• 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

Ya ya but you know what I mean...

Or spend money (sorry, nothings cheap) and work with allies and make the next LAV 8 or APC family.

It's the same thing with Bell (or Viking), build a recent/next generation that our friends are looking to buy too. Decide to only buy in-service or allied next-gen projects that friends are working on. It's an easy way to never buy another orphan fleet. Keeps us in mind of our allies, brings new companies to Canada (with jobs and offices) and makes us easier to work with (cross country/industry).
 
Ya ya but you know what I mean...

Or spend money (sorry, nothings cheap) and work with allies and make the next LAV 8 or APC family.

It's the same thing with Bell (or Viking), build a recent/next generation that our friends are looking to buy too. Decide to only buy in-service or allied next-gen projects that friends are working on. It's an easy way to never buy another orphan fleet. Keeps us in mind of our allies, brings new companies to Canada (with jobs and offices) and makes us easier to work with (cross country/industry).
Bell is building a next gen Helo - their V-280 for FVL.
Bell Miracle is not a freestanding entity - they are owned by the US parent and told when to jump and how high.

As I mentioned in the Griffon thread - once FVL hits the streets, the US Army will start retiring UH-60's - a lot of these will go out the door to countries as FMA (Foreign Military Assistance) for free (goodwill), or as fire sale FMS (Foreign Military Sales) - neither Sikorsky or Bell will have a need (or desire) to sell a .mil Helo for some time.

The USMC has a MOU with the Army to get into FVL - they don't need to follow through - but the size of the Army contract means that unless they really dislike the winner and it doesn't meet their needs - that it would be financially foolish not to buy in.
Which means that there will be UH-1Y and AH-1Z out for sale too.
 
We won't be buying in to those cheap Blackhawks unfortunately, IMO.

I sincerely believe we don't buy certain US mil vehicles due to missing out on a photo op with a distinctly Canadian vehicle. Gov't would imagine avg joe seeing a HUMVEE in the news on an international mission and assume its a US HUMVEE. I bet your average Canadian can identify a LAV in a photo and think "hey the gov't is doing something about [new disaster]". You squander that public relations win if people confused Canadians with Americans.

Replace HUMVEE here with UH-60s, M1 Abrams, Bradleys, LAVs. Ofc we're also super cheap in this front already, but wouldn't it have been cheaper to tack on Canadian orders to these large American orders? I'm sure someone in DND/CF proposed this over the decades, but no bites in how many decades? US interoperability is vital, but public recog is king I guess. Maybe that's reason gov't sprung for the 25mm, to look different than a Stryker perhaps? That's enough assumption from me on that, back on topic...

Yes, easy asks are for ex USMC AH-1s and Venoms being refurbed in Canada. I can't see us getting the double or triple the Chinooks we should have, especially after we just publicly flipped off Boeing. Refurb the rest of the Griffons to the Venom standard or build new ones to replace the worst off. Transfer a chunk for SAR until we get around to replacing the CH-149s in the future. Jobs are more important than capabilities here. Canadians aren't writing to their MPs about the shortfalls of the Griffon, few are even asking why SAR is so underfunded for such a large country with so many natural disasters.

Engage with industry, see what they can deliver on the cheap that will support and grow their Canadian presence, spend $$$ where it makes sense. I really think it's that simple. If they pitch smart and commit heavily to Canada, the more money they get. It's a win-win. Make Daddy see were giving our money to his companies and it'll buy us some favour with them on more important gov't files.
 
We won't be buying in to those cheap Blackhawks unfortunately, IMO.

I sincerely believe we don't buy certain US mil vehicles due to missing out on a photo op with a distinctly Canadian vehicle. Gov't would imagine avg joe seeing a HUMVEE in the news on an international mission and assume its a US HUMVEE. I bet your average Canadian can identify a LAV in a photo and think "hey the gov't is doing something about [new disaster]". You squander that public relations win if people confused Canadians with Americans.

