CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[SeaKingTacco]

I wasn’t going to get into control terms.

Even Loose Advisory, a helo still answers to one of the warfare commanders while airborne and can both be retasked (my record is 5 retaskings in a single mission. We carried out each of the retaskings, completely) and have their control term modified.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This is a lot more of a grey area. That's the USN model, in the UK they belong to the RAF.

But given the RCN currently has no capacity for ashore tasking and support, and the fact that the RCAF considers these ISR aircraft (as an aside, why are they called "spy airplanes" in a lot of open source stuff), I think it is a non-starter.

Maybe DMR (MH) could be a conduit to DAR (LRP), especially as it should be apparent the DMR (MH) would actually need to be RCAF pers?

I would drop the (MH). Helicopters might not always be the solution. It is constricting. It probably should be (Maritime Aviation).

 

[Baz]

I would drop the (MH). Helicopters might not always be the solution. It is constricting. It probably should be (Maritime Aviation).

That's an excellent point. Maybe Embarked Maritime Aviation, to remove the confusion with LRP? Plus EMA sounds good.

As well, in my opinion that's where ComdRCN hits the nail on the head. What does the correct mix of assets to "allow the ship to go in harms way in the face of current threats to complete it's tasks" actually look like? What parts, if any, are manned helicopters? UAVs? USVs?

His digression into unmanned logisitcs seems a little strang to me. Yes, the RN is experimenting with it, but a lot of it is focusing on the carrier. I think what the USN is actually doing by using Contracted Vertical Replenishment, inlcuding, as noted in the article, embarked on the auxiliaries, makes more sense.

However, if the need to "fix or forget" the Cyclone is now as pressing as it seems to be, there isn't time to figure this out on our own.

 

[Baz]

I wasn’t going to get into control terms.

Even Loose Advisory, a helo still answers to one of the warfare commanders while airborne and can both be retasked (my record is 5 retaskings in a single mission. We carried out each of the retaskings, completely) and have their control term modified.

Again, absolutely concur. But would those 5 retaskings had of been as easy if you (the TACCO) weren't there? And how much detail would the ship have to provide to retask the helicopter if the crew wasn't able to "act independantly," and needed to be given specific instructions? We (hopefully) trained you to deal with that, even though (in the Sea King) we gave you pretty crappy tools to help (they were supposed to be better in the Cyclone).

And to bring it full circle, this is exactly what a doctrinal cell for Embarked Maritime Aviation would supposed to be figuring out... but I think SKT is already on baord with that. Certainly him and I aren't going to come up with an answer here.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That's an excellent point. Maybe Embarked Maritime Aviation, to remove the confusion with LRP? Plus EMA sounds good.

As well, in my opinion that's where ComdRCN hits the nail on the head. What does the correct mix of assets to "allow the ship to go in harms way in the face of current threats to complete it's tasks" actually look like? What parts, if any, are manned helicopters? UAVs? USVs?

His digression into unmanned logisitcs seems a little strang to me. Yes, the RN is experimenting with it, but a lot of it is focusing on the carrier. I think what the USN is actually doing by using Contracted Vertical Replenishment, inlcuding, as noted in the article, embarked on the auxiliaries, makes more sense.

However, if the need to "fix or forget" the Cyclone is now as pressing as it seems to be, there isn't time to figure this out on our own.

I’d buy EMA.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Again, absolutely concur. But would those 5 retaskings had of been as easy if you (the TACCO) weren't there? And how much detail would the ship have to provide to retask the helicopter if the crew wasn't able to "act independantly," and needed to be given specific instructions? We (hopefully) trained you to deal with that, even though (in the Sea King) we gave you pretty crappy tools to help (they were supposed to be better in the Cyclone).

And to bring it full circle, this is exactly what a doctrinal cell for Embarked Maritime Aviation would supposed to be figuring out... but I think SKT is already on baord with that. Certainly him and I aren't going to come up with an answer here.

I went from Surface warfare to ASW to HDS, briefly to medevac (false alarm) , back to Surface warfare and finally HDS before recovering. We just pulled out the MHCC checklist, briefed each change and carried on. I think that had alot to do with how robustly we were trained. Coming out of 406 Sqn, we could step right onto a sea going ship and right into a wartime role. Except for the HDS, none of those roles could be done in a Sea King without a TACCO, but that was also a function of the installed equipment.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's an excellent point. Maybe Embarked Maritime Aviation, to remove the confusion with LRP? Plus EMA sounds good.

