CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Ex-Dragoon]

The Cyclone will be delivered fitted for, but not with, an ASM capability.  I'm sure we will get to it in due course...

If we do get ASMs for the Cyclone (which I think would be a good thing), where would we keep said ASMs?

 

[Inch]

If we do get ASMs for the Cyclone (which I think would be a good thing), where would we keep said ASMs?

Probably a modified torpedo locker, but what do I know about storing weapons on ships?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thats as good as a place as any...on a CPF they could use one of the torpedo magazines....for the NWTs out there, its pretty unlikely they would store ASMs with torpedoes correct?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

for the NWTs out there, its pretty unlikely they would store ASMs with torpedoes correct?

Why would it matter, so long as the ammo classes were not incompatible and it was a floodable space?

 

[hippie]

The fly by wire test aircraft, 592, has done ground runs without the blades.  It should do ground runs with blades on in late August, and first flight in late September.

Our first airframe, 148801, was delivered to West Palm Beach from Keystone Helicopter last Fir, 10 Aug, for final assembly.  It should be flying by the end of the year, for test purposes.  It will be used spring and summer '08 for at sea flight deck testing on HMCS Montreal, which is currently being modified, but will not have been delivered to Canada at that time.

Scheduled delivery of the first aircraft is still January 2009, when Operational Testing will commence.  The first aircrew conversion course, leading to the first Cyclone detachment, is scheduled for 2010.

Baz, do we have any pictures of 801?  I've only seen pictures of our guys climbing around a civie S-92, which is obviously going to be pretty different that our 148s.  It'd be great to actually SEE some actual progress of our first bird.  Pretty isolated from any of the MHP out here on the left coast! 

 

[Baz]

We have some pictures taken by one of the guys camera's as the aircraft arrived.

Send me an E-Mail an DWAN, I'll get them to you.

 

[newfin]

Are there any pictures around of any of these airframes? We are 1 year from 1st delivery so there must be something that can be shown to the public?

 

[Zoomie]

SEA KING REPLACEMENTS ON HOLD

STEVE RENNIE

Canadian Press

January 9, 2008 at 8:56 PM EST

OTTAWA — The delivery of new military helicopters to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea Kings will likely be delayed by 30 months and Ottawa is threatening to deeply penalize the U.S. contractor “thousands of dollars” for each day the choppers are late, The Canadian Press has learned.

A senior government source, speaking on background, said late Wednesday that department officials told Public Works Minister Michael Fortier on Monday that Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. would be late with the long-awaited delivery of new CH-148 Cyclones.

Sikorsky will be penalized thousands of dollars each day the Cyclones are delayed, the source said.

Calls to Sikorsky were not immediately returned on Wednesday.

The Defence Department referred all calls Wednesday night about the delay to Public Works.

“We are assessing the implications of what a delay on the delivery of the maritime helicopters will have on the operational requirements of DND and PWGSC is considering all possible options with respect to Sikorski's default on the timely delivery of the Maritime Helicopters,” wrote Jacques Gagnon, Mr. Fortier's communications director, in an e-mail to The Canadian Press.

Ottawa signed the contract in November 2004 to replace the 40-year-old Sea King fleet. The deal required Connecticut-based Sikorsky to build 28 helicopters and begin delivering one per month starting in November 2008.

The Defence Department first set out to replace the Sea Kings in the 1980s, and former prime minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government decided in 1992 to buy 50 EH-101 helicopters in a $5.8-billion deal.

But Jean Chrétien's Liberals tore up the deal when they came to power, paying $500-million in penalties for backing out of the contract.

Retired air force colonel Lee Myrhaugen, a former deputy commander of the military's maritime air group and a veteran Sea King pilot, said the military made every effort to extend the Sea Kings' life cycle and the delay could put further strain on the aging choppers.

“If it's going to be extended some 30-odd months, that's just going to stretch that rubber band that much further,” Mr. Myrhaugen said.

“The bottom line is, you can only stretch that rubber band so far. The calculations for the delivery date of the Cyclone were based on the fact that they had extended the life of the Sea King to its maximum.”

Everyone who is genuinely surprised - please raise your hand.

 

[newfin]

Well, I have to admit that I am surprised.  This contract was issued 3 years ago for delivery in 4 years.  If you add 30 months to that then that means that the first a/c will be 6.5 years from the date the contract was issued.  That's pretty pathetic.  I thought a company like Sikorsky would deliver them in the time that they agreed to.  I will admit that I have been getting concerned since there has been almost no news on these choppers lately and it would have made sense that if the delivry was going to be met that we would have photos and some sort of positive news by now.

The more time that goes by the more I am pissed at Chretien.

 

[navy-nesop]

The Cyclone will be delivered fitted for, but not with, an ASM capability.  I'm sure we will get to it in due course...

I may be wrong, but I don't think we would be getting ASM capability.  As our navy is more a defensive type navy.  Can't go really deep in details but it would be hard for us to support an Helo doing OTHT.  They would be pretty much alone out there and it's just not the way we do things.

