Helicopters and Money

[George Wallace]

No, it's a commercial plane.  For very exclusive (and rich) clients. 

No.  It's an inflatable.  A balloon.  A tool for deception.  Go hit it.

 

[ezbeatz]

Hey man what do i know, i dont have a music degree or jump out of planes. I just fly on a 160 000 lbs multi-engined warplane and trained do everything but physicaly move the controls........

Chemstry ? Its a wonder how i managed to have the airplane pointed in the right direction, i have always sucked at chemistry.....

:

Hey man, your the pilot. Can't argue with that. I'm just saying a pilot has to be good with numbers. You plan a flight, you have to use vectors, time, airspeed, know how much your fuel weighs, what the distribution of weight in your aircraft is, the wind velocity and direction, etc. It all involves math. Being good at math won't make you a good pilot but a good pilot is good at math. The kind of math you do in your head while multitasking. A good pilot also needs to be physically and physiologically capable of doing their task as well, which is what you were alluding to.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Hey man, your the pilot. Can't argue with that. I'm just saying a pilot has to be good with numbers. You plan a flight, you have to use vectors, time, airspeed, know how much your fuel weighs, what the distribution of weight in your aircraft is, the wind velocity and direction, etc. It all involves math. Being good at math won't make you a good pilot but a good pilot is good at math. The kind of math you do in your head while multitasking. A good pilot also needs to be physically and physiologically capable of doing their task as well, which is what you were alluding to.

ezbeatz,

Unless you can prove, here and now, what your expertise is in flying, please refrain from now on in telling our trained aircrew what their job is, or what it entails.

Anything else along these lines will be considered trolling.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Loachman]

Hey man, your the pilot.

No, he's not, as he'll certainly let you know.

He is, however, an essential crewmember on his aircraft and knows somewhat more about this than you.

I'm just saying a pilot has to be good with numbers. You plan a flight, you have to use vectors, time, airspeed, know how much your fuel weighs, what the distribution of weight in your aircraft is, the wind velocity and direction, etc. It all involves math. Being good at math won't make you a good pilot but a good pilot is good at math. The kind of math you do in your head while multitasking. A good pilot also needs to be physically and physiologically capable of doing their task as well, which is what you were alluding to.

It's simple and basic. I fly the thing. I do not design it. It is not rocket surgery.

I remember a few numbers and I add and multiply occasionally.

I finished Grade Thirteen Calculus with 10%. I forgot algebra and trigonometry and any other metries and stuff the second that I was finished highschool, which was some time before the final year was actually over. I have never needed them in the real world.

Stop trying to tell me what my job entails.

 

[aesop081]

Hey man, your the pilot.

I am not a pilot.  I am, however, trained to do most of the things you mention. I do all this and i am a math retard. the science of flight hs already been done for me, same with the science of all the electronic gizmos i operate. The big math has been done by engineers and turned into nice tables in manuals for us to use and the CF has seen fit to issue me with a wonderful 3 inch round plastic computer to avoid having to calculate too much.

Doesnt take too much math to determine my ETA when i have 200 miles to go and i am flying at 240 knots.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I am not a pilot.  I am, however, trained to do most of the things you mention. I do all this and i am a math retard.

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?

 

[aesop081]

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?

:rofl:

 

[aesop081]

May i suggest that this thread be split ( same with the cyclone thread) and that the 2 parts be merged ?

 

[GAP]

May i suggest that this thread be split ( same with the cyclone thread) and that the 2 parts be merged ?

That should be easy....get rid of the garbage and you only have to merge a dozen posts..... ;D

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I went to an airshow last summer and met an interesting fella....

I'm standing there, next to my airplane and he proceeds to tell me that the plane can fly backwards. When i told him that it does no such thing, he told me that he had read in a book that the engines could go in reverse and that i obviously have no clue about my own airplane. he then left with his freinds and told them all about how the thing can fly backwards.......

Some posts in here remind me of the incident.......

