Author Topic: S-92 Procurement Potential Snags (Split from: Canada considers purchase of used US Army Chinooks)  (Read 19023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Zoom-a-loom

In standard layout, there will be 6 troop seats.

I haven't seen any specs or layouts for additional troop seats with the sonar in place, though the TACCO/AESOP consoles are on the side of the cabin with the the sonar reeling machine and sonobuoy launcher on the opposite side, thus if you take out the sonar reeling machine and sonobuoy launcher, the entire right side of the cabin could have troop seats. As far as how many there would be, I have no idea as of yet since those configs haven't worked their way down to my IPC.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 105,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,393
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Last I saw for the Cyclone (last week), there will be provisions made (ie some sort of kit) to seat up to 22 troops in first class comfort  :D.  That would, of course mean that alot of mission kit would have to be removed (ie sonar, sonobuoy dispenser).

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
has there been any testing with fast rope or rappell insertions on either s-92 or sea king?

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
SAR types, if anyone, would have been doing rappel & fastrope
Chimo!

Offline h3tacco

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 143
Fast Roping was done out of Canadian Sea Kings for Op Friction (ie Gulf War I). We no longer have the capability, although there has been talk of reviving it for last couple years. There was an attempt to bring it back for Op Apollo but basically the Navy said they didn't want the capability and wouldn't pay for it.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
SAR types, if anyone, would have been doing rappel & fastrope

Why would SAR types be doing fast rope and rappel over anyone else?

They've got a hoist (I think 2 actually). The time it takes to hoist down a SAR Tech vs fast roping is negligible, besides, at least you can raise a hoist if the ship they're getting on is pitching and rolling, not exactly the case with a fast rope or rappel.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,362
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,341
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
No such thing as fast roping out of a helo in the SAR world - hoist work is their primary means of insertion and recovery.

I would think that fast-roping may be reintroduced into the "green" world with the inception of 427 SOA in Pet.  Who knows what the DHTC boys can do out of a helo - we don't talk about that here.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2006, 21:18:10 by Zoomie »
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 25,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Oh? ok.
Will be going to bed a little bit more knowledgeable tonight.
Chimo!

Offline Air4ce

  • Guest
  • *
  • 290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 24
[Agreed. I'm almost surprised AETE hasn't jumped on this one. It is a dynamic component, but it's not rocket science. Do they even have a Cormorant airframe? Will there be enough Cyclone airframes to second one to AETE?

Actually AETE is all over it and the H-92 as well.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,773
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Didn't the boarding party fastrope onto the GTS Katie...or was that rappel?

Regardless, I support H3tacco and others that FR will be done by MH in the future, likely within the "capability package" that will be demanded of it in the standing contingency task force (SCTF).

On the non-maritime side of things, with the CSOR coming under CANSOFCOM, I think it's fair to say that FR will remain a tool for CANSOFCOM units only, and not find it's way into LFC units' repetoires...

p.s.  I have the same gut feel at Inch and h3, I think the Cyclone will do just fine (little gotcha's are to be expected).

p.p.s  Who said the AW520 Cormorant was just a civy certified EH-101 Merlin?  I think a bit of research will prove that is not at all the case.  There are a huge amount of MIL-SPEC/MIL-STD compliant systems on the EH-101 that the AW520 neither requires nor has...

Cheers,
Duey 

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 105,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,393
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Quote
Didn't the boarding party fastrope onto the GTS Katie...or was that rappel?

Nope.  A very long, slow series of hoists.  Not especially tactical...

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,773
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
I knew it took a while, but hoist...ee-garsh! :o  Cyclone should have a fast rope cap IMHO...

Cheers
Duey

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
Replying to something that was said earlier in this thread (I was away on leave for a week ;D)
...

Something that hasn't been mentioned in the commonality theme is the (lucky coincidence?) that the mission systems are largely common with AIMP (Aurora).  It so happens that the Prime is the same (General Dynamics Canada), and by choice of that contractor the Radar, ESM, Link-11/22 and to a certain extent mission data and acoustic systems will be common with AIMP.  This also helps with h3tacco's assessment #2 of mission system integration problems.

Notwithstanding, I think h3tacco (trying to place who this is) has it right when he says that the fly-by-wire and the mission systems stand out as issues, and as everyone has said other issues of buying a relatively new airframe will crop up.

By the way, for those with DWAN access the lift capabilities of the utility variant of the S-92 are available on the SCTF website in one of the briefs...

Offline CTD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 482
If you go to Eurocopter's sight it will give you all the specs on the different varients of this platform. Interesting read.

