Yeah I was referring to both SAR (CH113) and ASW (SeaKings) roles. The EH101 was originally ordered by Mulroney’s government for replacing both roles . Jean Chretian cancelled the contract (35 airframes) that covered both roles. The government had to pay a huge cancellation fee as a result. And then as you said, there was a crash. The government had to back pedal and ordered just enough for SAR. The navy (Okay Airforce) was short changed and eventually stuck with the Sea Kings for many more years. After all, they just got new ASW ships, what more could they need?
CH-148 Cyclone Progress
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 25,948
- Points
- 1,260
I’m talking about a brand new - as in FY26 or so program.
The CH-148 wasn’t supposed to be an interim, unfortunately Canada ended up with an orphan (hint Canada isn’t big enough to support an orphan fleet, and as such should never be a first adopter).
The hope was that many other nations would leap at the CH-148 as it is the ‘big brother’ of the Blackhawk platform, and for nations that wanted a SeaKing replacement to be bigger the than the SeaHawk/OceanHawks it offered a American option in terms of size. Especially when the part of the original EH-101provider was in questionable financial condition (which the Westland Augusta merger solved).
As soon as Canada was left with an orphan, Sikorsky saw the writing on the wall and realized that the CH-148 was going to be a financial burden, and the structure of the contract seems to have allowed them to minimize further financial risk and place it all on the CAF.
To me the 148 is a case of throwing good money after bad. The quicker it can be divested the better.
Agree with you on the CH148. But I think we’re going to end up nursing it along for many years until we loose another aircraft and crew. The politicians don’t understand the saying, “throwing good money after bad”. My questions regarding the SeaHawk are: 1) Given Trump’s present poor treatment of Canada, do we want to buy more ITAR equipment as you are aware there has been a lot of negative talk about the F35. contract. 2) The Seahawk lost to the EH101 in the original competition. Would we see similar results in a new competition?
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 25,948
- Points
- 1,260
I think you are going to see a lot of turn around with POTUS. The Republican Party is starting to get some traction against some of his poorer policies and personnel picks. He seems to have a much better relationship with your new PM than the previous one, which I think made a lot of issues far bigger than they should have been. Like to or not your tied to us, so I don’t see ITAR issues to be a real problem.
All that said, I’m not a MH guy, so I don’t know if technology changes have made the 60 more compatible with the CAF’s MH needs.
- Reaction score
- 1,866
- Points
- 1,140
In an environment in which sensors and systems win battles, the Cyclone may be mechanically sound (but from my limited experience with the Cyclone fleet, I don’t believe this is true), but without effective sensors and systems to process data into information, and share that information, it is almost useless.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,726
- Points
- 1,210
If the price tag is 300 million, we might as well look at a new aircraft. Example the airbus H175M is about 17 million each, so would could replace the entire fleet of lemons with a aircraft used by other nations and could be built in Ft. Erie Ontario. Total cost for 28 air frames 476 million, seems like a bargain to cut our losses.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,111
- Points
- 1,160
Or better yet, AW101, the NATO standard for ASW maritime helicopter.
Maybe the USMC would be interested in our CH-148, since they operate a variant of it.
Prairie canuck
Member
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 780
What's the cost after you fill it with all the ASW toys and gizmos? 20 million, 30 million 40 million...??
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,111
- Points
- 1,160
And that's assuming building it in Fort Erie doesn't increase the price, too.
Once you factor in the mission equipment for ASW, it would probably cost about the same as the AW101.
- Reaction score
- 875
- Points
- 1,010
I helped write the GDMS-C proposal to Sikorsky for Link-16. The cost being charged to the government has nothing to do with technical complexity.
The Cyclone was always intended for Link-16 or -22; the message sets exchanged with the Link-11 terminal sets are largely J-Series (Link-16) by spec. The problem became that 22 bogged down in the face of 16 cost coming down, and 16 has no inherent beyond line of sight capability, which some in the MH world believe is essential.
The proposed 16 upgrade for Cyclone includes a beyond line of sight piece, but I’m unsure of what choice is currently recommended.
I’m convinced that backing away from the Cyclone will result in “zero ‘elicopters.” However, if we were I’d go with Merlins and tie ourselves to the RN.
On a personal note, I met the head of Lockheed Martin Canada last week and she said “she’d heard a lot about me.” Not sure if I should be worried…
The Cyclone was always intended for Link-16 or -22; the message sets exchanged with the Link-11 terminal sets are largely J-Series (Link-16) by spec. The problem became that 22 bogged down in the face of 16 cost coming down, and 16 has no inherent beyond line of sight capability, which some in the MH world believe is essential.
The proposed 16 upgrade for Cyclone includes a beyond line of sight piece, but I’m unsure of what choice is currently recommended.
I’m convinced that backing away from the Cyclone will result in “zero ‘elicopters.” However, if we were I’d go with Merlins and tie ourselves to the RN.
On a personal note, I met the head of Lockheed Martin Canada last week and she said “she’d heard a lot about me.” Not sure if I should be worried…
- Reaction score
- 25,718
- Points
- 1,360
At Least it’s not stuck back with LORAN-C, Omega and Link 4.
The ‘youngsters’ today probably don’t mind flying something younger than them…
The CH-149 was notably less capable than the CSH. For example, CSH had EO/IR, while the CH-149 didn’t, etc.
