• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New MH Announcement

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Well, the MND is going to be in Shearwater tomorrow.   I don't think he's just dropping by to say hello.   The MHP winner should be announced at 0930 or thereabouts.   As for which way they're going to go....there was a few "party" tents set up at Grumman at Halifax Int'l, Grumman is a partner in the Sikorsky bid. What that means, well, we'll find out tomorrow for sure.

Cheers
 

Lance Wiebe

Sr. Member
Reaction score
3
Points
230
Has the Sikorsky been ordered by anyone else, do you know?

What is your personal opinion, if you don't mind me asking?
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
If we get the Sikorsky, we'll be the first ones.

I'd like to see the H92 get picked, but I'd be happy with either one. The big thing that the H92 has over the EH101 is that it has 70% commonality in parts with the H-60 Sea Hawks/Black Hawks.   Since we deploy with American carrier groups, it'll be a whole lot easier to get parts both at sea and at home since they're only a few hundred miles to the south of us.   The Cormorants (EH101 for all intensive purposes) are having real problems getting parts since the supply line goes all the way to Italy. I think they're both comparable as far as capabilities go.

Neither one was purpose built as a military helicopter, the NH90 was but it was eliminated early on because it had a lot smaller cabin and fitting 4 crew with mission equipment was a tight squeeze. the Cormorant had numerous problems with the hoist early on since it wasn't designed with a hoist and it was added later on.

I think I'm going to have trouble sleeping tonight, like a kid on Christmas eve.

Cheers
 

Alex

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Inch,

I'd imagine that Sea King pilots would be retrained on the new maritime helicopter. If that's the case, how long do you think you would have to continue flying Sea Kings before being trained on the replacement?
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
We're anticipating having the new ones in service by mid 2008, which means I'll be flying the Sea King for at least 4 more years, it could be more, it all depends on who the first wave of crews to be trained will be. It'll be a phase in over 3 years, my sqn should be the first ones to get trained and operational on it, but we can't stop our mandate to provide helicopters to the navy so some guys will be flying the new ones and everybody else will be flying the Sea Kings. The west coast will probably be the last since they're the smaller sqn and deployed less than we are.

Cheers
 

Sundborg

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
0
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/22/seaking040722.html

Here's what CBC says.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
You know why it cost $500 million in cancellation fees? He canceled the program well after the contract had been signed. Now they're trying to play off that the Cormorant is different than the EH101, they're the same thing, Cormorant is the name we gave it, just like no matter what we get to replace the Sea King it's going to be called the Cyclone.

Cheers
 

canuck101

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You can take this for what it is CBC has hinted that it will be the H92 will see tomorrow what they pick
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Sikorsky is the winner. Part of the contract was to have rubber on the ramp 48 months from today.  Bonuses for early delivery and penalties for late delivery.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I think it's a good choice.  It's a very capable aircraft, everyone compares things like useful load and all up weight, that stuff really isn't a big deal for us since utility flights and troop transport are way down on our list of priorities.  Our number one role is fleet defense and anti-submarine warfare, we extend the range of the ship's eyes and ears beyond what they'd be able to do themselves. Every other role is secondary for us, even Search and Rescue. So to be honest, how many troops we can carry isn't important, as long as we can get a NBP on board the bad guy's ships and in that respect, the H92 can carry more guys than the Sea King can and the SK was doing the job for years.

Now, for cost savings.  Everyone thinks it's such a big deal, an airframe is an airframe, the techs learn on other aircraft anyway, you don't think they tear the serviceable ones apart to learn how to fix them do you? They learn on the job at their Sqn once the basics are taught in Borden where every Tech learns the basics already.  Not to mention the fact that the MH is going to have a folding tail and rotor system, the capability to carry torpedoes, and the haul down system, all of which differ from the SAR Cormorants. The mission kit is different so you still need separate training for the techs in that area.  SAR Cormorants have Flight Engineers and SAR Techs, Maritime helicopters have AESOps and Navigators (TACCOs), no common training possible there.  About the only common training the aircrew could do would be the pilots, and you still need 2 schools for that since SAR guys don't learn deck landings or ASW and SAR guys do stuff that we don't do on a regular basis. Now cost of parts, it'll be cheaper to get parts out of the USA for the H92 than it would've been to get parts for 28 more aircraft out of Italy. Plus Sikorsky has agreed to invest in Canadian industry so it's a plus for everyone, something that EH wasn't going to do.

Now off the soap box with me.  :boring:

Cheers
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Oh yeah, I just read the CBC.ca article, since when do we have Naval Air Stations? Morons.   CTV called it the H92 Cyclone, wrong again idiots, CH148 Cyclone is what we're calling it.
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
136
Points
680
Congrats on the new airframe Inch... I anxiously await our new SAR lifter  ???

The issue of techs and their ability to service both the Cormorant and the now defunct EH-101 MH is moot.  All servicing (except fueling and basic snags) is done by civilians out here in Comox.  There aren't any CF AVN/AVS techs that are qualified on that that type of fling-wing anyways.

48 months?  Pretty ambitious, who wants to start a pool?
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Sorry Gunner but from Inch it does not look like a bad helo....

Inch....any word on if it will be able to carry 2 or 4 MK46s?
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Thanks man, too bad I'm going to get my 1000hrs on the Sea King before we get the new ones. 48 months is the target, they'll get bonuses for early delivery so we'll see how that works for motivation.

I wasn't aware that the Cormorant maint was contracted out, that wouldn't work too well for us with the deployments and all.

