CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Halifax Tar]

Ha! Then we were probably aboard at the same time, albeit for a few days. I was between my 3rd and 4th years of RMC and they sent me and 7 other snotties to Halifax for the summer; 4 of us on TOR and 4 on ATH. We ended up getting pawned around the fleet to whichever ships were sailing, but our "home base" was TOR between those sails. I think we arrived early June? Sailed on STJ, IRO, and all TOR sails that summer.

I think one of my best friends did that deployment to TG 1-10 with you; stoker from TOR. Blanchard? He was there for the Africa trip and the Volcano. I don't remember the shit boat story, but he had glowing things to say about your CO.

I seem to remember a bunch of you folks on board around that time. Small world eh ?

I do remember Blanchard.

The shit boat, was a ghost vessel we found adrift in the Mediterranean. It wasn't registered and was said to have been scrapped. It had broken down and was full, and I mean full to the gunnels, with Iraqis. The decks were inches thick with fecal matter and other waste and our NBP stayed onboard that boat for a few days (3 ?) waiting for the USN to show up and take over. To this day I don't know what happened that ship and those people.

Cdr Virgin is the best man I have ever worked for, hands down. If he called me now and said lets go, I wouldn't hesitate.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That sounds about right to me. I would have been nearing the end of time on TOR.



I feel like that sailor was from TOR too no ? I don't remember much of the details around that one.

I'm not too clear, would have guessed PRE, but fuzzy on the details. Was there on ATH, along with PRE and a CPF (guess TOR) in a mini TG. From what I vaguely remember, he was walking back on his own and 4 or 5 of them jumped him for no really good reason on I think one of the first nights alongside. I don't think they ever caught the person, but also vaguely remember that the skipper on the UK ship was pretty pissed and imposed some group punishment with very restricted shore leave and I think very early curfews.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There's always this option to replace the Cyclone

You Can Buy The State Department’s Totally Upgraded S-61T Helicopters That It Barely Used​

The U.S. State Department spent untold millions on refurbishing the second-hand helicopters and now they could be yours on the cheap.

If you’re in the market for a baker’s dozen of refurbished Sikorsky S-61T helicopters, the U.S. State Department will happily sell you the ones it has sitting in a hangar in southern Florida. The State Department had originally planned to buy more than 100 of these choppers to move diplomats and other personnel in high-risk areas, such as Afghanistan. Delays and other issues left it with a fleet of less than 20, most of which went straight into storage.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is already auctioning off the first five S-61Ts – with the U.S. civil registration numbers N107WK, N122WU, N375WS, N575AW, and N898WC – each of which has a starting bid price of $500,000. This does not meet an unspecified reserve price for a final sale, though. The State Department plans to sell its remaining fleet of these helicopters, 13 in total, via GSA within six months, according to the Department’s Press Relations Office.

“There is no longer a State Department mission requirement for them,” the State Department told The War Zone in a statement via Email. “These specific aircraft will not be replaced.”

The S-61Ts were refurbished ex-U.S. Navy and NASA SH-3 Sea Kings, which were themselves military variants of the S-61 series. The Sea King has been all but retired from U.S. military service for years now. The U.S. Marine Corps is still using heavily modified VH-3D Sea Kings, more commonly known as Marine Ones, to shuttle around the President of the United States, their family, and their closest advisors, but is planning on replacing them with new VH-92As over the next four years.

You Can Buy The State Department's Totally Upgraded S-61T Helicopters That It Barely Used

The U.S. State Department spent untold millions on refurbishing the second-hand helicopters and now they could be yours on the cheap.

www.twz.com

Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King Regeneration​

In February 2010 the US Department of State announced its intention to purchase up to 110 Sikorsky S-61Ts, to support its operations in Afghanistan and other countries around the world. An agreement was signed with Sikorsky.

Carson Helicopters, a major civilian operator of the S-61, is a joint developer with Sikorsky of the S-61T Triton which is a fully modernized version of the elderly S-61 which was designed and entered service in the early 1960s. Despite its age the S-61 has an excellent reputation as a reliable workhorse with a strong and durable construction, and it is these qualities which make their re-manufacture a viable alternative. Each conversion takes six months to complete and provides a full Sagem “glass cockpit”, a modular wiring harness, engine and transmission improvements, and composite main rotor blades in order to add extra speed and another 1,200 pounds of lift capacity.

