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

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

Yet the back end of the Cyclone design was changed to put it sideways to make it easier to remove everything as a result of SCTF, which wasn’t free.

Ironically, if we had kept a few Sea Kings, strip all the avionics and put in a new cockpit, they would have made on excellent HADR and literal maneuver helo. The airframes and drivetrains were in excellent shape. Think Mk-4 junglie.

I think the lost opportunity was to use them to train people. For one week every few, load em up with a bunch of trainees and tool around outside of Halifax and Victoria, with a bunch of air types getting deck qual’d and SACs getting control time (god knows they need it). Think HMS Argus on steroids while we regen, and then see what we could do next.
Lots of good ideas there but its hard to put a ship to sea with no crew or maintain it when the lions share is going to the CPF's to keep them sailing. There are lots of practical considerations of how it would of been a bad idea at this point for the RCN.
 
Lol!! Whatever did Rotor Maxx do with those Sea Kings and why aren’t they in Ukraine with the ex RAF ones.
Rotomax got 54 containers as spares and have returned at least one to flight status, of the 6 they bought. They aren’t giving any to Ukraine because they are going to generate revenue with them.

At least 6 went to museums. One of ours was airworthy when we got it, it’s still got oil and hydraulic. We realized a few weeks ago it still had it’s battery installed.

We insisted on divesting some that didn’t have to be.

Again, the airframes and drivetrains for the most part were in good shape; the avionics were expensive to maintain because they were, on the whole, old. The wiring was ok, it was redid in the late ‘80s
 
Rotomax got 54 containers as spares and have returned at least one to flight status, of the 6 they bought. They aren’t giving any to Ukraine because they are going to generate revenue with them.

At least 6 went to museums. One of ours was airworthy when we got it, it’s still got oil and hydraulic. We realized a few weeks ago it still had it’s battery installed.

We insisted on divesting some that didn’t have to be.

Again, the airframes and drivetrains for the most part were in good shape; the avionics were expensive to maintain because they were, on the whole, old. The wiring was ok, it was redid in the late ‘80s
440 occasionally is seen flying around in RCAF livery, with “experimental” civil registry painted on the side…
 
I just assumed we were too cheap....
Sort of. We were going to procure a larger fleet of much better helicopters, the AgustaWestland EH101 (since renamed AW101) for both maritime and SAR, but the Chretien government canceled it for no rhyme or reason, then bought the same helicopter anyway for SAR after a fatal crash of one of the old Labraours, then changed the specifications to exclude the AW101 as the Sea King replacement out of pride and/or spite.
 
428 is at one of the gates to the new NDHQ complex at Carling and Moodie.

View attachment 83264
I’m there fairly often and I love to see it. It, along with the semi recent addition of IRO bow, draws a lot of interest from people who see them. I’d like to think they give people a little more incentive to learn more about the military.
 
Sort of. We were going to procure a larger fleet of much better helicopters, the AgustaWestland EH101 (since renamed AW101) for both maritime and SAR, but the Chretien government canceled it for no rhyme or reason, then bought the same helicopter anyway for SAR after a fatal crash of one of the old Labraours, then changed the specifications to exclude the AW101 as the Sea King replacement out of pride and/or spite.
This really belongs in the 148 thread...

I'm not sure I agree with your sentiments, as it doesn't match what I experienced in the community.

The number of Cyclones matched the cancelled maritime variant of the EH101, 28. It had been lowered from 35 prior to Chretien coming into power. My understanding was that 35 included extras for attrition, whereas 28 was the minimum number. The number was based on 2 in the screen, 6 in the task group, 2 task groups, extra single decks, training, heavy maintenance; we reviewed that after the cancellation and came up with the same answer.

I don't know it is a "much better" helicopter. It is certainly bigger and heavier, and has the third engine. Whether that is good for small ships I'm not sure. We did gain the tail ramp (by luck, not planning; it wasn't spec'd therefore EH didn't include it) which in my opinion is excellent.

There was a reason for the cancellation... they were too expensive. It was easy to target them because we were asking for the most advanced maritime helicopter in the world with the accompanying price tag, with the mission avionics developed from the ground up. Why did Canada need that (there is a story to that which I'm working on capturing at the museum)? And why, after being told no Cadillacs, did the admirals and generals end saying a couple of years ago "best maritime helicopter in the world" (which it is, on paper) (until the problems with sustainment, readiness, training, etc became more apparent).

What specifications were changed to exclude the 101 and when? We reviewed the MHRS (maritime helicopter requirement specification) twice at the Wing around 2000, and I don't recall that. We were briefed numerous times prior to contract award by all contenders (EH101, Cougar, and S-92). EH was represented by a certain ex CO-423 who now likes to make statements to the media right to the end.

I think what happened is that EH saw the writing on the wall and bid what it would cost to develop the best. Sikorsky / GD bid what they thought would be the "least cost compliant" (it was a running jock from 2004-08 in development meetings, until it wasn't). Therefore Sikorsky won; that "Cadillac helicopter on a Buick price" has led us (in my opinion) directly where we are now (Sikorsky thought they could recoup their lost cash from development in sustainment, DND and PW begs to differ).

If you have information I'm missing I'd love to have it. The true story is yet to be written, but we're trying.
 
Lots of good ideas there but its hard to put a ship to sea with no crew or maintain it when the lions share is going to the CPF's to keep them sailing. There are lots of practical considerations of how it would of been a bad idea at this point for the RCN.
I don't disagree.