On top, since you would never have our ships alone in a war situation.  We could never make use of any OTHT tactics.  The US navy would take care of that.  ASM capability on helos is an offensive  method, it's just not our purpose.  It would be a waste of money, in my own opinion.

Keep that money to get the army guys some good vehicles so they can get home safe.

this is navy-nesop, over

 

[GK .Dundas]

I may be wrong, but I don't think we would be getting ASM capability.  As our navy is more a defensive type navy.  Can't go really deep in details but it would be hard for us to support an Helo doing OTHT.  They would be pretty much alone out there and it's just not the way we do things.

On top, since you would never have our ships alone in a war situation.  We could never make use of any OTHT tactics.  The US navy would take care of that.  ASM capability on helos is an offensive  method, it's just not our purpose.  It would be a waste of money, in my own opinion.

Keep that money to get the army guys some good vehicles so they can get home safe.

this is navy-nesop, over

I'm really hoping you being sarcastic if not perhaps we should let the Americans handle air defense for us too.
Wars happen in the damnedest places and at the oddest times  I can think of any number of scenarios where we we might find ourself all by ourselves and actually have to something along those very lines. I rather have the capability and never ever need it then not have it and need it desperately

 

[hippie]

I'm really hoping you being sarcastic if not perhaps we should let the Americans handle air defense for us too.
Wars happen in the damnedest places and at the oddest times  I can think of any number of scenarios where we we might find ourself all by ourselves and actually have to something along those very lines. I rather have the capability and never ever need it then not have it and need it desperately

+1

 

[Inch]

I may be wrong, but I don't think we would be getting ASM capability.  As our navy is more a defensive type navy.  Can't go really deep in details but it would be hard for us to support an Helo doing OTHT.  They would be pretty much alone out there and it's just not the way we do things.

On top, since you would never have our ships alone in a war situation.  We could never make use of any OTHT tactics.  The US navy would take care of that.  ASM capability on helos is an offensive  method, it's just not our purpose.  It would be a waste of money, in my own opinion.

Keep that money to get the army guys some good vehicles so they can get home safe.

this is navy-nesop, over

Wow, you really know nothing of Sea King ops do you? Without getting into details... OTHT is something we do all the time, what's one of the purposes of a helo again? That's right, extending the range of the ship's sensors (aka over the horizon). We routinely fly 50+ miles from mom in order to have a look at what's out there and report contacts if need be. The only thing that's going to change when we get the new helo is that it will be done by link instead of voice.

Having and using our own missile system is not OTHT. A google search will tell you all about OTHT.

 

[navy-nesop]

I'm really hoping you being sarcastic if not perhaps we should let the Americans handle air defense for us too.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but who do you think handles air defence most of the time?  Don't get me wrong.  I don't like having to rely on other nations to complete our battle group.  But it's just the way it is right now.

There is more to ASUW capabilities than just putting missiles on an helicopter.   You need a whole system to do this kind of stuff, so that's why I don't think we would be getting this capabilities any time soon.  You need to protect that helicopter as much as you can.  You know, watch each others back.  They protect us, we protect them.  Right now we just can't do it efficiently with what we have.  It's hard to explain without getting into OPSEC.

When I say that I don't think we need it, it's because there is other priorities.  I'm just being realistic considering our situation a the present time.

My job on a ship is above water warfare (including air defence),  but right now, we detect and they shout.  Unless you are on a 280, but we only have 3.  It's a big ocean out there.

So don't fire at me, we are not talking about what we wish we had but what we are most likely to get.

Edited after last post:  Wow right in my face!  Like they say , if you are going through hell, keep going.  Thanks for the refresher.

 

[h3tacco]

Where our Navy operates there is a significant threat from FIACs (Fast Inshore Attack Craft, basically any small fast armed vessel). Armed helos have been proven to be one of the most effective platforms to counter FIAC threats. The Navy understands this. My guess is that at some point in the CH148 service life it will be armed with some sort of anti-surface weapon. My preference would be sooner rather than later.


Leadmark: The Navy's Strategy for 2020

In particular, organic air will allow naval forces to optimise the capabilities of weapons and sensor systems by its ability to extend substantially the ISR and control capabilities of its host unit or task group. An organic air capability is unique in its ability to respond quickly to over-the-horizon threats day or night, in most weather conditions. It will facilitate the rapid investigation of contacts, allowing commanders to conduct Battle Damage Assessment (BDA, to ascertain the need for further engagement), at ranges beyond that which other organic sensors are able to provide accurate information. If armed, it also will permit the prosecution of targets beyond the range of weapon systems fitted to the host unit.

http://www.navy.dnd.ca/leadmark/doc/part7_e.asp#sub3g



The Royal Navy's experience in the first Gulf War proved the usefulness of shipborne armed helicopters.

