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

Future Helicopters

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,900
Points
1,040
Could help in SAR and be great for all the future LENTUS's (or Lentusi?)

That made me look it up. I'm like that. 😁

Did you know that "lentus" in Latin is an adjective that translates as: clinging, tough; slow, sluggish, lazy, procrastinating; easy, pliant.

Maybe we should take more care with the names we give to operations.

:unsure:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
731
Points
940
That made me look it up. I'm like that. 😁

Did you know that "lentus" in Latin is an adjective that translates as: clinging, tough; slow, sluggish, lazy, procrastinating; easy, pliant.

Maybe we should take more care with the names we give to operations.

:unsure:
To defeat the enemy you must become the enemy - Sun Tzu, CAF took it too literally unfortunately and became its own worst enemy.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,188
Points
910
With SAR being proven so valuable, a beefing up of our rotary wing capability should be an easy win for the RCAF if they really pushed for it. Could help in SAR and be great for all the future LENTUS's (or Lentusi?)

How more valuable would another 2 squadrons of Chinooks be? Would be a boon for mobility as well, less reliance on griffons. Now would be a good time to push for a LPD/LPH that would've been able to be parked off Vancouver right about now.

Could pave the way to buy US concessions for EVs in the infrastructure bill for a full replacement of the Griffons with a Canadianized Bell V-280. We can jump in on the Blackhawk replacement this time, and from the get-go. FVL program should have legs, as long as they aren't outrageously expensive, CDN suppliers would have a lot to gain. What CDN gov't would care about the cost though, to curry favour with QC in Mirabel and Biden at the same time?
The issue would be if Sikorsky won FVL - then Bell would be out...
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
136
Points
430
Maybe the Marines will go with the V-280 and the Army with the SB-Defiant keeping everybody happy and providing options for other allied nations. Is that possible?
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
That made me look it up. I'm like that. 😁

Did you know that "lentus" in Latin is an adjective that translates as: clinging, tough; slow, sluggish, lazy, procrastinating; easy, pliant.

Maybe we should take more care with the names we give to operations.

:unsure:
I don't think it was a coincidence... I think someone got surprised that they got away with a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Its a gamble for Bell to be chosen, and I doubt we'd want to pick another sikorsky product...

And we would be that guy who has yet another orphan fleet of Bell products. At least they're purpose-built military aircraft... I'd be fine with being the only ones to make and fly them, either way its a big upgrade for us. We could be the ones to offer a cheap Canadian-assembled tiltrotors to our friends (hoping they're cheaper than Sikorsky's Defiant).
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
203
Points
630
does Viking own the rights to the Canadair tiltrotor along with the other licenses they bought?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,188
Points
910
Maybe the Marines will go with the V-280 and the Army with the SB-Defiant keeping everybody happy and providing options for other allied nations. Is that possible?
Right now no - while the USMC is watching FVL they don't have a seat on it.
Technically the way FVL is structured right now - both Sikorsky and Bell could get dual awards and split delivery.


I don't think it was a coincidence... I think someone got surprised that they got away with a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Its a gamble for Bell to be chosen, and I doubt we'd want to pick another sikorsky product...
The CAF has picked a lot of Sikorsky products over the years - the issue is they haven't been the ones the Government of Canada has wanted - hence the CSAF got the Griffon as opposed to the UH-60.

Also Sikorsky for some reason submitted their dog for Cyclone - as opposed to the SeaHawk - which would have been a better choice (IMHO) as it would have also given the potential to creep in to TacHel.
And we would be that guy who has yet another orphan fleet of Bell products. At least they're purpose-built military aircraft... I'd be fine with being the only ones to make and fly them, either way its a big upgrade for us. We could be the ones to offer a cheap Canadian-assembled tiltrotors to our friends (hoping they're cheaper than Sikorsky's Defiant).
The V-280 is ITAR and only going to go to 5I's folks - who are all watching FVL - so if Bell doesn't win, non of them are going to take it.

This thread goes to show how truly FUBAR Canada is in procurement -- realistically Canada should have a RCAF presence in FVL and buying in to whomever wins - who cares if Bell doesn't get the job - pick the right tool for the troops - the CAF should not be some imbeciles pork barrel whipping boy
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,806
Points
940
One would think that Sikorsky would provide a good marine ASW helicopter as they invented the niche. I have no direct knowledge of the Seahawk, but have read that the ASW version is quite cramped and limited. Plus how the USN and the RCN uses ASW helicopters is quite different. Having the bigger airframe does give some significant benefits.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,188
Points
910
One would think that Sikorsky would provide a good marine ASW helicopter as they invented the niche. I have no direct knowledge of the Seahawk, but have read that the ASW version is quite cramped and limited. Plus how the USN and the RCN uses ASW helicopters is quite different. Having the bigger airframe does give some significant benefits.
Admittedly I have only gotten to crawl through one while it was parked on the deck of something I was on - the crew liked it - but I dot know if they had a lot of exposure to other things.
It was the MH-60S - and there seem to be a slew of older models with less room - the MH-60S didn't seem to have any less room that the MH-60G PaveHawk
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Since when would we pick any alternative to a Canadian-made option?
At least CAF planners should work with our +150 year history of doing so, or domestic industry not sell their product more aggressively?
If we somehow already made SSKs and fighters in Canada you think we wouldn't've already replaced both?

