Chinooks, right?  They can carry 5x as many troops as a Griffon, and

How many Chinooks are we getting? 15? Let's say you got 3 for training that leaves you with 12.

2) Standardization?  So get rid of a fleet of almost 100 helicopters and buy more of a new helicopter so we'll be more like the 28 that we haven't got yet?  ???

Perhaps I'm the only one scratching my head at this...

G2G

Those Griffons were procured between 1995 and 1997. That means the newest one is 12 years old. If you give a 20 year life span to them that means they'll have to be replaced in the 2015-2017 time frame. What aircraft are you going to replace them with?

If you're already operating 28 S-92 as an ASW platform, and you're looking for a tactical helicopter replacement for you Griffons (which only carry 8 combat troops), why not choose the utility variant of the S-92?

 

[ezbeatz]

Ok ok...that one cracked me up.

Ya, because operating two aircraft types when you can operate one makes SO much more sense.

 

[aesop081]

Ya, because operating two aircraft types when you can operate one makes SO much more sense.

Guess i was right when i pegged you for an expert.

What part of the air force do you work in again ?

 

[aesop081]

why not choose the utility variant of the S-92?

Because the S-92 isnt a light utility tactical hellicopter.............

 

[blacktriangle]

Guess i was right when i pegged you for an expert.

What part of the air force do you work in again ?

Taking a look at his profile...the part that jumps out of the plane...

 

[blacktriangle]

Oh wait, that's the army.

Edit...well he's not a SAR tech so you're right!

 

[aesop081]

Taking a look at his profile...the part that jumps out of the plane...

Maybe he jumps, maybe not. Either way it makes him "army".

 

[ezbeatz]

Average duration of DND procurement project is 7 years.
Average lifespan of a military aircraft before needed to be replaced or essentially rebuilt is 20 years.
Meaning that a replacement or upgrade for the current CH-146 Griffon will have to be looked at by about 2010 for a delivery date of 2016/17.

Gentlemen, since you seem to believe the utility version of the S-92 would be a poor choice of replacement for the Griffon (even though it has a faster speed, longer range, and larger payload capacity), what do you think the Griffon should be replaced with? Or do you believe it overhauled and upgraded instead?

p.s. Good call popnfresh! I do jump out of airplanes

 

[aesop081]

(even though it has a faster speed, longer range, and larger payload capacity),

Listen......hopefuly you will this time.

Do you see the US Army replacing all its Blackhawks with Chinooks just because it can carry more troops ? Did you ever think that theres a reason for that ?

Different machines do different jobs because different characteristics are required.


Let me know how jumping out of planes gives you the knowledge and experience to tell experienced aviators about their buisness.......