Future Helicopters

[Dale Denton]

You could make the argument that RCAF may be better off getting additional Chinooks instead of investing more into that airframe?

The Chinook has more of a future in it than the Griffon does, simply due to how its sales are still strong, and the industry isn't too focused on developing something to replace it either.

Ideally, we could pay off Bell to stay in Mirabel for at least 3 more decades and buy +115 Bell V-280s to replace Griffons, Cormorants and Cyclones (early). Replaces at least 2 airframes with a new more capable one built in Canada and militarized from the get-go.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I don't believe you can replace the Cyclones with the Bell V-280. I may be mistaken, but I think that the V-280 wings are fixed, as are the blades of the propellers and cannot fold and pivot over the main airframe so as to be stowable in a ship's hagar. That would simply make the V-280 require way too much real estate on a ship smaller than an aircraft carrier - real estate that cannot be provided by such smaller ship.

 

[KevinB]

You could make the argument that RCAF may be better off getting additional Chinooks instead of investing more into that airframe?

The Chinook has more of a future in it than the Griffon does, simply due to how its sales are still strong, and the industry isn't too focused on developing something to replace it either.

Ideally, we could pay off Bell to stay in Mirabel for at least 3 more decades and buy +115 Bell V-280s to replace Griffons, Cormorants and Cyclones (early). Replaces at least 2 airframes with a new more capable one built in Canada and militarized from the get-go.

I would accept the UH-1Y "Venom" as a good Griffon 'upgrade' - similar airframe, with a great deal more capability.

My personal belief is Canada needs 3-4 Sqn of Chinooks, 3-4 Sqn of AH, and about 20 Sqn of L/M UH to support all the CF's needs
AH-1Y, UH-1Y, and V-280's could be done by Bell - and Being continues on the Hooks in the USA.
*I also think the CF needs to stick Vertical Lift Forces into it's own Command - and then OPCOM Squardons to the Supported element.

I don't believe you can replace the Cyclones with the Bell V-280. I may be mistaken, but I think that the V-280 wings are fixed, as are the blades of the propellers and cannot fold and pivot over the main airframe so as to be stowable in a ship's hagar. That would simply make the V-280 require way too much real estate on a ship smaller than an aircraft carrier - real estate that cannot be provided by such smaller ship.

The model that they had at AUSA last year did fold - both wings and rotors. It packed down to around the size of a Sikorski UH-60
I believe it might be a model option - not done on a base model.

But while I am offering what the CF needs, I would say at least 2 Amphibious ships - which offer small deck carrier capabilities.

 

[suffolkowner]

You could make the argument that RCAF may be better off getting additional Chinooks instead of investing more into that airframe?

The Chinook has more of a future in it than the Griffon does, simply due to how its sales are still strong, and the industry isn't too focused on developing something to replace it either.

Ideally, we could pay off Bell to stay in Mirabel for at least 3 more decades and buy +115 Bell V-280s to replace Griffons, Cormorants and Cyclones (early). Replaces at least 2 airframes with a new more capable one built in Canada and militarized from the get-go.

Interesting as I thought we missed an opportunity in Afghanistan along with the Sikorsky situation to move to a dual fleet of 85/15 Griffons and the rest EH101's. Obviously there would be some challenges as the EH101 is not a direct replacement for the Chinook but at the time we didn't have any and I think the larger mass of airframes would have been beneficial. 28 Marine Helicopters + 14 SAR + 15 Transport = 57 total EH101's. With the move to one aircraft I would think we could have squeezed a few more airframes in there say 30/20/20 for 70 easily.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the V-280 folded up diagrams as Kevin mentioned too

 

[FJAG]

Interesting as I thought we missed an opportunity in Afghanistan along with the Sikorsky situation to move to a dual fleet of 85/15 Griffons and the rest EH101's. Obviously there would be some challenges as the EH101 is not a direct replacement for the Chinook but at the time we didn't have any and I think the larger mass of airframes would have been beneficial. 28 Marine Helicopters + 14 SAR + 15 Transport = 57 total EH101's. With the move to one aircraft I would think we could have squeezed a few more airframes in there say 30/20/20 for 70 easily.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the V-280 folded up diagrams as Kevin mentioned too

But if we'd gone that route in 2008 wouldn't we still be waiting for the first helicopter to be delivered?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'm pretty sure I've seen the V-280 folded up diagrams as Kevin mentioned too

Are you sure, though? I've seen diagrams of how it can be disassembled and "packed" for transport by C-5 or C-17, but never seen any "self-foldable" model. BTW, such self-folding is definetely another level of mechanical complexity. If it's not required by the Army, I don't see why they would bother including such complexity in a mass produced model.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Are you sure, though? I've seen diagrams of how it can be disassembled and "packed" for transport by C-5 or C-17, but never seen any "self-foldable" model. BTW, such self-folding is definetely another level of mechanical complexity. If it's not required by the Army, I don't see why they would bother including such complexity in a mass produced model.