Dont get me started about the one guy who was convinced that the MAD in the tail of the aircraft pulls submarines out of the water......

Whoever said that theres no such thing as a stupid question has never been to an airshow.

Oh....THATS why they had the tow line eye at the top of the fin. Let me guess...

When you're flying backward, you spear the eye of the tow line with the MAD and carry the submarine away. Am I right?

And the Sea Things grab it with a hook on the dipper?

 

[Jammer]

...and airplanes cannot be bump started..that's why they have "NO PUSH" painted on them

 

[CBH99]

Back to getting this thread a little bit more on topic...

What about integrating air assets into the battalions/brigades as organic assets, without rebranding them by branch??

For example...keep the air assets air-force as they are now.  But have a fixed number of assets integrated into the battalion/brigade level to increase the capability and potency of the deployed force??  (i.e., a 1,200 or 1,300 member BG would automatically have 8 Griffons and 2/3 Chinooks at their disposal.)

I'm looking for feedback on the concept rather than the actual number of airframes.  Would this not streamline deployments by guaranteeing access to airlift without having to bring the air force in seperately?? 

**To clarify, I'm talking about having helicopter airlift available in theatre when required.  I am not talking about strategic/tactical airlift to deploy a force.**

 

[Loachman]

There has already been a Tac Hel Squadron co-located with each Reg Force Brigade for over three decades. The solid line in the org chart goes from Squadron to 1 Wing, but there is a dotty line between Squadron and Brigade. The G3 Aviation in each Brigade Headquarters has the authority to task the affiliated Squadron with operational training missions in support of his/her Brigade and Command and Liaison missions for the Brigade Commander.

The exception is 2 Brigade, as 427 Squadron was taken from 1 Wing a few years ago and reassigned to SOFCOM, leaving other Squadrons to take up the slack.

Our earlier Aviation doctrine stated that there is a continual requirement at Brigade level for light helicopters (think Kiowa) for reconaissance and fire direction and occasional requirement for utility (Griffon) and attack helicopters. The latter two become continual requirements at Division level, where an occasional requirement for medium transport (Chinook) appears, becoming continual at Corps level. This is perfectly valid today.

It does ignore special cases, such as airmobile formations that are found in some Armies elsewhere, but we seem unlikely to follow such a logical route.

 

[CBH99]

Ah.  I understand what your saying in terms of the org chart and the level of aviation assets designated for the brigade/division/corps level.  I'm thinking about something more along the battalion level though.

Using Afghanistan as an example, we have roughly a roughly 1300 BG.  It took years to deploy Griffons - something that no doubt cost lives and put many at increased risk.  If there were automatically a fixed number of aviation assets available at the battalion level, some of those risks could have been minimized.

In how this relates to the thread, I'm suggesting that we don't need to spend tens of billions of dollars on hundreds of new airframes like the article seems to suggest.  (Although a dedicated attack helo would be nice, realistically this won't be happening anytime soon.)  I'm simply trying to explore the idea of having a fixed number of airframes integrated/attached to battalion sized units (Since thats our most common deployed force size) to increase their capability and potency - rather than bring the air assets in after they have already been deployed for a while.

(I'm definately a bit out of my lane in regards to this, so I'm totally open to any feedback/suggestions/ideas anybody in the know has.  Been in the army for 9yrs now, trying to understand the rationale for the way some of our assets are used, thats all.)

 

[aesop081]

It took years to deploy Griffons -

Thats a political decision that no amout of reorganization of assets would have changed.

 

[Michael OLeary]

So let's do some math .....

What would you consider a useful amount of "lift" for a Battalion to have as integral aviation assets? How about enough for a dismounted company? 

4 Griffons per platoon, 4 more for Coy HQ and attachments (recce, snipers, FOO/FAC, sappers, etc.)

So, 16 Griffon per Battalion.

9 battalions of Reg F infantry - 9 x 16 = 144

Estimate 25% of the fleet out of commission at any one time (repairs, inspection, lifecycle refurbishments, etc.) - now we're up to 192 airframes.