Over twenty SH-3 Sea Kings, the military version of the S-61, comprising of SH-3D, SH-3G and SH-3H have been sourced from AMARG and provided with civilian registrations prior to being overhauled. Several more have been allocated for the project but remain in AMARG, awaiting their turn.

The first converted airframe was delivered to the U.S. State Department on December 2, 2010.

The AMARC Experience - Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King Regeneration

AMARC - Aircraft Maintenance And Regeneration Center. 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group. Comprehensive source of information on the important j

www.amarcexperience.com

 

[Good2Golf]

I think the RCN (and the Canadian Army) are not large enough to take on the management of airworthiness. The Minister of Defence is the responsible Minister for airworthiness of military aircraft, and has directed the CDS to designate the C Air Force as the Airworthiness Authority. The operation airworthiness authority is the Comd 1 Canadian Air Division, the technical airworthiness authority is DGAEPM, and the investigative authority Director of Flight safety. I'd leave all that alone, it works (mostly).

Agree 100% with this.

I'd focus on DAR (Directorate of Air Requirments), who is the sponsor for all major air projects and sets requirements (it's equivalents are DMR and DLR). I'd move DAR Maritime (embarked) aviation to DMR, and DAR (Tac Hel) to DLR, with all the associated funding. That way the environmental commanders get to decide what they need, not the RCAF.

Does the Navy institutionally have enough EQ to actually care about HS and VP? (I use those terms deliberately).

Laterally, the Institutional Army hasn’t stopped caring about itself and only itself since the end of the First Cold War. I would perhaps consider it reformed enough to be entrusted with supporting tactical aviation once it sorts out light forces, mortars and the fundamental Reg-Reserve duality of the Army…

I'd also formally move maritime air doctrine to CFMWC, and tac hel doctrine to the land equivalent.

TH has a staff officer in Army doctrine lines already and invests more horsepower on tactical and operational doctrine development and currency than like the other RCAF communities combined (semi-bombastic, yes, but not effectively untrue).

Problem is, even though the RCAF doesn't give a rats ass about embarked aviation and doctrine, they would fight tough and nail to not give up control and funding...

12 Wing, as representing MH/HS, would need to get itself back in the game, like it was when it peaked with Angus Watt as CAS. More power and influence is derived from playing the game internally within the RCAF than ‘contracting’ an air community’s proponency to another element. Stay strong as a community that interacts regularly with other Air Force elements (including NORAD) and you can influence the force…

 

[Kirkhill]

Agree 100% with this.



Does the Navy institutionally have enough EQ to actually care about HS and VP? (I use those terms deliberately).

Laterally, the Institutional Army hasn’t stopped caring about itself and only itself since the end of the First Cold War. I would perhaps consider it reformed enough to be entrusted with supporting tactical aviation once it sorts out light forces, mortars and the fundamental Reg-Reserve duality of the Army…


TH has a staff officer in Army doctrine lines already and invests more horsepower on tactical and operational doctrine development and currency than like the other RCAF communities combined (semi-bombastic, yes, but not effectively untrue).


12 Wing, as representing MH/HS, would need to get itself back in the game, like it was when it peaked with Angus Watt as CAS. More power and influence is derived from playing the game internally within the RCAF than ‘contracting’ an air community’s proponency to another element. Stay strong as a community that interacts regularly with other Air Force elements (including NORAD) and you can influence the force…

So, if the Army's Light Forces became a sine qua non for the US Northern Command, via NORAD, along with maritime approaches surveillance, then the RCAF would be more inclined to adjust its thinking?

How about airfield security and IAMD?

 

[KevinB]

Back when I did my napkin military, I cut TH, and MH, as well as larger UAS into it's own element.
Mainly because while it would be nice if the RCN and CA could be trusted to be adult with the toys the RCAF has for them, they clearly have shown they cannot, and will divert or abandon funding of those assets to fill "Core" assets, much like the Fighter pilot mafia likes to do for the Light Blue Air Force.

