Future Helicopters

[Good2Golf]

Here’s my proposal:

1. Don’t reinvent the wheel.

2. Decide to align either with Uncle Sam…or the Euros.

2.a. Pursue FVL if Uncle Sam.

2.b. Pursue NATO NGRC if Euros.

3. Conduct a practical, in-service extension program for both the Cormorant and Griffon, but to bridge until FLV/NGRC comes on line, not to re-capitalize existing fleets (149/146) for long-duration permanence.

4. Don’t mess with Cyclone and Chinook, other than start planning now for their respective mid-life programs - Hook should last until 2050 with modest midlife….it’s like a rotor-winged B-52…it’s design is ubiquitous- don’t f*** with it. 148…we’re into it now, it’ll be quite decent once it’s fully 2.0 capable. The effort wasted to frig with either won’t be worth the incremental spending to get something else.

 

[suffolkowner]

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 Christine 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)?

15 CH-147
14 CH-149
27 CH-148

seem like pretty small fleets to me. The Comorant may not be quite the orphan that the Cyclone is, but my understanding was that it is or was a fairly unique offering that Canada went with probably part of the reason Leonardo's upgrade cost so much.

The ship has sailed I think as far as fleet rationalization is concerned at this point, although there's lots of opportunity for failure here yet.

The V-280 and SB-Defiant look to offer a quantum leap forward in capability but maybe too complex and expensive for the RCAF but I hope I'm wrong. But are the V-280 and SB-Defiant good replacements for the CH-146, CH-149, and CH-148?

 

[Good2Golf]

Only the 148 is what I’d call a micro fleet, because those are the only ones on the planet.

147…ours are part of the larger family of close to 1000. Common user group support rounds out what we don’t do uniquely ourselves.

149, same as 147 but about a 200 units globally.

So how big do you think each of those fleets would have to be to be a better use of taxpayers money?

To answer your last question, if I was king for a day, I’d pick FVL/FLRAA to replace the 146, either one, they’re both excellent aircraft…perhaps leaning towards the 280. I would buy more 147s to replace the 149…start point 1:1 replacement, but if pressed, I’d buy less than 1:1, keep them all green (yellow is a logistical waste of assets and not needed for the rescuing aircraft, more the rescuee) to keep them rotatable. There are already four (4) FSims, 3 for pilots and one for cabin aircrew/gunnery sim, in Petawawa…in a pinch could deploy the deployable FSim to Comox, if it wasn’t already deployed out of country with a 147 detachment. For the 148? Like I said upthread…leave it alone and stop trying to replace it. Finish off the investing in it to make it one of the most capable MH to date, and get on with working it into a solid, capable machine that will help the CPF limp along until CSC comes in line.

 

[Kirkhill]

15 CH-147
14 CH-149
27 CH-148

seem like pretty small fleets to me. The Comorant may not be quite the orphan that the Cyclone is, but my understanding was that it is or was a fairly unique offering that Canada went with probably part of the reason Leonardo's upgrade cost so much.

The ship has sailed I think as far as fleet rationalization is concerned at this point, although there's lots of opportunity for failure here yet.

The V-280 and SB-Defiant look to offer a quantum leap forward in capability but maybe too complex and expensive for the RCAF but I hope I'm wrong. But are the V-280 and SB-Defiant good replacements for the CH-146, CH-149, and CH-148?

Get Bell to deliver 4 Valors on a "try before you buy" lease. If we like them we can keep them and order more. Find out what we can do with them.

 

[MilEME09]

Get Bell to deliver 4 Valors on a "try before you buy" lease. If we like them we can keep them and order more. Find out what we can do with them.

You mean actually let our pilots get ahold of the kit to get their opinions before we buy? We don't do that here

 

[SupersonicMax]

You mean actually let our pilots get ahold of the kit to get their opinions before we buy? We don't do that here

We actually do that. It’s called and Initial Operational Assessment. We did it for the FWSAR project. We had pilots fly the C-27 and CASA 295.

 

[suffolkowner]

Only the 148 is what I’d call a micro fleet, because those are the only ones on the planet.

147…ours are part of the larger family of close to 1000. Common user group support rounds out what we don’t do uniquely ourselves.

149, same as 147 but about a 200 units globally.

So how big do you think each of those fleets would have to be to be a better use of taxpayers money?