The blade fold system is complex and adds both a weight and a disproportionate maintenance penalty. You would never install one on a helicopter unless there was absolutely no other way to do business.

 

[MilEME09]

I would accept the UH-1Y "Venom" as a good Griffon 'upgrade' - similar airframe, with a great deal more capability.

My personal belief is Canada needs 3-4 Sqn of Chinooks, 3-4 Sqn of AH, and about 20 Sqn of L/M UH to support all the CF's needs
AH-1Y, UH-1Y, and V-280's could be done by Bell - and Being continues on the Hooks in the USA.
*I also think the CF needs to stick Vertical Lift Forces into it's own Command - and then OPCOM Squardons to the Supported element.


The model that they had at AUSA last year did fold - both wings and rotors. It packed down to around the size of a Sikorski UH-60
I believe it might be a model option - not done on a base model.

But while I am offering what the CF needs, I would say at least 2 Amphibious ships - which offer small deck carrier capabilities.

Pretty sure the senate defense committee came to a similar conclusion years ago. Being a nation surrounded by three oceans and a close ally, I have stated many times I believe any expansion in the CAF should be in the airforce and the navy.

 

[Good2Golf]

Interesting as I thought we missed an opportunity in Afghanistan along with the Sikorsky situation to move to a dual fleet of 85/15 Griffons and the rest EH101's. Obviously there would be some challenges as the EH101 is not a direct replacement for the Chinook but at the time we didn't have any and I think the larger mass of airframes would have been beneficial. 28 Marine Helicopters + 14 SAR + 15 Transport = 57 total EH101's. With the move to one aircraft I would think we could have squeezed a few more airframes in there say 30/20/20 for 70 easily.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the V-280 folded up diagrams as Kevin mentioned too

???

Are you saying divest the Chinooks and replace them with EH-101s?

Perhaps you hadn’t notice, but that ship sailed far, far away almost 30 years ago. Your pan-fleet ‘savings’ would never in 100 years be made up with the loss of expended capital on the CH-147F and CH-148. The operational capability loss by watering down (true) heavy lift to less than half the capacity at the best of times is another consideration why trying to go backwards by decades is a horrible idea.

Oh, and there’s no way in Hell that the current Government would even consider tarnishing Jean Chrétien’s legacy by directly opposing his actions of almost 30 years ago.

Last bit is the consideration that even the UK doesn’t put its EH-101’s very far from sea level. A good friend in the RAF flew both Chinooks and Merlins (Hooks in AFG and both in IRQ) and he said the only thing good about the Merlin is it’s smoothness, compared to the ‘Chinny.’

If anything, the out of box option would be to decommission the Cormorant, and roll CMLU funds into a capital procurement of additional CH-147Fs, whack a rescue hoist and weather radar on them, and end of with a tandem back in RWSAR, a Labrador-on-steroids, if you will.

$0.02

 

[KevinB]

Are you sure, though? I've seen diagrams of how it can be disassembled and "packed" for transport by C-5 or C-17, but never seen any "self-foldable" model. BTW, such self-folding is definetely another level of mechanical complexity. If it's not required by the Army, I don't see why they would bother including such complexity in a mass produced model.

The blade fold system is complex and adds both a weight and a disproportionate maintenance penalty. You would never install one on a helicopter unless there was absolutely no other way to do business.

USSOCOM requirements.
I don't think it is "self fold", at least not based on that was shown - but quickly convertible.
Which is why I think that version was an "optional" variant.
It is much easier to put a CLIN Variant as part of a contract - I wouldn't expect that most of the bird would require it - but for those who would have that requirement - you get the benefits of getting a larger fleet support for a high amount of components.