As well, in my opinion that's where ComdRCN hits the nail on the head. What does the correct mix of assets to "allow the ship to go in harms way in the face of current threats to complete it's tasks" actually look like? What parts, if any, are manned helicopters? UAVs? USVs?

His digression into unmanned logisitcs seems a little strang to me. Yes, the RN is experimenting with it, but a lot of it is focusing on the carrier. I think what the USN is actually doing by using Contracted Vertical Replenishment, inlcuding, as noted in the article, embarked on the auxiliaries, makes more sense.

However, if the need to "fix or forget" the Cyclone is now as pressing as it seems to be, there isn't time to figure this out on our own.

Not to mention that if you contracted helicopter support for the AOP's in the Arctic from TC, then it would cover that option as well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Again, absolutely concur. But would those 5 retaskings had of been as easy if you (the TACCO) weren't there? And how much detail would the ship have to provide to retask the helicopter if the crew wasn't able to "act independantly," and needed to be given specific instructions? We (hopefully) trained you to deal with that, even though (in the Sea King) we gave you pretty crappy tools to help (they were supposed to be better in the Cyclone).

And to bring it full circle, this is exactly what a doctrinal cell for Embarked Maritime Aviation would supposed to be figuring out... but I think SKT is already on baord with that. Certainly him and I aren't going to come up with an answer here.

Dude... Jungly Sea Thing saved my ass on more than one occasion in the worst possible conditions!

 

[Baz]

Dude... Jungly Sea Thing saved my ass on more than one occasion in the worst possible conditions!

12401 at the museum is stripped out in the back (we’re working on mocking up the original config as it was the first one delivered in ‘63 and is in the original paint scheme)… you could fit a lot of daftandbarmies in there if the option of not getting in wasn’t that attractive.

 

[daftandbarmy]

12401 at the museum is stripped out in the back (we’re working on mocking up the original config as it was the first one delivered in ‘63 and is in the original paint scheme)… you could fit a lot of daftandbarmies in there if the option of not getting in wasn’t that attractive.

16 x PAX, skis, 2 x toboggans, bergens and weapons. No issues

In NI we stuffed more than 20 in there at a time. You could easily deploy 8 bricks with two aircraft.. great for slamming in large cordons really fast.

And unlike some other services' choppers, they flew under any conditions for as long as was required to get the job done. .

 

[Baz]

16 x PAX, skis, 2 x toboggans, bergens and weapons. No issues

In NI we stuffed more than 20 in there at a time. You could easily deploy 8 bricks with two aircraft.. great for slamming in large cordons really fast.

And unlike some other services' choppers, they flew under any conditions for as long as was required to get the job done. .

I was at the Fleet Air Arm museum in July and saw “Humphrey,” the Wessex from Antrim that pulled the SAS off South Georgia after the other two crashed, with ASW gear still in. According to the guy that gave the talk, the aircraft FE, it was bit of a tight fit…

 

[OldSolduer]

I’d buy EMA.

What ever you call it as long as it does what its supposed to do and not kill the crew.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was at the Fleet Air Arm museum in July and saw “Humphrey,” the Wessex from Antrim that pulled the SAS off South Georgia after the other two crashed, with ASW gear still in. According to the guy that gave the talk, the aircraft FE, it was bit of a tight fit…

Few alot of hours in the back of 'Wimpy' in NI, Norway and elsewhere. A really solid aircraft that they threw around quite nicely.

Standing in the exhaust was nice and warm too after a long time in the field

 

[Lumber]

I went from Surface warfare to ASW to HDS, briefly to medevac (false alarm) , back to Surface warfare and finally HDS before recovering. We just pulled out the MHCC checklist, briefed each change and carried on. I think that had alot to do with how robustly we were trained. Coming out of 406 Sqn, we could step right onto a sea going ship and right into a wartime role. Except for the HDS, none of those roles could be done in a Sea King without a TACCO, but that was also a function of the installed equipment.

HDS?

 

[Lumber]

In a Task Group construct, helicopters are tasked by the Helo Element Coordinator (HEC), usually the Fleet Air Officer.

Or an unfortunate junior ORO who happens to be available when the HEC violates COVID restrictions and gets flown home...

 

[Lumber]

I don't know that remains true... it assumes that somebody has to coordinate the "dip gang" (not necessarily dipping, but I'll use the term; it even may be a single helo). Historically that meant you had a "big dipper" (refers to a radar equiped dipping helicopter, but implies the ability to control), or exercised control from a ship (historically an aircraft carrier).

But has one of the other drivers of doctrine caught up, that being technology? Are the multiple links (Link-16 for C2, and TCDL for sensor sharing) in the 60R, couple with it's "AI" functionality (provides decision support to the co-tac), mean that the "dip gang" can self coordinate.