I tend to believe the TH and MH communities have a lot more in common with each other than the other aspects of the RCAF, and while not large enough on their own to fund or manage certain required air functions, together and with the growing UAS requirements, that would be a useful unique part of the CAF.

Especially if SAR can be transferred to the CCG, then you are only looking at aviation aspects in CANSOF being "separate" and given the fleet size there, and the rotation of personnel - I don't think there would be a great deal of friction (maybe I am wrong @Good2Golf ?)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

RCAF Marine Search and Rescue was transferred to the then new CCG , boats, bases and personal all in one go. Not sure how you train SAR techs, and then what do you do with the fixed wing SAR?

 

[Navy_Pete]

@KevinB FWIW the RCN also helps everyone else, including SOF, manage their small boats. Seems kind of obvious, but sometimes you need to do pesky things like maintenance and repairs to keep them serviceable, regardless of how they get purchased.

 

[KevinB]

RCAF Marine Search and Rescue was transferred to the then new CCG , boats, bases and personal all in one go. Not sure how you train SAR techs, and then what do you do with the fixed wing SAR?

Same thing. The USCG manages fixed wing as well as rotary wing, and a zillion other things as well as a crazy amount of training pipelines.

 

[Kirkhill]

417, 439 and 444 Combat Support Squadrons

413, 424, 435 and 442 Transport and Rescue Squadrons

103 SAR Squadron

440 Transport Squadron

435 is a tanker squadron.

Beyond that all the rest of them paint their aircraft yellow.

Them plus the Rangers to the Coast Guard?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Same thing. The USCG manages fixed wing as well as rotary wing, and a zillion other things as well as a crazy amount of training pipelines.

You then divide up the herc pilots and create two separate training schemes for them , the kingfishers and the Cormorants. Right now the training scheme is somewhat intermingled. Plus CCG has never owned aircraft and leases them and crews from TC.

 

[YZT580]

You then divide up the herc pilots and create two separate training schemes for them , the kingfishers and the Cormorants. Right now the training scheme is somewhat intermingled. Plus CCG has never owned aircraft and leases them and crews from TC.

if what we have now works, don't f***it up. If SAR is moved to the CCG and the CCG is moved to DND what have you gained? All that will be added is confusion. Most of the airspace north of the TransCanada highway is uncontrolled. There is little surveillance and communication is sketchy. Same applies off both the east and west coasts. The coast guard is good with boats so keep that in fact open up more lifeboat stations. The CAF is good with airplanes so leave that with them and they have the communication channels to work with.

 

[Baz]

Agree 100% with this.



Does the Navy institutionally have enough EQ to actually care about HS and VP? (I use those terms deliberately).

Laterally, the Institutional Army hasn’t stopped caring about itself and only itself since the end of the First Cold War. I would perhaps consider it reformed enough to be entrusted with supporting tactical aviation once it sorts out light forces, mortars and the fundamental Reg-Reserve duality of the Army…


TH has a staff officer in Army doctrine lines already and invests more horsepower on tactical and operational doctrine development and currency than like the other RCAF communities combined (semi-bombastic, yes, but not effectively untrue).


12 Wing, as representing MH/HS, would need to get itself back in the game, like it was when it peaked with Angus Watt as CAS. More power and influence is derived from playing the game internally within the RCAF than ‘contracting’ an air community’s proponency to another element. Stay strong as a community that interacts regularly with other Air Force elements (including NORAD) and you can influence the force…

Seen…

I think 12 Wings last chance at the game was Lise, and she was useful elsewhere. Sid has been in all the right places to positively influence how the MH platform evolves, but I have no idea what the plan is. After that, who knows?

MH has been kept with robust positions in CFMWC, but that was cut off at the knees when CFMWC no longer had to report through the Warfare Structure to CMS and CAS. As well, even further back, MAG E&R, being over in MARCOM, provided another vital link.

The structures to provide unified doctrinal and requirements advice to the two Commanders, in the same room at the same time, have been decimated. And given the current personnel situation at the Wing there is no easy fix.

