CH-146 Griffon

[CBH99]

Are you ruling out the building of V-280 knock-offs by China’s basal state north of the USA and south of the North Pole?

I see it as a very slim possibility.

Canada didn't invest any funds into any of the development of the next generation helicopter programs, nor barely mentioned any interest thus far

Nor does the Bell Textron plant in Canada manufacture any of their military product lines


I don't see Bell wanting to invest a bunch of money into various changes to that plant to build airframes and provide jobs to Canadians when Canada didn't invest a dime into any of the former/current programs or expressed any interest yet in even purchasing the product.

The only way i see it happening is if the Canadian government takes proactive steps & it ultimately benefits Bell, OR if their order book is so chalk full of orders they have to increase production capacity and it makes sense to expand that capacity to include their Canadian plant (for various parts, or whole aircraft)


I don't see us building any knockoff versions for China here for some pretty obvious reasons but also, why export manufacturing jobs to a country who's labour is almost infinitely more expensive & takes away from their own military industrial capacity? (Not to mention benefits for their workers, insurance policies of various sorts, etc etc)

Plus Trudeau will be gone by then, so we won't have such an admirer of theirs at the helm.

 

[GR66]

Then there's the newer "super medium" helicopters like the AW139/149 and the Bell 525 still being developed.

I really wanted to like the 280. I just cannot as there are too many missions it can’t do.

Given the cancellation of FARA and the relatively slow roll of the 280, I suspect there will be Hawks flying well into 2070.

Oh great...just as we get around to finally replacing the Griffons with Blackhawks the rest of the World will be stopping flying them!

 

[GK .Dundas]

I like your train of thought - it's logical and makes a lot of sense.

Getting something that has a rear ramp so it could possibly deploy the ultra light vehicles, UGV's, the on-boarding of patients during SAR type operations and of possible ASW use in terms of deploying stores.

Do any countries use the 'hook in an ASW role, or as a helicopter with a naval det?

Can 'hooks be navalized, really? (I imagine if ordered for that purpose, certain parts or systems could be made from different materials than standard?)

I've seen the Brits operate Apache's and Chinooks from flattops before, but I don't think it's ever been for an extended period not to mention a full deployment...

(if Black Hawks can also be manufactured as Sea Hawks, I imagine building a navalized Chinook is quite doable)


As much as Black Hawks would be a huge step up from the Griffon, I am inclined to wait on the future helicopter designs coming online down in the US.

If they do come to fruition, they'll be an entire capability generation ahead of current aircraft. If we did buy Black Hawks and more Chinooks, it wouldnt hurt us - but we'd also be criticized for expanding our fleet of yesterday's aircraft, and be trashed in the press even more about not having the capability to contribute to doorkicking operations.

(Now there's a golden opportunity from an industry perspective! Canada should take the initiative and try to work out a deal to manufacture parts for, or entire aircraft, when it comes to the V-280. Demand will be high for a long long time, and waiting times may encourage potential customers to seek out whatever China's knockoff version will be...we could help limit that waittime. Set it up similar to having Strykers & LAV's built in London)

Actually before the RN purchased SeaKings , they had planned to use Chinooks in that role.
As to the Press there are roughly a dozen or so who actually specialize in Defence writing,of maybe four are worth the time and bother the rest don't have either the experience or education and they're doing because their editor told them to cover the subject.
And one or two who basically have a Rolodex filled with every disgruntled civil servant , CF members and politicians with ax to grind.
An agenda opposed to whatever the government of the day may be doing. And on occasion opposed to the best interests of the nation.

 

[suffolkowner]

So bring back the Labrador?

 

[KevinB]

So bring back the Labrador?

I don’t think SeaKnights are being produced anymore

 

[Skysix]

I've seen the Brits operate Apache's and Chinooks from flattops before, but I don't think it's ever been for an extended period not to mention a full deployment...

Op Corporate, they flew a Chinook off the Hermes and Invincible after the Atlantic Conveyor (and the other 9 Chinooks) was sunk.

I have been told the CH-47 is a hot rod of a helicopter, but the The CH-46's (Sea Knight / Labrador) were sure adept at the VertRep role however...

 

[Kirkhill]

I really wanted to like the 280. I just cannot as there are too many missions it can’t do.

Given the cancellation of FARA and the relatively slow roll of the 280, I suspect there will be Hawks flying well into 2070.

Is the V280 worth the complicated gear boxes?