Replace HUMVEE here with UH-60s, M1 Abrams, Bradleys, LAVs. Ofc we're also super cheap in this front already, but wouldn't it have been cheaper to tack on Canadian orders to these large American orders? I'm sure someone in DND/CF proposed this over the decades, but no bites in how many decades? US interoperability is vital, but public recog is king I guess. Maybe that's reason gov't sprung for the 25mm, to look different than a Stryker perhaps? That's enough assumption from me on that, back on topic...

Yes, easy asks are for ex USMC AH-1s and Venoms being refurbed in Canada. I can't see us getting the double or triple the Chinooks we should have, especially after we just publicly flipped off Boeing. Refurb the rest of the Griffons to the Venom standard or build new ones to replace the worst off. Transfer a chunk for SAR until we get around to replacing the CH-149s in the future. Jobs are more important than capabilities here. Canadians aren't writing to their MPs about the shortfalls of the Griffon, few are even asking why SAR is so underfunded for such a large country with so many natural disasters.

Engage with industry, see what they can deliver on the cheap that will support and grow their Canadian presence, spend $$$ where it makes sense. I really think it's that simple. If they pitch smart and commit heavily to Canada, the more money they get. It's a win-win. Make Daddy see were giving our money to his companies and it'll buy us some favour with them on more important gov't files.
You can't make a 412 Griffon into a Yankee very easily.
@Good2Golf pointed out the Yankee has more commonality with the AH-1Z than the UH-1N or 412

I don't think the CAF should get into the UH-60 at this point in time -- flying over parts of Iraq in a UH-60 and watching ground fire coming up, I saw a USMC V-22 flight just bug out - they had the speed to GTFO, the UH-60 while relatively fast (compared to a Huey) isn't in the same league as the Tilt Rotors, or a Hook (those guys boogey for such a big bird) - in Afghan and Iraq Apaches had to leave early to get in position to escort the Hooks into a LZ, as the Hook would leave them in the dust speed wise.

Given the nature of the terrain in Canada - a Tilt Rotor can get a lot of places significantly faster than a conventional rotary bird. That aspect is why I prefer the Bell option to the Sikorsky Defiant X, but I am not a pilot - and I will admit my experiences in birds are simply as a GIB.

Now I absolutely would be fine with doing as much to current Griffon fleet to make them as Y'ish as possible until FVL arrives - there is also a Recce/Attack platform for FVL - and while I like the Cobra - the 360 Invictus from Bell or Sikorsky's Raider offer a lot better system - especially for a country that does not have a support network for the Apache or Cobra already.

As for the LAV - the USMC LAV had the 25mm turret, the Stryker didn't as the US Army was banking on RWS systems and the MGS variant to offer more - plus they have the M2 Bradley as an IFV -- I don't think the CAF decision on the 25mm turret was based on anything but a desire to have a cannon armed wheeled APC like the USMC, and I don't think the Stryker lack of cannon had any bearing.
 
As for the LAV - the USMC LAV had the 25mm turret, the Stryker didn't as the US Army was banking on RWS systems and the MGS variant to offer more - plus they have the M2 Bradley as an IFV -- I don't think the CAF decision on the 25mm turret was based on anything but a desire to have a cannon armed wheeled APC like the USMC, and I don't think the Stryker lack of cannon had any bearing.
That said, the US Army is up-turreting quite a few of its Strykers into the 30mm Dragoon in its Cavalry regiments in a number of Stryker brigades. The turret is unmanned and the vehicle crew is two - a driver and commander gunner with room for 9 GIBs.

By the looks of things this will change the Stryker BCTs into two versions: the light version equipped as before and the heavy version where half of the Strykers have Dragoon turrets and the other half are equipped with Javelin ATGMs.


🍻
 
A number of years ago, I suggested here that we should have leased a few V-22 and crews to see how well they work for SAR up here. they come with their own sets of challenges and strengths.
 