Ex-Dragoon, I'd have to check the MHP intranet site for the technical details, I have no idea how many MK 46s it'll carry.

Cheers
 
A

ags281

Guest
About freaking time. Only a decade or so later than needed.
 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Sorry Gunner but from Inch it does not look like a bad helo....

The argument is not whether the Sikorsky is better or worse than the EH101.  Anything modern is better than the SK it replaces.  I think the lack of a working military version of the helicopter is of concern as we have seen what happens when the government buys off the shelf helicopters (Griffon) to meet a military requirement.  The Griffon is a very poor military helicopter.  Moreover, as with any new piece of equipment, it is going to have growing pains as it is introduced into service.  We may not experience as many with the EH101 which has already proven itself to be a good helicopter.

Finally, I can't see how having two completely different airframes is better than having one. In my mind, using one helicopter for two roles would be logistically (less spare parts, replacement, etc, etc) simplier and training (all the whop whop jocks who can operate one helicopter vice two) would be simplified.  You would have to convince me that there are no additional costs to operating two completely different fleets of aircraft.

My 2 cents. 
 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
This Globe and Mail article provided a good overview of the three helicopters involved (sea king, EH101 and the H92). 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040724/HELI24/TPNational/TopStories

Sea King

Maximum load:...2,245 kg

Number of engines:...2

Passenger capacity:...40

Capabilities: The Sea King is capable of landing on small decks of destroyers and providing surveillance to ships at sea. It was often used for search-and- rescue missions

Strengths: The Sea King's strength was its longevity, ability to work on

small ship decks and the expertise developed by its maintenance crews to keep it flying

Weaknesses: The Sea Kings were too old and required long hours of maintenance to stay in the air. They were also becoming an embarrassment on international missions.

EH-101

Maximum load:...6,072 kg

Number of engines:...3

Passenger capacity:...40

Capabilities: The EH-101 is a heavier helicopter than the Cyclone and has proven itself as a search-and-rescue and surveillance aircraft. Both helicopters bost state of the art submarine detection devices and can be fully equipped for search- and-rescue missions and maritime patrols. Strengths: The EH-101 is a proven helicopter with an established track record of performing in harsh marine environments. Weaknesses: The selection of the EH-101 would have created political embarrassment for the Liberals, who had rejected it in 1993 as too expensive. The EH -101 is larger and more powerful, but costs more to buy and operate.

Thumbnail history: The EH-101 was developed by Agusta of Italy and GKN Westland Helicopter of Britain in the early 1980s in a collaborative effort involving companies across western Europe to produce a powerful military machine with advance weaponry and self-defence systems. That chopper was rejected by the Liberals in Canada in 1993, but in 1998 Canada purchased 15 EH-101 Cormorants for search and rescue missions. EH boasts the Cormorant is the most capable long-range search and rescue helicopter in the world.

H-92

Maximum load:...5,216 kg

Number of engines:...2

Passenger capacity:...22

Cost: The bill for the 28 Sikorsky helicopters and a 20-year service and training program is $5-billion. Public Works Minister Scott Brison and Mr. Graham both insist the Cyclones were cheaper than the EH-101s, but won't say what the difference was between the two bids.

Strengths: The Cyclone, which is still in the development stage, provides more work for the Canadian aerospace industries and allows the military to provide input on what the new aircraft will look like.

Weaknesses: Defence analysts say

t is also smaller, exists only in prototypes and has yet to prove itself in the air.

Thumbnail history: The S-92 and H-92 aircraft were created by Sikorsky in the late 1990s as the next generation of medium-range helicopters to follow the Sea King. The company boasts they have incorporated the ruggedness of the famous Black Hawk helicopters in an affordable medium-range model chopper with economical performance.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I made this comment in the other thread, but, having the same aircraft while it may provide some commonality you also have the problem of your entire fleet being grounded at the same time.  This happened in Moose Jaw with the Harvard when a USAF Texan II had a problem that grounded their entire fleet as well as ours. Putting all your eggs in one basket, not a good thing.

40 pax in a Sea King? What f***ing Sea King are they talking about? We only have room for max 9 with extra troop seats installed. Also, do the math, stated max load of 2,245 kg, average weight of a man is about 84 kg or 185 lbs X 40 pax = 3360 kg, sorry but that's 1,115 kg over weight. Even with a bunch of 150 lb sissies you'd be over weight. You could carry 40 kids, but certainly not 40 men/women, but I don't know where you'd fit them. I even have a hard time believing that the EH101 can carry 40 troops, the CH53E with a gross weight of over 70,000 lbs carries 55 troops.

As far as buying a new untested helo, if no one ever bought new untested equip, we'd still be riding horses.  It's called advancing, the EH 101 was designed in the 80s, we've made lots of advances in synthetics like carbon fibre, etc. Sure you get boned once and a while but that's the sacrifice you make to not live in the Stone Age.  The Griffon was a civilian aircraft, but again, what are people comparing it to? A Blackhawk? The Blackhawk has an max gross weight of over 20,000lbs, it's not even in the same Category as a Griffon. It's a medium lift while a Griffon is still considered a light-medium lift.  The Sea King is a closer comparison since it's gross weight is also over 20,000 lbs. Why don't we compare a Griffon to a Jet Ranger? It can lift more, carry more gas, go faster, so it's a better helo than the Jet Ranger. The problem is that we're using it for tactical airlift, something it's not capable of doing. The problem is the way we're using it, not the helo itself.

Cheers
 
Top