General characteristics - V280

• Crew: 4
• Capacity: 14 troops
• Length: 50.5 ft (15.4 m)
• Width: 81.79 ft (24.93 m)
• Height: 23 ft 0 in (7 m)
• Empty weight: 18,078 lb (8,200 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 30,865 lb (14,000 kg)
• Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce AE 1107F[57] turboshaft
• Propellers: 35 ft 0 in (10.7 m) diameter

Performance

• Cruise speed: 320 mph (520 km/h, 280 kn)
• Combat range: 580–920 mi (930–1,480 km, 500–800 nmi)
• Ferry range: 2,400 mi (3,900 km, 2,100 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 6,000 ft (1,800 m) ; in hover out of ground effect at 95 °F (35 °C)
• Disk loading: 16[58] lb/sq ft (78 kg/m2)

General characteristics - DHC5 - CC115

• Crew: 3 (pilot, co-pilot and crew chief)
• Capacity: 41 troops or 24 stretchers or 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) payload
• Length: 79 ft 0 in (24.08 m)
• Wingspan: 96 ft 0 in (29.26 m)
• Height: 28 ft 8 in (8.74 m)
• Wing area: 945 sq ft (87.8 m2)
• Aspect ratio: 9.75:1
• Airfoil: root: NACA 643A417.5 (mod); tip: NACA 632A615
• Empty weight: 25,160 lb (11,412 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 49,200 lb (22,317 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 1,755 imp gal (2,108 US gal; 7,980 L)
• Powerplant: 2 × General Electric CT64-820-4 turboprop engines, 3,133 shp (2,336 kW) each
• Propellers: 3-bladed Hamilton Standard 63E60-25, 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) diameter fully-feathering reversible-pitch propellers

Performance

• Cruise speed: 227 kn (261 mph, 420 km/h) maximum at 10,000 ft (3,000 m)
• Stall speed: 73 kn (84 mph, 135 km/h) 40 degree flaps at 46,900 lb (21,273 kg)
• Range: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,100 km) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m) with maximum payload
• Ferry range: 1,770 nmi (2,040 mi, 3,280 km) zero payload
• Service ceiling: 31,000 ft (9,400 m)
• g limits: 2.5g (manoeuvring limit load)
• Rate of climb: 1,820 ft/min (9.2 m/s)
• Take-off run: 2,300 ft (701 m)
• Take-off distance to 50 ft (15 m): 2,750 ft (838 m) (mid cg range)
• Landing run: 850 ft (259 m)
• Landing distance from 50 ft (15 m): 2,010 ft (613 m)

Series	100[93]	300[93]	400[94]
Cockpit crew	1–2
Seating	20	19
Length	49 ft 6 in (15.09m)	51 ft 9 in (15.77 m)
Height	19 ft 6 in / 5.94 m
Wing	65 ft 0 in (19.81 m) span, 420 sq ft (39 m2) area (10.05 AR)
Empty weight	5,850l lb / 2,653 kg	7,415 lb / 3,363 kg	7,100 lb / 3,221 kg (no accommodation)
MTOW	10,500 lb / 4763 kg	12,500 lb / 5,670 kg[a]
Payload	975 kg (2150 lb) over 1344 km (727 nm)	1135 kg (2500 lb) over 1297 km (700 nm) 860 kg (1900 lb) over 1705 km (920 nm)de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter - Wikipedia

 

[Kirkhill]

More CC-138s and CC-115s and CH-147s.

Add in the Mojave RPAS

And a bunch of VBATs

 

[Kirkhill]

Specifications (XFV-1)[edit]​

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
• Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
• Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
• Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m2)
• Empty weight: 11,599 lb (5,261 kg)
• Gross weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Allison XT40-A-14 turboprop, 6 blade contra-rotating, 5,100 shp (3,800 kW)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 580 mph (930 km/h, 500 kn)
• Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
• Service ceiling: 43,300 ft (13,100 m)
• Rate of climb: 10,820 ft/min (55.0 m/s)
• Wing loading: 65.9 lb/sq ft (322 kg/m2)

Armament


4 × 20 mm (.79 in) cannons or 48 × 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets




General characteristics XFY-1

• Crew: 1
• Airfoil: NACA 63-009 mod[14]
• Propellers: 6-bladed Curtiss Electric constant-speed contra-rotating propeller

Performance

• Power/mass: 0.34 hp/lb (0.56 kW/kg)

Armament

• Guns: 4 × 20mm (0.79 in) cannon
• Rockets: 48 × 2.75 in (70 mm) Mk 4 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets

....