I'm not sure how the RCAF or the RCN are going to regen if they keep doing the same things they always have though. Besides the obvious needed influx of money (competitive pay commensurate with the conditions of service solves a lot of recruitment and retention issues), both need to actually take the time to regen. It's hard to do that for the RCN and MH with the pressures to keep pushing ships out the door.

Hence the idea of using the Mistrals as a training platform. Put the resources in them to create lots of people, even if it meant putting CPFs on the wall and doing less deployments. It wasn't just me or MH types that were thinking that way...

Doesn't matter, water under the bridge. All these discussions are irrelevant at this point, we just need to get on with the current plan (maybe use some of the AOPS as training platforms?). I just hope they manage the transition to the AORs and CSCs correctly.

By the way, the same argument could be made at this point about cancelling the AORs (keep the leased capability, even if it isn't what we want, and increase it to 2), and 3 of the CSCs (we only have 12 CPFs, so why do we need 15 CSCs). I don't agree with it, but it could be made. Let's hope the press doesn't make the connection.
 
@Baz I think it would make more sense to switch the JSS to some kind of fleet auxiliary crew of civilians first before leasing, the costs for Asterix are eye watering. Honestly that's generally not a bad idea anyway though, as crewing is the longest pole in the tent right now.
 
@Baz I think it would make more sense to switch the JSS to some kind of fleet auxiliary crew of civilians first before leasing, the costs for Asterix are eye watering. Honestly that's generally not a bad idea anyway though, as crewing is the longest pole in the tent right now.
Both the Americans and the British do that….
 
I don't disagree.

I'm not sure how the RCAF or the RCN are going to regen if they keep doing the same things they always have though. Besides the obvious needed influx of money (competitive pay commensurate with the conditions of service solves a lot of recruitment and retention issues), both need to actually take the time to regen. It's hard to do that for the RCN and MH with the pressures to keep pushing ships out the door.

Hence the idea of using the Mistrals as a training platform. Put the resources in them to create lots of people, even if it meant putting CPFs on the wall and doing less deployments. It wasn't just me or MH types that were thinking that way...

Doesn't matter, water under the bridge. All these discussions are irrelevant at this point, we just need to get on with the current plan (maybe use some of the AOPS as training platforms?). I just hope they manage the transition to the AORs and CSCs correctly.

By the way, the same argument could be made at this point about cancelling the AORs (keep the leased capability, even if it isn't what we want, and increase it to 2), and 3 of the CSCs (we only have 12 CPFs, so why do we need 15 CSCs). I don't agree with it, but it could be made. Let's hope the press doesn't make the connection.
We need 15 because that is the calculation required to sustain 2 x TG, plus a Ship with SNMG.
 
We need 15 because that is the calculation required to sustain 2 x TG, plus a Ship with SNMG.
I understand that, but I’m not sure the Canadian public knows, cares, or ever will care.

I’ve always been confused about the concept of the CTG post Cold War . In large part the CTG developed as a convoy escort force. We are the only navy I know of that has the concept of a CTG with nothing meanful at the center of it.

You said a few weeks ago that maybe what our allies need is tanker capacity. Maybe more tankers, no flag ship, one escort for each?

The CTG supposedly suppers the defence policy, which hasn’t been mean fully updated in years.

Are we chasing our tail.
 
I understand that, but I’m not sure the Canadian public knows, cares, or ever will care.

I’ve always been confused about the concept of the CTG post Cold War . In large part the CTG developed as a convoy escort force. We are the only navy I know of that has the concept of a CTG with nothing meanful at the center of it.

You said a few weeks ago that maybe what our allies need is tanker capacity. Maybe more tankers, no flag ship, one escort for each?

The CTG supposedly suppers the defence policy, which hasn’t been mean fully updated in years.

Are we chasing our tail.
That we don’t have anything like strategic direction is, perhaps, unsurprising at this point in our political history…
 
@Baz I think it would make more sense to switch the JSS to some kind of fleet auxiliary crew of civilians first before leasing, the costs for Asterix are eye watering. Honestly that's generally not a bad idea anyway though, as crewing is the longest pole in the tent right now.
Yes that's an option I hope they will do and keep it a government ship. The first tanker is staying on the West Coast and they have greater personnel shortfalls than the EC.
 
We need 15 because that is the calculation required to sustain 2 x TG, plus a Ship with SNMG.
That calculation is a fantasy though in reality, with no credible way to actually crew that or resources and infrastructure for the maintenance or training at that level. None of our schools have the capacity to train that many people in general, so even with CSC specific trainers our DC schools and fleet schools are already tapped at a fraction of the throughput required for that fleet size.

I'm not sure if they are sticking with it to be able to absorb cuts, but if they actually deliver them all we'll have a number of jetty queens with angry duty watches and maintenance to keep them mothballed.
 
S the Chretien government canceled it for no rhyme or reason,
Politics. He didn't like the fact that the CAF was going after new choppers - "Cadillac elicopters" so he cancelled them.

think of all the social programs the cancellation fees could have funded - a half billion dollars. There are other here far more qualified and informed than I am on this subject though.
 
I understand that, but I’m not sure the Canadian public knows, cares, or ever will care.

I’ve always been confused about the concept of the CTG post Cold War . In large part the CTG developed as a convoy escort force. We are the only navy I know of that has the concept of a CTG with nothing meanful at the center of it.

You said a few weeks ago that maybe what our allies need is tanker capacity. Maybe more tankers, no flag ship, one escort for each?

The CTG supposedly suppers the defence policy, which hasn’t been mean fully updated in years.

Are we chasing our tail.
Our tail was cut off years ago, we've just yet to realise that its lying moldering over in the corner while we continue to run ever slower circles.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top