More over, as Sea King Tacco has pointed out in these forums, what does the RAN CONOPs look like? Does a single pilot plus an observer (RAN and RN equivalent to navigator / ACSO) give enough of the control function? If so, is that the middle ground we want to adopt?

As SKT also pointed out, our current CONOPs is over 2 decades old and has it's roots farther back then that; we should not be wed to it. We just need to make sure the weapon system fits the doctrine and CONOPs. At this point it doesn't matter whether the CONOPs is made to fit the platform, or the platform made to fit the CONOPs (and if we do have to change platforms to the 60, it's too late for the latter; if it is the Merlin, it should already fit), just make sure they do fit.


As an aside, I was trying to capture some of this, based on research I've been doing (I have the Wing, 423, and 443 historical reports from 1967 to 2022 from DHH), in the Sea King historical thread. I'm trying hard to make sense of why; there has been some lessons learned that were subsequently forgotten... Much of this is in that thread but if anybody is interested it may be more appropriate to ask there.

There two things I was told we "should" be able to expect MH crews to do if needed: assume SAC, and assume Dip Boss duties and coordinate the Dip Gang.

However, my experience showed that that was not often the case. It was rare I worked with TACCOs who had the experience or confidence to do either of those roles. I don't blame the quality of the TACCOs themselves, and I can't speak to the quality of the formal training courses; however, the paltry number of hours they got doing any flying at all meant that they just didn't have the experience.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

HDS?

Helicopter Dispatch Service.

Aka, haulin trash…

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There two things I was told we "should" be able to expect MH crews to do if needed: assume SAC, and assume Dip Boss duties and coordinate the Dip Gang.

However, my experience showed that that was not often the case. It was rare I worked with TACCOs who had the experience or confidence to do either of those roles. I don't blame the quality of the TACCOs themselves, and I can't speak to the quality of the formal training courses; however, the paltry number of hours they got doing any flying at all meant that they just didn't have the experience.

It really depends on the timeframe.

I would say that up until 2016, most TACCOs could reliably do both scene of action commander and dip boss (although, in most cases you were stupid to keep SAC one second longer than necessary, when everyone around you had better radios, radars and Tacplots…)

 

[Baz]

There two things I was told we "should" be able to expect MH crews to do if needed: assume SAC, and assume Dip Boss duties and coordinate the Dip Gang.

However, my experience showed that that was not often the case. It was rare I worked with TACCOs who had the experience or confidence to do either of those roles. I don't blame the quality of the TACCOs themselves, and I can't speak to the quality of the formal training courses; however, the paltry number of hours they got doing any flying at all meant that they just didn't have the experience.

That’s… worrisome.

If the crews aren’t able to deliver the capability, then does it point to we don’t really need it anyway?

I’m not surprised though. I was embarked somewhere around 2012 doing trials, and another aircraft (not the trials aircraft) asked for close positive (radar control) to get home as soon as the ship had them on radar. The ship borne air controllers were both “Delta” grade (the lowest level). The trials aircraft ended up providing advisory radar vectors (they were a very senior crew, in more ways than one).

 

[Lumber]

That’s… worrisome.

If the crews aren’t able to deliver the capability, then does it point to we don’t really need it anyway?

I’m not surprised though. I was embarked somewhere around 2012 doing trials, and another aircraft (not the trials aircraft) asked for close positive (radar control) to get home as soon as the ship had them on radar. The ship borne air controllers were both “Delta” grade (the lowest level). The trials aircraft ended up providing advisory radar vectors (they were a very senior crew, in more ways than one).

Between the lack of serviceable aircraft and the lack of available ships, half the time it seems like they are just maintaining their basic quals instead of practicing core warfare functions.

After I last did Air WUPs, we were supposed to have continued to work with out det over the next 7 months leading up to mission WUPs and eventual deployment. Unfortunately, our ship had to go into an unscheduled docking period, which cancelled any of our flying program for th next 4 months, and pushed our mission WUPs back by a month. The end result was that there was now 6 months went by between our initial Air WUPs and our mission WUPS, during which time there was no platforms available for our Det to maintain their quals, and their quals expired. So, when we went to see for mission WUPs, instead of working with the air crew on combat integration and practicing warfare tactics with them, we had to do AirWUPs all over again (not a fun thing to have to insert into an already crammed program). We only got to actually "play" with the helicopter during the last week and a half of WUPs (oh, and there was no other ships, helos, MPAs, or subs available to support us during WUPs, so we we had to pretend like commercial shipping was enemy warships).