I'd have us buy off AUKUS membership with fleets of US/UK/AU vehicles/AC/ships as contenders. Ultimately buy Canadian where possible but they'll bite with instantly becoming pre-contenders in all of our projects.

If Bell is successful in FVL then commit to it in 10 years while refitting Griffons into UH-1Ys and AH-1Zs. Buy the recently mothballed Venoms and Cobras and refit them. Build in Canada an amphib vessel similar to something the USMC would operate from. Train crews on USMC ships in the meantime. The platforms are already navalized. Buy US political figures with strategic buys in congressional districts. It's much more safer politically than making concessions (dairy, grain, etc...) to Biden for some EV grants and US Infrastructure money.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,188
Points
910
Since when would we pick any alternative to a Canadian-made option?
The problem with that is IF the Canadian made option is terribad...
Then you get another Griffon or LSVW.
At least CAF planners should work with our +150 year history of doing so, or domestic industry not sell their product more aggressively?
If we somehow already made SSKs and fighters in Canada you think we wouldn't've already replaced both?
Part of the point to buying into Allied programs is the industrial offsets locally - you may not build all of it - but you get a decent sized pie.
Canada has a habit of hacking off an arm for political whims - see EH-101, F-35 etc.

I'd have us buy off AUKUS membership with fleets of US/UK/AU vehicles/AC/ships as contenders. Ultimately buy Canadian where possible but they'll bite with instantly becoming pre-contenders in all of our projects.
From my understanding the Navy has opted for that - pick an Allied design - get in with some mods - and build in Canada, given the ship building strategy -
If Bell is successful in FVL then commit to it in 10 years while refitting Griffons into UH-1Ys and AH-1Zs. Buy the recently mothballed Venoms and Cobras and refit them.
If Bell isn't successful - then you have an issue - either getting cast off UH-1Y's, or an orphan fleet of 280's, or sucking up to Sikorsky.
If you buy into FVL at the onset - you hedge your bets that if Sky won, there would be enough offsets to minimize the fallout from Bell.
Or again the GoC goes full EH-101 and you wait 10 years to get less for more of a the airframe you wanted in the first place...

Build in Canada an amphib vessel similar to something the USMC would operate from. Train crews on USMC ships in the meantime. The platforms are already navalized. Buy US political figures with strategic buys in congressional districts. It's much more safer politically than making concessions (dairy, grain, etc...) to Biden for some EV grants and US Infrastructure money.
Lines may stay open for Political reasons - but programs themselves are rarely - as most of the large defense companies are spread out over a large enough areas that they have overlapping fields of fire.
The RCN seems to have zero interest in the amphibious ships - and without a need specified from the GoC they won't even take that role on.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Just let me keep my optimism that we'd at least have a coherent plan that is a part of an overall strategy and not kick this can (along with many others) down the road.

I'm hedging my bets on things we already could reasonably build (with excessive fine print) or buy from companies with even a mild presence in. It's a more reasonable bet that any gov't would go for these options.

We don't have an industrial strategy that considers our domestic defence industry. Bell is a big player, so if we cared enough we could build on top of their (and others') infrastructure.

Build with the tools you have etc...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,806
Points
940
Replacing the current machines will save money in the long run and make things easier on the maintainers while improving the fleet reliability and capability. Bell and Canada would both benefit and would be a risk free contract with much political goodwill. Particularly as they would be replacing the machines flying domestic ops right now, so it would be a good time to make that announcement. Ditto for the Twin Otters and we could double that fleet and have the extras manned by Reservists. The Helicopters could be replaced in batches of say 20 a year, spreading out the costs and keeping people employed for longer.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
...Or even the next 10 years that it would take to get the project start to the first build.

I mentioned in other threads, but pick a few capabilities and tell industry that if they stay in Canada and even loosely meets our needs, we'll build it.

Commit to:
Canadian assembly, continuous refining, 10 yr refit, 10 year development of improvements and a first build.

Rotary Wing: Bell takes the big slice, Other companies for subsystems and all other aircraft.

Armoured Personnel Carriers: GDLS-C, build all variants on a common LAV 6.0 platform, then transition to the UKs Boxer, growing into a full spectrum of variants.

Shipbuilding: Building OPVs, AORs, and warships
 
Top