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

CH-148 Cyclone Progress

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
Eye In The Sky said:
That is almost exactly what happened in the Argus-Sea King days, according to our AESOp history lectures in Winnipeg.

Observers, as we were called then, would be trained and fly in the VP (Argus) Sqns first tour.  From that group, some would be selected as potentially good (lone) operators and sent for training and flying second tour to the HS (Sea King) Sqn's.

There's some folks with both airframes in their logbooks, but generally it seems to me most folks stay with 1 or the other and don't move between communities.

I am not the most experienced guy on Sqn (and not an Acoustician), but based on H3s earlier post on sensor management/sharing and how MHs work,  I would think the best guys and gals to move from Aurora to Cyclone would be the wet sensor types, Acousticians.  Again just my  :2c:

Take your 2 cents and cram it!  (mainly because I am an acoustician, and I enjoy the LRP life)

But yes I do agree with you, although I am against cross pollination (keep experience within the fleet)
My theory is that because passive acoustics is such an art, that takitor from the Aurora and throwing him into the cyclone world makes sense, same acoustic processor.  I think taking a wet operator and teaching them Radar and ESM, is better than a dry operator learning passive acoustics (if that makes sense).  It's not so much the analysis, but the tracking, sure it's easier with the new processor, but you still have to know your Doppler cold.  That being said, frig passive acoustics if you can clear the ocean with one ping, then do that!

 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,301
Points
1,360
Dolphin_Hunter said:
That being said, frig passive acoustics if you can clear the ocean with one ping, then do that!

One ping, and one ping only, of course...  ;)
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Take your 2 cents and cram it!  (mainly because I am an acoustician, and I enjoy the LRP life)

I should have elaborated some.  They would likely find the best operator to move to MH would be someone with Navy surface and sub-surface experience prior to OTing to AESOp, who also trained on dry sensors before going acoustics... 8)

If I was that guy, I would hide.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
405
Points
880
If by "dry" sensors you mean radars and EW systems, and by "wet" you mean sonars (dry/wet are not distinctions we usually make in the Navy, except where the availability of alcohol on board is concerned), then you'll have a hard time finding the person you want in the Navy. These are covered by three different trades (NCIOP for radars, NESO for EW and SonOp for, well, sonars) and you very seldom see sailors switching from one to the other.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
In the LRP world, wet sensors are the sonobuoys and processing systems.  Dry sensors are ESM, MAD, RADAR and EO/IR.

Both sides are trained on ordinance duties, but it is usually manned by a dry type (a 'NASO', non-acoustic sensor operator).  Both are also trained on applic bombbay tasks.

There are other tasks the wet folks do depending on the mission itself,  if it isn't hard ASW.

MH AESOps are 1 person shows on a crew.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,809
Points
1,160
language is a funny thing, 2 people in somewhat related tasks can use the same word with entirely different meanings.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
Eye In The Sky said:
I should have elaborated some.  They would likely find the best operator to move to MH would be someone with Navy surface and sub-surface experience prior to OTing to AESOp, who also trained on dry sensors before going acoustics... 8)

If I was that guy, I would hide.

Ok.  I think I know what you are trying to say, there are currently only a handful of Dolphin wearing AES Ops, one is already down in Shearwater, and he also happens to be an ex-sonar op!  Done deal, he is the go to guy, all LRP guys can go about their business.

Don't forget to mention that ASO-AES Ops are also working the EO/IR camera too.  Ordinance duties are shared, but let's be real here, when we are raining steel, the ASO should be in the damn seat.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,297
Points
1,090
Colin P said:
language is a funny thing, 2 people in somewhat related tasks can use the same word with entirely different meanings.

Just try to "secure a building"....

In the Navy, it means lock it up and sign off rounds.

In the Air Force, they'll take out a 3 year lease with option to buy.

In the Army, they'll do a recce, pre-position the arty, wait 'til dark, then send in a company level flanking maneuver with overwatch from the LAV's and LEOs.  The Arty will fire smoke and suppressive fire on potential egress routes to attrit any exfiltration by OPFOR.  Once the company has taken the ground floor, the Tac-Hel will air-land a platoon on the roof for a dynamic entry and dual axis attack on the upper floors.  Once the building is taken, it will then have mutual overlapping fields of fire setup from both levels, the snipers will move to the roof and the LAV's move up to provide resupply.  THEN the building will be secure.  Ish.

:)

 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
651
Points
1,040
LOL

You had me at "In the Air Force, they'll take out a 3 year lease with option to buy."

;D
 

rotrhed

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Found this job posting on the net:

https://www.careerbeacon.com/Posting/447255?catsid=3&scol=rel&sdir=DESC

As a Pilot Instructor, you are responsible for delivering CH148 operational training as well as mission or maintenance Integrated Information Environment (IIE) services or applications.  Training is conducted in classroom, simulators, maintenance training devices, and CH148 aircraft.  Pilot Instructors can be assigned to regularly scheduled ICT or Conversion serials, as well as ad-hoc scheduled training events (currency etc.)  Pilot Instructors also provide/perform Subject Matter Expert (SME) input and review to Training Program Support Cell Lead and Instructional System Designers on training documentation, courseware development, or revision change packages.

Anyone have some insight? And no, I'm not looking for a job! ;D
 

h3tacco

Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
This is a job at the MHTC teaching ICT and conversion training. Training is ramping up and Sik needs more instructors to support the upcoming course loads. Currently, these instructors do ground and flight sim instruction while Sik Test Pilots do the flight  instruction but I believe they are looking to offload the flight instruction from the test pilots but I am not sure on the exact status of that.
 

rathawk

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
60
On the19th of June 1975 I was serving as a run-of-the-line Sea King Crew Commander on HS423 Squadron in Shearwater NS.