Side note: because of my historical work, I’ve started to be brought into the loop on some other’s research. I was sent one of the Navy Board’s minutes from 1961 as they figured out if they needed to dump the H-2 and get the CHSS-2 (later known as the H-3 Sea King). It sometimes baffles me why staff work was more clear and concise before we had computers. Maybe it’s because the SO’s shitty first drafts get cleaned up by the typists before going on, instead of being blasted out as crappy E-Mails that are easy to ignore?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Seen…

I think 12 Wings last chance at the game was Lise, and she was useful elsewhere. Sid has been in all the right places to positively influence how the MH platform evolves, but I have no idea what the plan is. After that, who knows?

MH has been kept with robust positions in CFMWC, but that was cut off at the knees when CFMWC no longer had to report through the Warfare Structure to CMS and CAS. As well, even further back, MAG E&R, being over in MARCOM, provided another vital link.

The structures to provide unified doctrinal and requirements advice to the two Commanders, in the same room at the same time, have been decimated. And given the current personnel situation at the Wing there is no easy fix.

Side note: because of my historical work, I’ve started to be brought into the loop on some other’s research. I was sent one of the Navy Board’s minutes from 1961 as they figured out if they needed to dump the H-2 and get the CHSS-2 (later known as the H-3 Sea King). It sometimes baffles me why staff work was more clear and concise before we had computers. Maybe it’s because the SO’s shitty first drafts get cleaned up by the typists before going on, instead of being blasted out as crappy E-Mails that are easy to ignore?

People could write, back then.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There's always this option to replace the Cyclone

You Can Buy The State Department’s Totally Upgraded S-61T Helicopters That It Barely Used​

The U.S. State Department spent untold millions on refurbishing the second-hand helicopters and now they could be yours on the cheap.

If you’re in the market for a baker’s dozen of refurbished Sikorsky S-61T helicopters, the U.S. State Department will happily sell you the ones it has sitting in a hangar in southern Florida. The State Department had originally planned to buy more than 100 of these choppers to move diplomats and other personnel in high-risk areas, such as Afghanistan. Delays and other issues left it with a fleet of less than 20, most of which went straight into storage.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is already auctioning off the first five S-61Ts – with the U.S. civil registration numbers N107WK, N122WU, N375WS, N575AW, and N898WC – each of which has a starting bid price of $500,000. This does not meet an unspecified reserve price for a final sale, though. The State Department plans to sell its remaining fleet of these helicopters, 13 in total, via GSA within six months, according to the Department’s Press Relations Office.

“There is no longer a State Department mission requirement for them,” the State Department told The War Zone in a statement via Email. “These specific aircraft will not be replaced.”

The S-61Ts were refurbished ex-U.S. Navy and NASA SH-3 Sea Kings, which were themselves military variants of the S-61 series. The Sea King has been all but retired from U.S. military service for years now. The U.S. Marine Corps is still using heavily modified VH-3D Sea Kings, more commonly known as Marine Ones, to shuttle around the President of the United States, their family, and their closest advisors, but is planning on replacing them with new VH-92As over the next four years.

You Can Buy The State Department's Totally Upgraded S-61T Helicopters That It Barely Used

The U.S. State Department spent untold millions on refurbishing the second-hand helicopters and now they could be yours on the cheap.

www.twz.com

Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King Regeneration​

In February 2010 the US Department of State announced its intention to purchase up to 110 Sikorsky S-61Ts, to support its operations in Afghanistan and other countries around the world. An agreement was signed with Sikorsky.

Carson Helicopters, a major civilian operator of the S-61, is a joint developer with Sikorsky of the S-61T Triton which is a fully modernized version of the elderly S-61 which was designed and entered service in the early 1960s. Despite its age the S-61 has an excellent reputation as a reliable workhorse with a strong and durable construction, and it is these qualities which make their re-manufacture a viable alternative. Each conversion takes six months to complete and provides a full Sagem “glass cockpit”, a modular wiring harness, engine and transmission improvements, and composite main rotor blades in order to add extra speed and another 1,200 pounds of lift capacity.

Over twenty SH-3 Sea Kings, the military version of the S-61, comprising of SH-3D, SH-3G and SH-3H have been sourced from AMARG and provided with civilian registrations prior to being overhauled. Several more have been allocated for the project but remain in AMARG, awaiting their turn.

The first converted airframe was delivered to the U.S. State Department on December 2, 2010.