To answer your last question, if I was king for a day, I’d pick FLV/FLRAA to replace the 146, either one, they’re both excellent aircraft…perhaps leaning towards the 280. I would buy more 147s to replace the 149…start point 1:1 replacement, but if pressed, I’d buy less than 1:1, keep them all green (yellow is a logistical waste of assets and not needed for the rescuing aircraft, more the rescuee) to keep them rotatable. There are already four (4) FSims, 3 for pilots and one for cabin aircrew/gunnery sim, in Petawawa…in a pinch could deploy the deployable FSim to Comox, if it wasn’t already deployed out of country with a 147 detachment. For the 148? Like I said upthread…leave it alone and stop trying to replace it. Finish off the investing in it to make it one of the most capable MH to date, and get in with working it into a solid, cap le machine that will help the CPF limp along until CSC comes in line.

If the RCAF can maintain them then its not a problem but all I hear from my Army buddies is the difficulties they have had with their "micro" fleets which are huge in comparison. I have read much the same numerous times on this site. The RCAF itself doesn't want to operate more than fighter plane but operates 4 helicopter fleets with 3 of them less than 30 airframes and still doesn't have an attack or recce capability

 

[Good2Golf]

You’re not answering the question as to what then, is a ‘sustainable’ fleet size?

If the RCAF can maintain them then its not a problem but all I hear from my Army buddies is the difficulties they have had with their "micro" fleets which are huge in comparison.

A Navy buddy of mine told me how bad the Army was at sustaining the TLAVs, Leo2s and the MSVS, and that about the only vehicle
working out well is the TAPV….



…see how that sounds?

The Army…ie. the organization that was in charge of providing procurement funding for tactical aviation up until 1994? You mean the organization where Comd FMC accordingly approved the ‘divest Chinook’ order in 1991, and bought off on Marcel Masse’s plan to buy 100 Bell 412 in 1992?

“Alex, I’ll take ‘Organizations not to trust with your livelihood’ for $800…”

 

[Kirkhill]

Only the 148 is what I’d call a micro fleet, because those are the only ones on the planet.

147…ours are part of the larger family of close to 1000. Common user group support rounds out what we don’t do uniquely ourselves.

149, same as 147 but about a 200 units globally.

So how big do you think each of those fleets would have to be to be a better use of taxpayers money?

To answer your last question, if I was king for a day, I’d pick FLV/FLRAA to replace the 146, either one, they’re both excellent aircraft…perhaps leaning towards the 280. I would buy more 147s to replace the 149…start point 1:1 replacement, but if pressed, I’d buy less than 1:1, keep them all green (yellow is a logistical waste of assets and not needed for the rescuing aircraft, more the rescuee) to keep them rotatable. There are already four (4) FSims, 3 for pilots and one for cabin aircrew/gunnery sim, in Petawawa…in a pinch could deploy the deployable FSim to Comox, if it wasn’t already deployed out of country with a 147 detachment. For the 148? Like I said upthread…leave it alone and stop trying to replace it. Finish off the investing in it to make it one of the most capable MH to date, and get in with working it into a solid, cap le machine that will help the CPF limp along until CSC comes in line.

G2G

Where does Bell Textron stand on a non-ITAR, commercial variant of the technology?

 

[Kirkhill]

If the RCAF can maintain them then its not a problem but all I hear from my Army buddies is the difficulties they have had with their "micro" fleets which are huge in comparison. I have read much the same numerous times on this site. The RCAF itself doesn't want to operate more than fighter plane but operates 4 helicopter fleets with 3 of them less than 30 airframes and still doesn't have an attack or recce capability

It also operates 4 Twin Otters, 4 Challengers, 5 Globemasters, 5 A310-300s, 15 Buffalos, 17+ Hercs. It also operates Jet Rangers, Hawks, Harvards and Tutors.

Micro-Fleet Management seems to be an RCAF specialty.

List of active Canadian military aircraft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[suffolkowner]

You’re not answering the question as to what then, is a ‘sustainable’ fleet size?



A Navy buddy of mine told me how bad the Army was at sustaining the TLAVs, Leo2s and the MSVS, and that about the only vehicle
working out well is the TAPV….



…see how that sounds?

The Army…ie. the organization that was in charge of providing procurement funding for tactical aviation up until 1994? You mean the organization where Comd FMC accordingly approved the ‘divest Chinook’ order in 1991, and bought off on Marcel Masse’s plan to buy 100 Bell 412 in 1992?

“Alex, I’ll take ‘Organizations not to trust with your livelihood’ for $800…”

Yep I'm going on hearsay. 75% of which I've read on here. The RCAF itself says it can't afford to run 2 fighter jet fleets. I don't have access to the numbers what are the CPFH? What are the sustainability numbers? What are the maintabiity numbers?

I'm sure there's some work out there on sustainable fleet sizes from the commercial world, I'm just not familiar with them. I've maintained lot's of truely orphan fleets over the decades down to complete one offs. I could also get same day or next day parts. If the RCAF doesn't have any issues on that account by all means continue and add 15 Lakota's and 15 Apaches. I've always strived for commonality and fleet rationalization if at all possible, although there are limits to how far you can stretch a platform, obviously.

