CH-148 Cyclone Progress
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 902
- Points
- 1,010
Yes, but there is confusion as to whether MH doctrine is owned by the Air Warfare Center or CFMWC. It’s also not really doctrine at CFMWC, it’s tactics, and it was disfunctional for a long time because it depended on Wing warfare structures, which were non-existent.
- Reaction score
- 902
- Points
- 1,010
By the way, all that airworthiness stuff is why Comd RCN can’t do whatever he wants with UAVs, notwithstanding his seeming indications that he thinks he can. Countries don’t like you flying around in their airspace if you haven’t proven you know what you’re doing, and logistic UAVs are kind of dependent on going ashore.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,457
- Points
- 1,260
UAVs are joining the Halifax Class. Not UAV Helos though, yet ?
Boeing Insitu RQ-21 Blackjack - Wikipedia
- Reaction score
- 3,295
- Points
- 1,190
I would disagree, depending on your definition of doctrine and tactics. Tactics is anything you can do in a given circumstance, whether good or bad. Defending your ship by using a mirror to reflect the sun into the eyes of a pilot in an aircraft attacking your unit is a "tactic", albeit not a good one. "Doctrine" is the set of tactics that has been decided shall be employed. CFCD106 has ASW tactics for maritime helicopters that are expected to be employed by the embarked MH. It won't go into the TTPs of exactly how the helicopter and its crew execute those tactics internally (i.e. which person modifies the torpedo settings and who presses the launch button), but it will establish which torpedo settings are supposed to be used and how/when those torpedoes are supposed to be fire, and the MH is expected to follow that doctrine.
- Reaction score
- 902
- Points
- 1,010
Ok, not disagreeing, although I would argue that is still tactics and employment, but given this has always been an issue, whatever.
By doctrine I’ referring to why you have an MH in the first place. What do you understand to be the threat, what resources do you have (meaning national resources, primarily money, people, and industrial base), and how are you going use those resources in furtherance of defence policy. It’s impossible to write a usable weapon system CONOPs without doctrine.
So, for instance, when my opinion still mattered, I would remind people that the doctrinal roles of MH in Canada are below water warfare, above water warfare, and supporting air operations. This did not encompass all of the possible MH roles.
It would serve us well that when asked “what does MH do” we respond with the doctrinal roles, not some vague “extends the ship…”
As well, a firm understanding of what MH is doctrinally for gives a better understanding of why it’s needed. It’s raison d’être is to enable the ship to go in harms way with less risk to accomplish it’s assigned tasks.
- Reaction score
- 20,697
- Points
- 1,010
For reference, the current MH Conops would now be over 2 decades old…
- Reaction score
- 902
- Points
- 1,010
Oh, and as an aside, this is what I’ve been bringing up wrt the 60R. Canadian MH ASW doctrine is that the aircraft operates independently from the ship. This has been the case since we lost Bonnie, although the Sea King never was optimized to do it. By contrast the RN Mk-6 was, it it informed the Merlin.
Canada spent a great deal of resources making Cyclone fit that doctrine.
The 60R does not.
So, if we are forced to the 60, please update the doctrine accordingly. And then produce or acquire new CONOPs to match. I’d recommend just copying the USN’s.
Then, given that ACSOs are only needed to accomplish that doctrine, consider adopting their crewing model. Or alternatively, adopt the RAN’s doctrine, CONOPs, and crewing model.
The resources don’t currently exist to do this in Canada, but it is essential. As an example, completed OT&E follows one of those doctrines, and time and resources for OT&E also don’t exist.
Canada spent a great deal of resources making Cyclone fit that doctrine.
The 60R does not.
So, if we are forced to the 60, please update the doctrine accordingly. And then produce or acquire new CONOPs to match. I’d recommend just copying the USN’s.
Then, given that ACSOs are only needed to accomplish that doctrine, consider adopting their crewing model. Or alternatively, adopt the RAN’s doctrine, CONOPs, and crewing model.
The resources don’t currently exist to do this in Canada, but it is essential. As an example, completed OT&E follows one of those doctrines, and time and resources for OT&E also don’t exist.
- Reaction score
- 902
- Points
- 1,010
In reality, closer to 4 decades… it flows from ideas about “next gen ASW” in the mid 80s that was part of HELTAS development.
- Reaction score
- 20,697
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 10,633
- Points
- 1,160
Exactly, and fly two different models of the EH101: The ASW version, HM1 and HM2, while the RM's fly a commando version, HC3.
Don't you trust your shipmates to safely transfer you by way of a light jackstay?
Hmmm. Let me ponder the state of my relations with my mates on the vessel I am leaving.
And now ..... those on the receiving vessel.
- Reaction score
- 902
- Points
- 1,010
It was, I participated in one of the 12 Wing reviews. It was a tweak to the intent, but a major rewrite to format (aka we wrote it down). I forgot, or never knew, how the intent was present in the EH-101 contract.