Now, compare that with the current inventory of 85 Griffon.

(And let's not forget the costs and manning requirements to fly and support these new aircraft.)

 

[Loachman]

Ah.  I understand what your saying in terms of the org chart and the level of aviation assets designated for the brigade/division/corps level.  I'm thinking about something more along the battalion level though.

Helicopters are grouped at the lowest level that has a continual requirement. A battalion does not have that, or anywhere close. What would they do? A doctrinal (and in this case, doctrine is driven by the equipment - that was bought for political reasons - rather than equipment being bought to support doctrine) Brigade does not even have sufficient employment for the twenty-four-Griffon Squadron that it's supposed to have. Under our older doctrine, that was a Divisional UTTH Squadron.

If you scattered helicopters among all battalions, you'd have to constantly regroup them for larger operations.

Helicopters are very hard to camouflage. How many big, fat, juicy, obvious targets would you want to have scattered around your position in the forward area?

Helicopters require significant logistical support (fuel, parts, and ammunition) and manpower for maintenance and crewing. How many big, fat, juicy, obvious, and highly flammable fuel trucks do you want driving past your trench? Utility and Attack hels would typically live about 30 - 50 km behind the FEBA in a conventional war scenario for that reason, and that's a little bit far for a battalion commander to visit. That's only ten to fifteen minutes of flying time, though, but out of range of most threat weapons, and more static - necessary for many maintenance functions.

And where does this concept end? If you're going to put hels into battalions, why not tanks, and guns, and bridges?

Using Afghanistan as an example,

Afghanistan is a special case, and is no reason to change organizations that have been developed over many decades and have stood the tests of time and combat. There is also more than one battalion in TFK. Don't forget the PRT and the OMLTs. We had one US Infantry Battalion under command when I left, and there is another now and an MP Battalion as well. By grouping at higher levels and pooling, we have more hels available than just our own when required, and can work for others. This uses our flexibility to the maximum extent. Grouping at too low a level destroys that.

If there were automatically a fixed number of aviation assets available at the battalion level,

When I left KAF, we had no battalion location, only FOBs with about a company in each. There would have to be much more space in each of those to park helicopters, many more people to crew and maintain them (and there is a much greater maintenance burden in that environment), which would impose a significant logistical burden on each FOB and the convoys that have to supply them, and the hels would be much more vulnerable to enemy attack. They would also attract it, which would probably do little for the morale and wellbeing of the other inmates. It does not take much to damage a helicopter - a few mortar or rocket fragments - to the point where it is not going to be useable; minimizing the exposure to such risk is the best method of preventing such damage.

And for what benefit? Nothing in our AO was over twenty minutes from KAF. What could/would they do that they cannot do more efficiently from KAF?

some of those risks could have been minimized.

Nope. Possibly the opposite.

In how this relates to the thread, I'm suggesting that we don't need to spend tens of billions of dollars on hundreds of new airframes like the article seems to suggest.

You'd spend far more to do what you propose than to do things the way that we do now, as it would not be efficient.

I'm simply trying to explore the idea of having a fixed number of airframes integrated/attached to battalion sized units (Since thats our most common deployed force size) to increase their capability and potency.

Where and when warranted, this has happened. Our ACE Mobile Force commitment to Northern Norway during the Cold War involved an Infantry Battalion and three Kiowas, the minimum number required to have a reasonable chance of having a section of two serviceable and available for an extended period. Tasks included recce, FAC, Air OP, radio relay, and C&L. That required seventeen people: three flying pilots, one detachment commander/ops pilot, three observers, two signallers, and eight techs. Larger helicopters are far more labour intensive, however. We have also deployed hels to Somalia and Bosnia in support of battalion-sized groups.

This is easy to do for specific operations with "independent" small forces, but it is not the "normal" situation.

rather than bring the air assets in after they have already been deployed for a while.