Six Lynx helicopters (armed with Sea Skua Air to Sea Missiles) .were sent from 829 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) to the Gulf on four Royal Navy frigates. In total the Lynx helicopter was responsible for 15 Iraqi ship kills, at least five of which were made by a single helicopter, Lynx 335 of H.M.S Cardiff. The various confrontations are detailed below:

    * Lynx 335 from Cardiff together with an American Sea Hawk destroy a target, believed to be a minesweeper or landing vessel, marking the first Royal Navy success of the war.
    * Lynx helicopters from Type 42 destroyers Cardiff and Gloucester are dispatched with US forces to destroy two anti-aircraft batteries that had been constructed on oil platforms off the coast of Kuwait. 12 Iraqis were captured in the process becoming the first prisoners of war (POWs).
    * 24th January: Lynx 335 attacks three Iraqi vessels, sinking two minesweepers, off the Island of Quarah. Cardiff 's Lynx tries to capture a minelayer but the Iraqi crew scuttle the vessel and 22 are taken prisoner. The island is later captured.
    * 29th January: A flotilla of 17 landing craft, part of an attempted Iraqi amphibious assault on the town of Khafji, is spotted and engaged by Royal Navy Lynx helicopters. Flights from Brazen and Gloucester attack and sink one vessel while Lynx 335 from Cardiff sinks another. The remainder are damaged, destroyed or dispersed by American carrier based aircraft and Royal Navy Sea King helicopters.
    * 30th January: A convoy consisting of 3 Polnochny class landing ships, three TNC- 45 fast attack craft and a single Type 43 minelayer (also part of the attempted assault on Khafji) is identified. H.M.S Gloucester's Lynx destroys a TNC-45 with Cardiff and Brazen's helicopters attacking the T43. Gloucester's Lynx then destroys the other two TNC45's. Other units were damaged including a Polnochny that was later destroyed by RAF Jaguar aircraft.
    * 8th February: Lynx 335 attacks a Zhuk class patrol boat.
    * 11th February: Lynx 335 attacks and sinks another Zhuk Class patrol boat.
    * 15th February: H.M.S Manchester's Lynx helicopter sinks a salvage vessel named Aka.
    * 16th February: H.M.S Gloucester's Lynx destroys a Polonchy class landing craft."

http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/gulf.htm

 

[Haletown]

Something in this story doesn't add up right.

At Sikorsky's website they have news about the H92 meeting milestones and the S92 having reached 20,000 hrs ops with a civilian operator.  And there is not even a sniff of this that I can find in any aviation industry websites. 

So is it the helicopter or the mission avionics integration that is going south on this project ?  General Dynamics has that part of the project.  Or is the PMO changing requirements on the fly and changing the Scope of Work ?  Don't know but this story is too vague.

Another odd aspect of the story is announcing a 30 month schedule slip 11 months before first delivery . . .  if it turns out to be an accurate story then whoever is tracking Critical Path in the PMO has some 'splaining to do.  This kind of slip would have popped up a looooong time ago.

I'm going to wait & wee on this story until we get some more details.  I smell a preemptive ass covering happening.


and ref the discussion above about the role of the Cyclone (according to Sikorsky)

"The Cyclone will be multi-mission capable and will perform surface surveillance and control, subsurface surveillance and control, and utility operations that included search and rescue, passenger and cargo transfer, medical evacuations and tactical transport"

 

[MarkOttawa]

Did the the Liberals simply choose a lemon?  We were the launch customer for this naval version of a civilian design and so far no-one else has bought it.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lockheed-to-supply-alq210-derivative-for-ch148-helicopters-03221/#more
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,CLI1_DIV69_ETI263,00.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Haletown]

The S-92 has been quite successful selling on civy street - offshore oil, S&R uses come to mind and some of the best civilian fling wing firms have selected it - CHC being the largest helicopter operating company in the world and east coast based Cougar was the launch customer. If it wasn't working for them word would have leaked out by now.    I'll see if I can find some numbers.

I know the H-92 is not the same but there is far more in common than in a complete  new design and both are derived from the Blackhawk series.  So I think the technical risks on the aircraft development side of the program should be manageable.

So I don't think the actual aircraft is a lemon.  OF course, can't say for sure but my hunch is, if there is in fact, a 30 month slip, it will be in the mission systems integration part of the Program. 

But I'm just working a hunch . . . . . 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Haletown: You may well have it right;
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=226818

...
Mr. Myrhaugen, one of a number of retired officers who have campaigned hard to have the Sea Kings replaced, says negotiations are currently underway between Ottawa and Sikorsky, the prime contractor, to rewrite portions of the Cyclone procurement contract. He says new engineering requirements -- likely a result of technology advances in certain aircraft components, which weren't foreseen in 2004 -- mean the original contract must now be reworked.

"Manufacturers may well have new equipment or upgrades available. And as a result of it, they've come to a situation where the original contract is undeliverable," Mr. Myrhaugen said. "What's being negotiated between Sikorsky and the Crown is how we get the end product in view of that situation.

"This is not abnormal," he said, "but when contracts change, it has an impact on arrival time and cost, and it's almost like starting over in some respects."

The original 2004 contract included penalties against the manufacturer in the event of delivery delays. Mr. Myrhaugen says he isn't aware of any penalties being levied yet, and no official announcement has been made about any delays. Sikorsky's Web site still says the first Cyclone is due for delivery in November...

But note the headline from our ace journalists;

Arrival of new helicopters for army delayed

Mark
Ottawa

 

[cameron]

It's a nice looking bird that's for sure. 

Agreed.