*and I blame autocorrect for changing Boeing into Being in my above post...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Quickly convertible is definitely not the same as "self-folding" and at sea, it makes a world of difference. You would still need techs to go crawling up and down the bird to carry out some disassembling or folding ... and I can tell you they ain't doing that on a HAL flight deck in sea state 3 and above.

Another strike against using the V-280 in a ASW shipboard version would also be its inability to operate in just about any sea state other than 0 or 1. Anyone who has seen a helicopter trap on a frigate or destroyer in high sea state knows that while the helicopter stays horizontal during the winch down, the ship rolls under it, raising one side of the flight deck then the other in relation to the horizontal plane, with the rotor tips having the potential to hit the deck edge or get tangled in the safety netting that surrounds the flight deck. The V-280 having wings and then large rotors becomes extremely wide in relation to the width of the ship, greatly increasing those same risks even at a small level of rolling. Landing would quickly become impossible even at what is otherwise considered (for standard helicopters) a fairly routine level of rolling.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Quickly convertible is definitely not the same as "self-folding" and at sea, it makes a world of difference. You would still need techs to go crawling up and down the bird to carry out some disassembling or folding ... and I can tell you they ain't doing that on a HAL flight deck in sea state 3 and above.

Another strike against using the V-280 in a ASW shipboard version would also be its inability to operate in just about any sea state other than 0 or 1. Anyone who has seen a helicopter trap on a frigate or destroyer in high sea state knows that while the helicopter stays horizontal during the winch down, the ship rolls under it, raising one side of the flight deck then the other in relation to the horizontal plane, with the rotor tips having the potential to hit the deck edge or get tangled in the safety netting that surrounds the flight deck. The V-280 having wings and then large rotors becomes extremely wide in relation to the width of the ship, greatly increasing those same risks even at a small level of rolling. Landing would quickly become impossible even at what is otherwise considered (for standard helicopters) a fairly routine level of rolling.

That is not exactly how it works.

On a frigate sized vessel, the helicopter will stay in the high hover well away from the deck, waiting for the quiescent period (also known as the steady deck that occurs every 15-45 seconds and lasts for 5-10 secs in virtually any sea state that I have ever seen). Only when the deck is more or less level, will the helicopter descend to attempt the trap. There really is no point where your rotor tips should be anywhere close to the deck/nets.

 

[suffolkowner]

Are you sure, though? I've seen diagrams of how it can be disassembled and "packed" for transport by C-5 or C-17, but never seen any "self-foldable" model. BTW, such self-folding is definetely another level of mechanical complexity. If it's not required by the Army, I don't see why they would bother including such complexity in a mass produced model.

looking at some from google it looks like just models and cgi stuff

GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[suffolkowner]

???

Are you saying divest the Chinooks and replace them with EH-101s?

Perhaps you hadn’t notice, but that ship sailed far, far away almost 30 years ago. Your pan-fleet ‘savings’ would never in 100 years be made up with the loss of expended capital on the CH-147F and CH-148. The operational capability loss by watering down (true) heavy lift to less than half the capacity at the best of times is another consideration why trying to go backwards by decades is a horrible idea.

Oh, and there’s no way in Hell that the current Government would even consider tarnishing Jean Chrétien’s legacy by directly opposing his actions of almost 30 years ago.

Last bit is the consideration that even the UK doesn’t put its EH-101’s very far from sea level. A good friend in the RAF flew both Chinooks and Merlins (Hooks in AFG and both in IRQ) and he said the only thing good about the Merlin is it’s smoothness, compared to the ‘Chinny.’

If anything, the out of box option would be to decommission the Cormorant, and roll CMLU funds into a capital procurement of additional CH-147Fs, whack a rescue hoist and weather radar on them, and end of with a tandem back in RWSAR, a Labrador-on-steroids, if you will.

$0.02

NO I meant before we bought the CH-147F's. The timing doesn't really work out though as you are looking at 2009 for the Chinooks I believe and the CH-148's didn't hit the fan really until 2013.

Instead we have a true micro fleet of heavy lift helicopters and two micro fleets of one off medium lift helicopters.

 

[MilEME09]

NO I meant before we bought the CH-147F's. The timing doesn't really work out though as you are looking at 2009 for the Chinooks I believe and the CH-148's didn't hit the fan really until 2013.