The AMARC Experience - Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King Regeneration

AMARC - Aircraft Maintenance And Regeneration Center. 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group. Comprehensive source of information on the important j

www.amarcexperience.com

I got to admit that would be a deep FU to Sikorsky to replace their new model with an old one.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I got to admit that would be a deep FU to Sikorsky to replace their new model with an old one.

I spoke to some guys who flew State Dept S-61s in Afghanistan. They that they were really nicely overhauled and that they flew really well.

 

[KevinB]

I got to admit that would be a deep FU to Sikorsky to replace their new model with an old one.

I suspect they would be laughing that anyone would get a bigger slower helicopter...
Plus the data link issue as no one is running a King for ASW anymore, and you'd be a worse off case for orphaning than the Cyclone is now.

At the end of the day SIK will ask what does the contract say, when it comes to the CH-148. Sikorsky isn't the same entity that entered into the contract, as it was sold by the parent UTC and acquired by LocMart after the first 8 airframe had been delivered.

Now I am not a Cyclone lover, and LocMart/Sik clearly doesn't want to be supporting the current orphan Cyclone fleet. However given all the work that went into the VH-92A, would it be worth looking at that as the base for an improved 148? How much length does the folding tail on the Cyclone shave? Wiki suggests less than 8 ft, would it be viable to change the airframe out to a non folding tail, given the River Class could theoretically have the hangar altered to fit the non folding frame?

By my understanding the RCAF has 26 Cyclones (27 delivered less the one lost from the Freddie), and the program was for 28.
I've heard conflicting information as to the math on the 28 number.
I will assume (I know I know) that three of the 28 (basically 10%) where destined for OTE/Training/School work.
Which leaves 25 for the fleet now did that consider all 12 Halifax, and the 3 Tribals? Or?

Mainly trying to get an idea of with 15 Rivers, 2 JSS and the 12 Corvette/Frigate Combatant what does that mean for a MH fleet requirement.

Would it make sense to try a Cyclone PIP and acquire a few more airframes (I am guessing no, as I doubt anything under 50 would be palatable to LocMart), to get 60 ish 60R's, or to look to the original EH-101 concept and get the AW-101.

 

[Kirkhill]

Seen…

I think 12 Wings last chance at the game was Lise, and she was useful elsewhere. Sid has been in all the right places to positively influence how the MH platform evolves, but I have no idea what the plan is. After that, who knows?

MH has been kept with robust positions in CFMWC, but that was cut off at the knees when CFMWC no longer had to report through the Warfare Structure to CMS and CAS. As well, even further back, MAG E&R, being over in MARCOM, provided another vital link.

The structures to provide unified doctrinal and requirements advice to the two Commanders, in the same room at the same time, have been decimated. And given the current personnel situation at the Wing there is no easy fix.

Side note: because of my historical work, I’ve started to be brought into the loop on some other’s research. I was sent one of the Navy Board’s minutes from 1961 as they figured out if they needed to dump the H-2 and get the CHSS-2 (later known as the H-3 Sea King). It sometimes baffles me why staff work was more clear and concise before we had computers. Maybe it’s because the SO’s shitty first drafts get cleaned up by the typists before going on, instead of being blasted out as crappy E-Mails that are easy to ignore?

Stenographers, typists, filing clerks, office managers....

multiple layers of editing competence and institutional knowledge lost.

And I should add in the drafting, graphics and printing teams.

Now we are all idiots pecking at keyboards and scribbling with mice piling everything into the cloud.

 

[Baz]

By my understanding the RCAF has 26 Cyclones (27 delivered less the one lost from the Freddie), and the program was for 28.
I've heard conflicting information as to the math on the 28 number.
I will assume (I know I know) that three of the 28 (basically 10%) where destined for OTE/Training/School work.
Which leaves 25 for the fleet now did that consider all 12 Halifax, and the 3 Tribals? Or?

I was part of the math review somewhere around 2002ish.

It wasn't based on ships per se. It was based on keeping the White Paper mandated fleet available.

The mandate was (and still is, on paper) to keep two CTG (Canadian Task Groups) available at all times, plus one ship (NATO) continuously deployed. In that, you would be surge ships out of the task group to cover other deployments.