As has been pointed out, this was a function of the political situation rather than anything to do with helicopter doctrine and organization.

 

[thunderchild]

I am a pilot (civi/cadet) and with out a tech a busted aircraft is just busted, with out a pilot a operational aircraft is a well taken care of but just a useless as the busted aircraft.  One trade helps the other trade have a purpose.  I'm surprised at all the "I'm better because " crap.

 

[Don2wing]

Well this item would be considered under this topic and it is about the Cormorant and the acquired American Kestrels.  http://skiesmag.com/news/article/RCAFconsidersputtingVH71sintoservicetocovermidlifeCormorantu


RCAF considers putting VH-71s into service to cover mid-life Cormorant update

Facing a mid-life update of its AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorants and the prospect of having one or two out of service at any given time to accommodate it, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is considering putting some of the erstwhile U.S. presidential Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel variants it acquired in 2011 into service.
2015-03-11 14:12:47
by Ken Pole
  http://verticalmag.com/images/news/article_files/686119628604502.jpg

The RCAF's fleet of AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorants is facing a mid-life update. Mike Reyno Photo

Facing a mid-life update of its AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorants and the prospect of having one or two out of service at any given time to accommodate it, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is considering putting some of the erstwhile U.S. presidential Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel variants it acquired in 2011 into service.

In 2005, the U.S. Navy chose the VH-71s as replacements for the Sikorsky VH-3D Sea Kings and VH-60N White Hawks operated by Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1). Four years later, the new Obama administration pulled the plug when program costs for the 23 aircraft had doubled to US$13 billion. Nine, including two heavily-instrumented for certification, had been delivered to the Navy by a Lockheed Martin-led team in partnership with AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter — and it was those aircraft that Canada purchased for a fire-sale C$164 million in 2011.

The official RCAF line from the outset was that the Kestrels would be strictly for spares. “This package is considered an excellent one-time opportunity for the . . . Canadian Forces to address long-standing CH-149 Cormorant fleet availability issues related to the availability of spare parts,” the Department of National Defence (DND) said in a statement at the time.

“We bought them for spares and that was the intent,” BGen Phil Garbutt, Director of Air Force Development, acknowledged in a recent Skies interview. “We bought them specifically to ensure that we had sufficient life-blood of spares for the fleet and with the intended purpose of bringing up the reliability and serviceability numbers for the Cormorant. And it has served that purpose.”

The original contract for 15 search-and-rescue (SAR) CH-149s was based on the DND’s ability to afford an appropriate number of aircraft being ready to fly at any one time. Despite improvements by AgustaWestland and IMP Aerospace (the Cormorants’ in-service support provider), Garbutt said, “We’ve never seen that level of serviceability and therefore we’ve had to make some pretty tough decisions.”
The key decision was to withdraw Cormorants from 8 Wing Trenton, Ont., and redeploy them to 9 Wing Gander, Nfld. and 14 Wing Greenwood, N.S. The balance of the current fleet of 14 (one was lost to a crash during a night training exercise with a Canadian Coast Guard ship off Nova Scotia in July 2006) is at 19 Wing Comox, B.C.

That left Trenton, at the heart of a vast region which includes swaths of the Great Lakes and the North, with a SAR mix of Bell CH-146 Griffons and older Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules. Garbutt said the Griffons have been doing “great work” but have “challenges” operating at night and over water as well as limited mission endurance. “It is a tactical aviation helicopter; it was not designed to be a search-and-rescue helicopter,” he pointed out. “Had it competed in the Canadian SAR helicopter [CSH] competition back in the late ‘90s, it would not have been a compliant helicopter. But it is what it is. We do want to return to an environment where we have a CSH-compliant helicopter operating at all four bases.”