Instead we have a true micro fleet of heavy lift helicopters and two micro fleets of one off medium lift helicopters.

If anything we should invest in CH-53K or more chinooks for heavy lift. The 53K could also make a good Griffon replacement, can carry a lot, and go the distance, keep it navalized which would benefit us if we ever got into the LHD game.

 

[suffolkowner]

If anything we should invest in CH-53K or more chinooks for heavy lift. The 53K could also make a good Griffon replacement, can carry a lot, and go the distance, keep it navalized which would benefit us if we ever got into the LHD game.

I don't disagree that more chinooks would be good. The 53 seems a little big for a Griffon replacement. The Chinook might make a good SAR helicopter but expensive?

 

[Good2Golf]

NO I meant before we bought the CH-147F's. The timing doesn't really work out though as you are looking at 2009 for the Chinooks I believe and the CH-148's didn't hit the fan really until 2013.

Instead we have a true micro fleet of heavy lift helicopters and two micro fleets of one off medium lift helicopters.

True that there was actually a small window in the 91-92 period where there was consideration of adding in 15 NTH to the 50 (35+15) NSA-NSH program, but Chrétien killed it, so it really doesn’t do much good now to try and imagine ‘what could have been’…we could have also accepted the US AH-1S gift in the 80s when the US was downsizing in European forces and costed it as being cheaper to gift the Cobras to Camada to replace the OH-58A Kiowas than to ship them back home to stick them in Davis-Monthan…but, like the free offer of surplus C-141 Starlifters we turned down just before that, we continued muddling on.

I’m intrigued by your characterization of the Chinooks as a micro-fleet…to the US with 600+ Chinooks, perhaps micro is right. For Canada, it’s twice as big as the original C-models, 2-1/2 times as big as the D-models we flew in AFG, and has proven itself quite capably. What are the other “micro” fleets you mention? Cormorant and Cyclone? Cyclone I’ll give you, but the CH-149 is a 101-rose by another name.

Question for you then, how big does a fleet have to be before it’s not micro (assuming you’re using micro in a negative sense)?

 

[dapaterson]

If the CH149 was a 101 by another name, we wouldn't have to waste YFR to retrain pilots after they recert on overseas 101 simulators.

The RCAF's refusal to insist on sims as part of every aircraft acquisition (and multiple sims for fleets dispersed nationally) is a head scratcher. Almost as if they want aircrew to fly from Victoria to Vancouver to Calgary to Hamilton to Moncton to Montreal to Halifax and back, several times a year.

 

[Good2Golf]

Griffon is a doctrinal UTTH…like a Black Hawk…or UH-1Y…or NH-90…or Super Puma/Caracal…or AW169…or the FLV FLRAA (V-280 or Defiant X). A King Stallion is so far away from a UTTH type helicopter that only the Mi-26 is a more insane proposal for replacement. So let’s take the CH-53K’s projected 2022 fly-away cost of 94M USD and multiply by 2.5 for an estimated 29-year life-cycle cost, and multiply by an average of 1.25 FOREX to CAD and multiply by 85 aircraft (since it seems replacing Griffon with the King Stallion to give the same numbers of utility helos across the various RCAF squadrons currently equipped with Griffon, then we get…

$24.97 Billion (CAD).

Perhaps we risk having a ‘micro-fleet’ of 53Ks and only get…say, 15 for a cool $4.4 Billion…which seems like….a really bad idea…I mean, beyond giving each current Griffon squadron just two, or maybe three CH-53Ks.

 

[Good2Golf]

If the CH149 was a 101 by another name, we wouldn't have to waste YFR to retrain pilots after they recert on overseas 101 simulators.

The RCAF's refusal to insist on sims as part of every aircraft acquisition (and multiple sims for fleets dispersed nationally) is a head scratcher. Almost as if they want aircrew to fly from Victoria to Vancouver to Calgary to Hamilton to Moncton to Montreal to Halifax and back, several times a year.

I wouldn’t be quick to blame project staff for wanting to facilitate aircrew swanning across country to some great resort like….Greenwood, as the cause of all things unsustainable where Cormorant is concerned.

Historically, Chretien…errr…PMO…umm…TBS… MND capped the Cormorant program at $650M. That’s why they only got 15…and no FSims…and no other critical capabilities, like thermal sensors…that would have been helpful in finding warm things…like people (at least if they were still alive to be found).