The task group needs to be able to keep 2 aircraft airborne at all times. That means you need 6 aircraft in the group. You fly 2 for 12, 2 for 12, with 2 in maintenance, any given day. If your lucky, you have a tanker with deeper maintenance capabilities (hasn't been the case for a long time) and you swap aircraft with them to keep it going. So, let's call it 1 tanker det (2 aircraft with 1 or 2 crews), 1 280 det (2 aircraft with 3 crews), 2 330 dets (1 aircraft with 2 crews each).

To keep the single det going, due to how Canada would like to deploy, it should be 4 dets (1 in 4, so preparing, deployed, post deploy, rest), but for various reasons (not the least was depth from the task groups) call it 3. So that's 3 330 dets with 1 aircraft and 2 crews in each.

So:

• CTG East, 6 aircraft, 8 crews, in 4 dets
• CTG West, 6 aircraft, 8 crews, in 4 dets
• Single deployer, 3 aircraft, 6 crews, in 3 dets

Total is 15 aircraft, 22 crews, in 11 dets. Add in some sustainment crews (hopefully over and above squadron standards, readiness, and ops crews, but normally filling those positions) and call it 30 crews worth of deployers. So, the bottom line statement that everybody at 12 Wing should have been able to regurgitate when required of "15 det equivalents in 11 dets." When ashore they can use there own helos for currency, etc.

For training, you need to pump out 10 pilot's and 5 ACSOs and AESOPs per year at steady state just to produce enough to backfill all the at sea positions every three years. So call it 16 pilots and 16 backenders. 4 courses a year; with say (I don't have the training sylabbus right in front of me) 20 flights for pilots and maybe 12 for backenders (assuming a healthy sim). That's ~500 flights a year. Add ~300 for check rides, currency, etc. So your sustaining, 15ish flights a week, with all the cancellations. So call it a 3x3 program, 3 aircraft needed, but the reality is 7 or 8 in the hangar.

In a perfect world 1 for OT&E permanently assigned.

4 or 5 in heavy maintenance, which is why 12 AMS has the number of bays it has.

15 (423/443) + 7 (406) + 1 (HOTEF) + 5 (12 AMS) = 28. Add 7 for attrition, like the original contract = 35.

(There's then a whole bunch of stuff to get enough maintainers, in the right place, at the right time.)

What actually happens in reality is there are dets assigned to the high readiness (HR) ships and not the other ones. So, in the early 90s we were manning 7 or 8 dets at 423, 3 to 4 (in a pinch, but never when there was 8 on the other coast) at 443 (there's that 11 dets). Coincidentally (not) 2 of the 3 tankers, 2 of the 4 280s, and 7 of the 12 330s were at high readiness at any given time (hopefully).


However:

2 things don't add up, and to my knowledge the numbers have never been updated:

• 280s are gone. So they only two aircraft dets are the tankers. So, let's assume we only put 5 in the CTG, and accept the risk of non-availability (pretty much the certtainty with the Cyclone right now).
• There's more single ship deployments, and that chews up dets (and ships).

OK. Let's simplify it, let's say 15 det equivalents in 15 dets. If you want to sail a plus'd up tanker, just put on most of two dets. Gives us more flexibility, but we need to get a few more remars for a few extra aircrew (and maintainers).

That leaves the AOPS. Everyone you man comes at the cost of not manning a River. Only option, more aircraft, which equals more dets, which equals more people, which means plussing up 406. Reality is, for every aircraft you add going to sea, you need 1.5 - 2 added to the fleet.

So, yep, you could easily make an arugument for 50-60 of something in the current world (the original Sea King buy was 41) but I'm not sure how palatable that would be. If it was 60s, I could also make an argument to throw a few 60Ss into the mix.


By the way, if you want, I could do the same exercise for the USN, or RN, and the relative numbers would be somewhat similar (larger, but in the same general proportions).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If you can get the people, would having a ASW helicopter and a logistic/SAR helicopter on the JSS make sense. So the JSS can contribute to ASW defense or swap helicopters with the RCD and conduct maintenance onboard the JSS. meanwhile the logistic helicopter covers off resupply and SAR duties?