I wonder if the VBAT/ Tail Sitter technology could be applied to the Mojave RPAS? At 3175 kg it weighs less than half the XFV-1.

 

[KevinB]

Is the V280 worth the complicated gear boxes?

That’s a multi billion dollar question. I’m not just concerned with the gear boxes. I’m also concerned about the LZ space requirements, as a lot of urban missions cannot be conducted by the 280 (or Osprey) due to their rotor space requirements. When you see a 280 overlay over the MH-47F the Hook isn’t significantly bigger for a vastly larger payload and while the Valor has even more speed, the Hook already outruns it’s escorts…

But I don’t agree in the fixed wing comparisons to a vertical (or hybrid lift) platforms.

There are missions that require vertical lift - that no conventional fixed wing aircraft is going to be able to perform.

 

[CBH99]

That’s a multi billion dollar question. I’m not just concerned with the gear boxes. I’m also concerned about the LZ space requirements, as a lot of urban missions cannot be conducted by the 280 (or Osprey) due to their rotor space requirements. When you see a 280 overlay over the MH-47F the Hook isn’t significantly bigger for a vastly larger payload and while the Valor has even more speed, the Hook already outruns it’s escorts…

But I don’t agree in the fixed wing comparisons to a vertical (or hybrid lift) platforms.

There are missions that require vertical lift - that no conventional fixed wing aircraft is going to be able to perform.

Agreed.

The only thoughts that come to mind initially are 'Well they won't need escorts if they are traveling as fast as a plane' but that argument is bunk, as they'll require escorts orbiting when they arrive on station...

Maybe if flying low, they can zip from horizon to horizon before anybody with a MANPAD could even lock on? Ukraine has shown us that whether it's a plane or a helo, if a MANPAD can lock on there's a decent chance you're going down...so flying 'kinda high' is an absolute killer because your time exposed to visual target acquisition turns into an eternity.

You have to either fly high enough that MANPADS can't hit you, or low & fast so your flying over any enemy quickly. (Flying high just guarantees youll be engaged by systems way more deadly than a MANPAD)



It's a big leap from using Little Birds in an urban environment to a gigantic ass hybrid like a 280. I have a feeling Little Birds & Hawks will continue to do the urban flying mission set quite well...

Actually before the RN purchased SeaKings , they had planned to use Chinooks in that role.
As to the Press there are roughly a dozen or so who actually specialize in Defence writing,of maybe four are worth the time and bother the rest don't have either the experience or education and they're doing because their editor told them to cover the subject.
And one or two who basically have a Rolodex filled with every disgruntled civil servant , CF members and politicians with ax to grind.
An agenda opposed to whatever the government of the day may be doing. And on occasion opposed to the best interests of the nation.

Agreed.

I know he has his critics (don't we all?) But Tyler Rogoway from The War Zone has been, in my view, infinitely better than any other journalist when it comes to defense matters.

He puts out A LOT of lengthy, detailed articles & seems to have some pretty amazing sources.


I don't know how the average journalist can't tell the difference between a jeep and a tank, like ffs one doesn't need to be a military enthusiast to know the difference between a jeep with 4 wheels, and a 62 ton hulk of Armour with a traversing cannon on it that has tracks...

I'm not a horse guy. I can still tell the difference between a horse and a pony tho

 

[GK .Dundas]

Agreed.

The only thoughts that come to mind initially are 'Well they won't need escorts if they are traveling as fast as a plane' but that argument is bunk, as they'll require escorts orbiting when they arrive on station...

Maybe if flying low, they can zip from horizon to horizon before anybody with a MANPAD could even lock on? Ukraine has shown us that whether it's a plane or a helo, if a MANPAD can lock on there's a decent chance you're going down...so flying 'kinda high' is an absolute killer because your time exposed to visual target acquisition turns into an eternity.

You have to either fly high enough that MANPADS can't hit you, or low & fast so your flying over any enemy quickly. (Flying high just guarantees youll be engaged by systems way more deadly than a MANPAD)



It's a big leap from using Little Birds in an urban environment to a gigantic ass hybrid like a 280. I have a feeling Little Birds & Hawks will continue to do the urban flying mission set quite well...



Agreed.

I know he has his critics (don't we all?) But Tyler Rogoway from The War Zone has been, in my view, infinitely better than any other journalist when it comes to defense matters.

He puts out A LOT of lengthy, detailed articles & seems to have some pretty amazing sources.


I don't know how the average journalist can't tell the difference between a jeep and a tank, like ffs one doesn't need to be a military enthusiast to know the difference between a jeep with 4 wheels, and a 62 ton hulk of Armour with a traversing cannon on it that has tracks...