Offline Jantor

  • Member
  • ****
  • 580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
Howdy,

What do you think about the Sikorsky strike? I wonder if this might cause a significant delay in the Cyclone delivery date. The strike is in it's fourth week now but the company has made an offer.


http://www.connpost.com/business/ci_3591917

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,205
  • Freespeecher
Given the small size of our airforce, I am a bit uncomfortable about the potential proliferation of helicopter types. While individually each real or proposed type is probably world class, the O&M costs will eventually eat the fleet if we are not careful.

The S-92 offers a wonderful opportunity; we are getting some for the Navy, so we can extend the buy for a "Green" medium lift bird for the Army, and then work on supplementing the Griffin fleet with one of the evolved versions of the Blackhawk (the UH 60M version seems to have the same rotor and engine combination as the S-92, if I am reading the promo on the Sikorsky site correctly). There will probably be enough differences between the various versions that any flaws will only affect a portion of the fleet, yet enough similarities that we can reap substantial logistical advantages.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,773
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
A-majoor, only problem being S92 doesn't even lift the M777 or other battlefield systems that must be lifted by TACL in theatre (i.e. 7t PLS pallets, etc...)  While there are issues with multiple fleets, they are not insurmountable.  Interestingly, 10 TAG (precursor to 1 Wing) operated three fleets with fewer PY's than 1 Wing has for a single fleet today.  Proof that many airframes and organization has is a greater forctor than how many types of aircraft an organization has.  If you were to extend that logic to land systems, you would be wanting to eliminate MGS, MMEV, TUA(LAV) and LAV and replace those systems with a single system that could shoot multiple weapons and carry troops...not sure everybody is at that point of thinking yet... ;)

Cheers,
Duey

Offline Jantor

  • Member
  • ****
  • 580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 124
hello,

What about the Sikorsky CH-53 then? I understand they are planning to start contruction on a new variant. CH-53(K?)

Does Sikorsky use common equipment and systems in their various aircraft? buying in bulk and limiting the number of suppliers should increase Sikorsky's profit margin I should think.

Thanks in advance :)

Offline GINge!

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 300
issue IMHO is the folding head, the design for which is not finalized as I understand it.

Closer to thread, if the Chinook is selected as the machine that best meets the CF's TALC requirement, I truly hope we buy it "straight off the shelf" in US Army/SOCOM configuration (depending on whether the F or G model is chosen)...

Cheers,
Duey

Hey Duey, regarding Off The Shelf, have you heard any scuttlebutt regarding a number of CH-47's originally destined for the RAF that are now sitting in the USA , shrinkwrapped and looking for a new home?

I'm no aviation SME, but methinks it would be very easy to write an SOR with parameters which only the 'hook would meet.
It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,773
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
GINge, they're no longer in play.  The real issue was that MoD changed departmental software specification while the aircraft were still being manufactured in Philly and thus no longer complied with Mod-specs (although they still fully met the spec they were contracted to meet).

The HC.2 Mk2a/HC.2 Mk.3 (a.k.a. UK Chinook Mk2a and Mk3) issue is being straightened out.  The aircraft in question were eight MH-47G's spec'd for MoD requirements and assigned RAF designation HC.2 (Helicopter, Cargo; in-service model #2 - the Chinook, the Puma is an HC.1) Mk3.  Mk2 is standard UK Chinook and Mk2a is current SOF model.

Apparently, Whitehall didn't want to procure the machines because of extreme budgetary limitations and was looking for a way out.  The implication that the HC2 Mk3's failed to meet spec made it look like Boeing hadn't built the machines properly, which was far from the case.  The MoD mandated that the RAF restrict the machines to VFR operations only with no low-level flight authorized.  The way it was portrayed made the British electorate think they had been ripped off buying some kind of a lemon.  It is rumoured that the issue was straightened out when the CO of 22 SAS was called to testify in front of the Lords as to why the aircraft were still needed...(the RAF apparently did a poor job explaining it.)  When asked about what he required, he responded, "My dear Lords...give me my f***ing Chinooks!" and apparently closed his papers, stood up, and left the room.  It would seem that "Who dares, wins!"  The MoD was directed to continue procurement and acceptance of the new Chinooks with a grandfathered software spec that met the requirements of the day they were contracted from Boeing.  I'm not sure if they're at the squadron yet, Boscombe Downs may have a bit more flight testing to do but they will be brought into service shortly.

That story was told to me by an ex-RAF/ex-Chinook pilot and if not the exact details, I don't doubt the substance of the story as recounted...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,205
  • Freespeecher
It is rumoured that the issue was straightened out when the CO of 22 SAS was called to testify in front of the Lords as to why the aircraft were still needed...(the RAF apparently did a poor job explaining it.)  When asked about what he required, he responded, "My dear Lords...give me my f***ing Chinooks!" and apparently closed his papers, stood up, and left the room. 

Forget the Chinooks, get the Colonel!
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.