Some say there’s a Raymond Reddington-like picture of you up in the walls of the Kanata LMC offices…
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,191
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 25,718
- Points
- 1,360
And the NH-90 line is long closed, so 60Rs is the most likely replacement…
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,191
- Points
- 1,010
Nothing wrong with the Romeos. My understanding, however, (and I am out of my depth here) was that they have to operate with mama's help to prosecute, unlike our Canadian airframes - past and present - who could prosecute all on their own. So that would probably require us to re-think how we operate.
- Reaction score
- 875
- Points
- 1,010
That was largely true with the 60B but not as much with the R. As a matter of fact, part of the reason the R has Link-16 in addition to TCDL. It also has “AI” to help the left seat make tactical decisions.
TCDL does still allow a properly fitted ship to help the aircraft.
As has discussed previously on these forums, the R would force us to decide whether we want to use the RAN model of 1 pilot, 1 nav, and 1 AESOP, or the USN model with 2 pilots, no nav, and 1 AESOP. The Canadian model (and RN) isn’t possible.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,191
- Points
- 1,010
Seen. Thanks.
- Reaction score
- 3,193
- Points
- 1,190
I don't know exactly what their CMS is called, but I've seen the CMS for the Cyclone and the CMS for the Aurora, and they are the same (it's from GD, I think it's called AMS or DMS) . So, if the Aurora's have link-16, how much integration work could it possibly require for the Cyclone?
I get it; a beyond LOS capability would allow the Cyclone to scout at low altitude. But that comes with its own risks and wasn't something that ASW helicopters were really intended for. With the loss of link 11, the TG is effectively blind to all of the great sensors that the Cyclones DO have (and they are great sensors). They need that capability back NOW. Adding in beyond LOS TDL, while ideal, unnecessarily complicates the whole upgrade process. What choice is there other than JREAPC for this? And if that's the case, then you need to add a SATCOM data system. Like someone said, buy the God damn Link 16 box and superglue it to the side of the tactical console and call it a day.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 875
- Points
- 1,010
The DMS for the Aurora and MDMS for Cyclone are not the same. The share the same history, but the way Canada writes requirement ensured they wouldn’t be.
Even though if they had met the intent of the requirements, not how they were technically written, they would be the same…
The hard part of any link is not the box (especially 16, as it includes the radio) it’s the software. Same with AIS. The integration is what takes effort. The implementation and use of Link on the Cyclone (and historically, the Aurora) has also been hampered by community misunderstandings of what it is for (to support commander decision making) and how it achieves that (a common operating picture, not just sharing data).
But as you said, that software exists in the Aurora. Luckily, it can be “moved” to Cyclone, given resources (time, people, and money).
There are options for range extension over HF. There are also options other than JREAP-C for range extension over SATCOM. There are multiple SATCOM options, and there are requirements and opportunities for SATCOM with Cyclone other than range extension with the ship.
I do agree with you somewhat, though. The range extension issue assumed single helo over the horizon. As we almost always operate as part of a force and other units could provide Link-16 relay, that requirement was probably over stated.
Even though if they had met the intent of the requirements, not how they were technically written, they would be the same…
The hard part of any link is not the box (especially 16, as it includes the radio) it’s the software. Same with AIS. The integration is what takes effort. The implementation and use of Link on the Cyclone (and historically, the Aurora) has also been hampered by community misunderstandings of what it is for (to support commander decision making) and how it achieves that (a common operating picture, not just sharing data).
But as you said, that software exists in the Aurora. Luckily, it can be “moved” to Cyclone, given resources (time, people, and money).
There are options for range extension over HF. There are also options other than JREAP-C for range extension over SATCOM. There are multiple SATCOM options, and there are requirements and opportunities for SATCOM with Cyclone other than range extension with the ship.
I do agree with you somewhat, though. The range extension issue assumed single helo over the horizon. As we almost always operate as part of a force and other units could provide Link-16 relay, that requirement was probably over stated.
I’m trying to follow; can someone check my dumb infantry level of understanding in this?
- We replaced Sea King with Cyclone
- Were the only buyers of militarized Sikorsky 92 for maritime helo
- Cyclone has lots of good kit onboard and could talk to ships and other assets via data link, which I gather is an indispensable capability in modern warfare
- We let the old data link (11?) sunset and there’s no ready ability to preserve compatibility
- The only meaningful replacement is modern Link 16 but Cyclone’s not fitted for that
- Updating Cyclone to Link 16 would be costly to the point where it literally might be better to get a new helicopter
- All of this happened before Cyclone has even hit full operational capability; essentially we bought it slow slow that key systems entered obsolescence
- In the ‘right now’ meantime, the ability of our ship/helo team to prosecute and kill subs is constrained below what it was when Link 11 was still supported
- Reaction score
- 875
- Points
- 1,010
Brihard,
Yes with two caveats.
If you want to become “an extension of the ships sensors” there are other options, such as TCDL. If you want to be an independent force unit, Link-16 is the only real choice. Hence why the Romeo added Link-16 to TCDL.
It’s not just ASW, it’s all warfare areas. I was shocked when I heard people throwing around CSAR and not having Link-16.
Some of us tried to raise the Link-11 flag 15 years ago, when they were having a hard time sourcing an appropriate 11 box.
To be fair, Mode 5 is even more concerning…
Yes with two caveats.
If you want to become “an extension of the ships sensors” there are other options, such as TCDL. If you want to be an independent force unit, Link-16 is the only real choice. Hence why the Romeo added Link-16 to TCDL.
It’s not just ASW, it’s all warfare areas. I was shocked when I heard people throwing around CSAR and not having Link-16.
Some of us tried to raise the Link-11 flag 15 years ago, when they were having a hard time sourcing an appropriate 11 box.
To be fair, Mode 5 is even more concerning…