That evening, upon returning to Squadron Ops after a DDH deck landing qualification flight for some new co-pilots, I was intercepted by my Squadron Commander (then- LCol Larry Ashley) who told me that he had just designated me as the HS423 rep on a team that would be responsible for the drafting of a Sea King Replacement (SKR) Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR).

The team he spoke of was led by Major (LCdr) Lance Olmstead, an ex-fish-head-come Sea King pilot who was at that time the only Sea King pilot on the staff of the then-Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare School (later CFMWC) in Halifax.

To make a long story short, the agreed SKR SOR was eventually submitted to MARCOM HQ for onward transmission to the new NDHQ (with an info copy sent to the new infant AIRCOM HQ) in early 1976.

That 1976 draft SOR was the seed that eventually led to the 1987 NSA Contract.

Following the 1986-87 NSA competition and eventual contract award to EHI in late 1987, the NSA Project was sidelined for an extraordinarily long time by the sudden need to add SAR replacement helicopters to the mix.  That extended sideline resulted in a revised 1992 combined NSA/NSH procurement contract. 

The resultant combined $4.8 billion NSA/NSH project became a federal election issue.  Chretien argued that the “Mulroney attack helicopter” money would be better spent on a national childcare program (for which he subsequently never carried through); he nonetheless proved his elected manhood by terminating the NSA/NSH contract within an hour of being sworn in as Prime Minister on 3 November 1993.  None of his other “redbook” election promises were kept.

To backstep, within the 1976 original SKR SOR (that continued into the NSA contract) there were three mandatory but very basic naval helicopter performance requirements:

1) The replacement aircraft needed to have gear boxes that could, after sustaining a detected internal failure or loss of lubricant from any cause, be able to continue safe flight for not less than 60 nautical miles,

2) The replacement aircraft needed to have the capability to fly safely in “all weather” conditions including the ability to penetrate severe wet snow and inflight severe icing and to be able to recover aboard a ship in fog conditions with less than 10 yards visibility; and,

3) The replacement aircraft had to possess the capability to hover (i.e. recover aboard ship) in headwinds of 60 knots, crosswinds of 55 knots and tailwinds of 50 knots.

In late 1975, we were visited by a representative of the UK company Westland Helicopters who assured us that our SKR performance requirements were technically very achievable and that Westland had already joined up with Agusta Spa in Italy to develop a naval helicopter for the UK and Italian Navies that would meet or exceed all of our expectations.  The marvel that he spoke of in the fall of 1975 was eventually to become known as the EH101…  today marketed as the AW101.

What grieves me most is that, on the19th of June 2015, exactly 40 years to the day that my SKR trek began, MND Jason Kenney will be present in Shearwater to accept (on behalf of Canada) four Block 1.0 Cyclone helicopters that are a very very far cry from (and which will never meet) the performance capabilities we had come to expect back in 1975.
 

h3tacco

Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
rathawk said:
2) The replacement aircraft needed to have the capability to fly safely in “all weather” conditions including the ability to penetrate severe wet snow and inflight severe icing and to be able to recover aboard a ship in fog conditions with less than 10 yards visibility; and,

3) The replacement aircraft had to possess the capability to hover (i.e. recover aboard ship) in headwinds of 60 knots, crosswinds of 55 knots and tailwinds of 50 knots.

While I think the AW-101 is by all accounts a fine naval aircraft I think you greatly over state its capabilities and fail to mention any of its downsides. You need only to look at the RN deck and wind limits for operating from the Type 23 and Type 45 to know that in service even the 101 comes no where near your "very basic requirements". No naval aircraft (101, MH-60R or NH-90) lands on frigates with 55 knots crosswinds, 50 knot tailwinds or in less than 10 yards visibility.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,301
Points
1,360
50 kt tailwind?  That's spicy even on an H47!
 

CycloneMech

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Afternoon all,  just found this forum.  At least people ARE talking. And yes you can tell from my handle - been there, done that for the past five and half years since I got to Shearwater.  I think I know Baz from work, at least on sight. I'm on the technical side, plus FS along side of Ben and Rob.

:cdn:
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,568
Points
1,010
Rathawk,

Merlin is not perfect and you know it. How about Rotor half hubs? Has the serviceability levels of our Cormorants ever come close to what AW said it would in the shiny brochure? And I won't even dignify your wind limits comment with a response.

That said, I wish we had bought Merlins in 1993, like we were supposed to. It would have been cheaper and better in the long run.
 

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
160
CycloneMech said:
Afternoon all,  just found this forum.  At least people ARE talking. And yes you can tell from my handle - been there, done that for the past five and half years since I got to Shearwater.  I think I know Baz from work, at least on sight. I'm on the technical side, plus FS along side of Ben and Rob.

:cdn:

If you know Ben and Rob then you know me... I'm the only aircrew wondering around in CADPAT...
 

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
160
SeaKingTacco said:
That said, I wish we had bought Merlins in 1993, like we were supposed to. It would have been cheaper and better in the long run.

Possibly, sure...

When people say it grieves me that we are finally moving forward with something, especially people who were at the Wing when the real failures happened that got us where we are, then it is easy to dismiss them is irrelevant and having an axe to grind.

The Cyclone is what it is, no matter how we got here.  The community is under enough stress right now that we need to just get on with it.  People who are not part of that would do well to sit quietly on the sidelines and provide morale support...
 
Top