Garbutt noted that the withdrawal of Cormorants from Trenton had demonstrated that 15 were not enough to cover the country’s requirements — hence the prospect of pulling at least some of the VH-71s out of the spares inventory. “Can you strike a nice balance between that cache of spares and possibly converting a few of those aircraft over into flying assets?” Garbutt asked theoretically. “It’s an option that we are examining as part of the analysis for the Cormorant mid-life update.”
The update, which should enable the RCAF to keep flying its mainstay SAR platform until about 2025, includes an electro-optics package which can be critical to successful SAR missions in degraded weather, as well as navigation and communications improvements and modifications to the patient-treatment area to maximize space and improve efficiency. Supplemental oxygen systems are also part of the package for operations above 10,000 feet, and while the allowable maximum gross weight is being increased to 15,000 kilograms (33,070 pounds), no engine enhancements are being contemplated. Not included in the mid-life update is a possible Cormorant simulator.
Asked whether the work would be done in Canada or at AgustaWestland facilities in England or Italy, Garbutt said that while a lot of it depends on what the solution would be, the government’s procurement strategy, and a follow-on “value proposition” guide argues for the work being done domestically. Jeremy Tracy, Ottawa-based head of region-Canada for AgustaWestland, told Skies that the company’s “exclusive arrangement” with IMP for the update and conversion meant that work “would be completed in Canada” in accordance with the government’s requirements.
AgustaWestland has been lobbying for some time to have seven of the Kestrels configured as Cormorants. Tracy told Skies during a visit to the company’s facility in Yeovil, England, that the added capability would not only facilitate full SAR capability to Trenton but also be a useful sovereignty tool in the North. Basing the helicopters full-time in the Arctic probably would be impractical, but an air transportation kit which was part of the U.S. would enable rapid loading into a Boeing CC-177 Globemaster III transport at Trenton for northern deployment.

The idea of operating the Kestrels isn’t new. Nearly two years ago, when he was still Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay actually ordered the RCAF to reconsider its “spares only” position. At the time, MacKay was wrestling with Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s scathing critique of the RCAF’s entire SAR program. Among other things, he said the DND simply “does not have enough suitable . . . aircraft.”
hen Ferguson recommended that the DND “give priority to the acquisition of new aircraft that are best suited for search-and-rescue activities and ensure that it has sufficient numbers” for its mission, the DND replied that it was planning to purchase new SAR platforms. These, however, would be a fixed-wing replacement for the older Hercules and the six remaining 50-year-old de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalo aircraft based in Comox, B.C. “With respect to SAR helicopter fleets,” the DND continued, “improvements have recently been made to the availability of the Cormorant fleet, allowing it to fly a record number of hours . . . and the Griffon fleet has undergone enhancements, which are allowing it to provide a more robust SAR capability.”
In a briefing note prepared for MacKay’s successor, Rob Nicholson, and released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, DND said that expanding the main SAR helicopter fleet by converting the Kestrels would break a DND commitment that they would be used only as a parts source for the Cormorants. Dan Ross, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) at DND, had stated unequivocally in December 2010 that the Kestrel acquisition was “not to procure flyable assets.” Rather, it was a unique opportunity “to procure a package of spares and assembled spares (airframes which were left in varying states of assembly) to support the existing Cormorant search-and-rescue fleet.”
The RCAF did eventually assess the feasibility of putting at least some Kestrels into service but evidently was concerned at the time that the airframes are uncertified and lack valid airworthiness certificates. The briefing note states that the use of them as a parts source has saved the DND $24 million when compared with having to purchase them commercially.
Since the Kestrels have an average of only 30 hours on them, including one which logged more than 100 hours of qualifying time, there is an argument that they can be readily converted. That would facilitate both the Cormorant MLU and a return to Trenton. Tracy confirmed that AgustaWestland and IMP had concluded, after detailed study, that conversion would be quicker, cheaper and simpler than buying new airframes. “A complete fleet of Cormorants, to the CH149B standard for SAR, would enable crew and parts commonality across Canada for the next 20-plus years,” he told Skies. “Then there’s the proven capability of the Cormorant, which has been demonstrated repeatedly over the past 12 years.”