 

[suffolkowner]

It also operates 4 Twin Otters, 4 Challengers, 5 Globemasters, 5 A310-300s, 15 Buffalos, 17+ Hercs. It also operates Jet Rangers, Hawks, Harvards and Tutors.

Micro-Fleet Management seems to be an RCAF specialty.

List of active Canadian military aircraft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

True, and maybe they're good at it. Do they do it on purpose though?
Do we actually think we're better off with 14 Comorants and 27 Cyclones than the original order Chretien cancelled?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

It was not the line aircrew that traded away the Cyclone Flight Sim for Victoria, I can assure you.

When Projects get unrealistic and artificial politically imposed caps, this is what happens.

 

[dapaterson]

There have been opportunities post project to address some (not all) of these issues, which were not pursued aggressively by senior leadership.

Almost as if we have too many interim layers between the operational squadrons and the command suite of the RCAF, so those requirements get filtered out. (Not a problem unique to the RCAF.)

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There have been opportunities post project to address some (not all) of these issues, which were not pursued aggressively by senior leadership.

Almost as if we have too many interim layers between the operational squadrons and the command suite of the RCAF, so those requirements get filtered out. (Not a problem unique to the RCAF.)

Not wrong. Does not help when a certain Comd 12 Wing, who never served on the west coast, says “no, really, we will be fine with 443 Sqn racking up the air miles for all eternity”. Or words to that effect…

 

[Good2Golf]

There have been opportunities post project to address some (not all) of these issues, which were not pursued aggressively by senior leadership.

Almost as if we have too many interim layers between the operational squadrons and the command suite of the RCAF, so those requirements get filtered out. (Not a problem unique to the RCAF.)

You forgot the ever-helpfulness of very senior civilians and their seconded military members, in the process. The RCAF certainly should eat operationally-myopic issues. Strat/Departmental constraints? Yeah, like a DM-enabled ADM really has to put up with pesky operators’ input. SKT’s point about a WComd of the day illuminates the case of damage that can occur when an old boy member of an operational community who got more than a rank or two beyond competency, plays god as best they can.

It is absolutely a two-way street inside of the Department, and I think many like to believe that military peons have more power than they truly do, doing the peoples’/Government’s bidding.

I personally saw the vehemence of the constraints imposed on the Canadian Sesrch Helicopter capital project back in 95-97, and is was nowhere near operators saying they didn’t need an FSim in Camada, and years later, I personally watched a colleague get the same treatment in MHP…

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You forgot the ever-helpfulness of very senior civilians and their seconded military members, in the process. The RCAF certainly should eat operationally-myopic issues. Strat/Departmental constraints? Yeah, like a DM-enabled ADM really has to put up with pesky operators’ input.

It is absolutely a two-way street inside of the Department, and I think many like to believe that military peons have more power than they truly do, doing the peoples’/Government’s bidding.

I personally saw the vehemence of the constraints imposed on the Canadian Sesrch Helicopter capital project back in 95-97, and is was nowhere near operators saying they didn’t need an FSim in Camada, and years later, I personally watched a colleague get the same treatment in MHP…

And don’t get me started on the “efficiency analysts” who pointed out what a waste a Flight Sim would be, if only utilized to 40% capacity.

Tell me again what the opportunity cost is for 50(ish) aircrew to spend a minimum of two weeks per year in Shearwater, on top of sea going deployments?

 

[Good2Golf]

G2G

Where does Bell Textron stand on a non-ITAR, commercial variant of the technology?

As far as I know at this point, V-280 is definitely going to be ITAR for some time.

 

[Kirkhill]

As far as I know at this point, V-280 is definitely going to be ITAR for some time.

I thought I remembered seeing some company literature discussing the promotion of a civil/commercial version of the technology.

Techi-Color false memories again?

 

[Good2Golf]

And don’t get me started on the “efficiency analysts” who pointed out what a waste a Flight Sim would be, if only utilized to 40% capacity.

Tell me again what the opportunity cost is for 50(ish) aircrew to spend a minimum of two weeks per year in Shearwater, on top of sea going deployments?

I’d blame it entirely in DCostS and the wonderfully types like JZ, but that particular flavour of infinitesimal introspection hadn’t been born yet…I will say that I think when the window was open for flexibility, it slammed shut with higher-level, it’s done, move on-like force that overtook the operational downside and time and monetary cost impact of a single sim. It was definitely oroject-specific because I have it in good authority that at the same time, another fleet project was pitching and got four sims in one location (1/4 was/is deployable but C-130 to any theatre of operations).