I'm not a horse guy. I can still tell the difference between a horse and a pony tho

I was talking Canadian journalists so the number is fairly small . A combination of population and culture, I guess.
As for the tank versus jeep thing that's an editing issue. Most writers have horror stories about that.
As in " Actually I only look stupid after editing"

 

[Good2Golf]

Done…at least with the USN.

Maybe they can’t go on ships like AOPS or JSS, but those vessels were specified to support them (can’t recall if limited to the littoral), so they should be able too. Heck, there’s even a publication on how to do it (HOSTAC, I believe).

 

[GR66]

Anyone have thoughts on the suitability of the MH-60R for the ASW and SAR roles?

 

[Kirkhill]

That’s a multi billion dollar question. I’m not just concerned with the gear boxes. I’m also concerned about the LZ space requirements, as a lot of urban missions cannot be conducted by the 280 (or Osprey) due to their rotor space requirements. When you see a 280 overlay over the MH-47F the Hook isn’t significantly bigger for a vastly larger payload and while the Valor has even more speed, the Hook already outruns it’s escorts…

But I don’t agree in the fixed wing comparisons to a vertical (or hybrid lift) platforms.

There are missions that require vertical lift - that no conventional fixed wing aircraft is going to be able to perform.

I don't expect the tail-sitters to do much in the people-moving business but I kind of like them for the UAV roles.

I agree that there a some places that demand rotors. And I like the Hooks for their 10 tonne capacity.

Having said that, in the Canadian context - there is an awful lot of the country accessible by those De Havilland aircraft that were designed explicitly for Canada's rough strips, lakes and rivers. frozen or otherwise.

 

[YZT580]

You left out the C7. And the operating specs for both it and by extension the CC115 were a lot different for the army than they were for the air force. The Caribou was in and out of strips that were less than 1000 ft. Definitely not 280 specifications but then again the price difference and simplicity of the caribou made it a favourite

 

[KevinB]

Anyone have thoughts on the suitability of the MH-60R for the ASW and SAR roles?

Done down here…

It’s a better SAR chopper than the Griffon, speed, payload etc, but I’m not familiar with the Cormorant, nor versed in non CSAR SAR to know of the ramp and additional room is a significant advantage to make it better for that role.

 

[dapaterson]

Salt water and Chinooks don't mix well.

 

[GR66]

Salt water and Chinooks don't mix well.

Whatever we get I think we should get them all marinized to maximize their interoperability with our ships and potential operations on allied amphibious ships. Apparently all Bell 525's are marinized as standard (and parts of the aircraft are made in Canada), but we'd be the lead customer with all the problems that involves...so of course it will be the preferred choice of the Government.

 

[CBH99]

Salt water and Chinooks don't mix well.

That's what I was thinking.

I know Chinooks have operated off flat tops in the past, but I don't think it's ever been for a prolonged period of time. (The Falklands being the longest operation where a Chinook operated from a vessel in salt water, I believe)

(And I seem to remember that when doing so they required more maintenance than usual to stay ahead of the salt water/corrosion issues)

If they can build a navalized version of the Black Hawk, I'm sure they can build a navalized version of a Chinook easily enough



I think the MH-60R would be just fine as a SAR bird for the same reasons KevinB mentions. It's speed, payload, and cabin space are all superior to that of the Griffon (cabin size is extremely important in a SAR bird that doesn't get mentioned often enough. SAR techs really do need room to work on patients sometimes, and it's hard to do if one lacks elbow room or has to stack patients, or can't organize their emergency pre-hospital kit ideally due to lack of space)

The MH-60R is currently used by USN helo dets, and one of their roles is ASW for their host ship. I haven't heard of any complaints.


KevinB - in regards to the Cormorants, they turned out to be a fantastic purchase and have definitely earned their stripes.

The rear ramp does make a big difference when needing to load patients and passengers quickly - it wasn't long ago Cormorants were evacuating entire remote communities at risk of wildfires, or a stretch of highway that had been cut off due to flash flooding. Being able to load 45-50 people on board & fly quickly to safety has been extremely useful.

They have a tremendous amount of space and capacity for the techs on board, and definitely have power as it's a 3 engined bird.
I have no idea how well it would work in a CSAR role, however

(I'm sure we could mount a rear facing GAU-50 or something near the ramp, unsure about covering the side arcs. Seems easily doable but I'm no expert on the Cormorants - just been on a few over the years)