A number of years ago, I suggested here that we should have leased a few V-22 and crews to see how well they work for SAR up here. they come with their own sets of challenges and strengths.
The Osprey would be a great choice for some missions -- I'd be curious if the rotor wash may been an issue for some SAR missions involving basket recovery - or confined space rescues. Obviously the best way to check the validity would be like you mentioned with a try before you buy Operational Testing phase.
 
I don't think the CAF should get into the UH-60 at this point in time -- flying over parts of Iraq in a UH-60 and watching ground fire coming up, I saw a USMC V-22 flight just bug out - they had the speed to GTFO, the UH-60 while relatively fast (compared to a Huey) isn't in the same league as the Tilt Rotors, or a Hook (those guys boogey for such a big bird) - in Afghan and Iraq Apaches had to leave early to get in position to escort the Hooks into a LZ, as the Hook would leave them in the dust speed wise.

So more Chinooks then?

Seriously, Canada is unlikely to invest heavily in a new platform like a tilt rotor but your excellent observation about 'survivability' might make a great case for more 'hooks.
 
The Osprey would be a great choice for some missions -- I'd be curious if the rotor wash may been an issue for some SAR missions involving basket recovery - or confined space rescues. Obviously the best way to check the validity would be like you mentioned with a try before you buy Operational Testing phase.
I don’t know if there are any CH-113/113A Labrador folks left in RWSAR, but aside from the marginal power concerns of the Lab at close to all-up weight, all the folks I talked to loved the stability and control of a tandem rotor in the mountains. The rotor configuration actually spreads downward over an expanded oval, which reduced downward velocity compared to a similarly weighted single-rotor helo. That said, form chatting with some folks who’ve done the rope, rappel and SPIES rig thing from a CV-22 (KevinB, you probably have as well), the downwash of the Osprey’s relatively smaller rotors (compared to a Chinook) makes for some wicked airflow issues…which for the particular mission are worth the risks. The Osprey is a big beast…similar MGAUW as the Chinook at 55,000lbs (I think it adds a few more thousand in rolling takeoff ferry mode), but it’s rotor disks are 2-1/2 times smaller in total area than a Chinook, which is where the intense/insane/[insert adjective] downwash comes from. Unless the person you’re trying to pluck off the side of the mountain is a specially-trained bubba who knows the drills to be safely recovered, I’m not sure an Osprey is an optimal recovery assets. Can’t comment on recovering folks from a stricken vessel, that might be a more forgiving recovery environment for an Osprey than mountains…still would probably need a significant hoist height not to blow the cramp out of the crew or rescuee below.
 
I would just buy more Chinooks and avoid Osprey. You get 90% of the capability at half the price and complexity.

I have experienced the rotor downwash of a 30,000lb Cyclone. Compared to a 20,000lb Sea King, it is pretty wicked and not a lot of fun to work around.
 
I don’t know if there are any CH-113/113A Labrador folks left in RWSAR, but aside from the marginal power concerns of the Lab at close to all-up weight, all the folks I talked to loved the stability and control of a tandem rotor in the mountains.
Funny that you should mention that. I never worked with the Chinooks but I spent much more than my fair share in and under CH113 Voyageurs hooking up guns (for some reason always in mid winter). You were always in a bit of a blizzard but the wash was never an issue other than driving little ice crystals into every gap in your parka.

🍻
 
Funny that you should mention that. I never worked with the Chinooks but I spent much more than my fair share in and under CH113 Voyageurs hooking up guns (for some reason always in mid winter). You were always in a bit of a blizzard but the wash was never an issue other than driving little ice crystals into every gap in your parka.

🍻
That’s okay, FJAG, they were still 450 Sqn tandems…or maybe even 1 THP (Thump) for you! 😉

Part of my training way back included being on the receiving end of a hook-up (as well as being hoisted). January in Edmonton…it was indeed cold…but once it came in overhead, there was actually a bubble of relatively less cyclonic/hurricanic force (depending which rotor you were closer to 😉) than being outside the rotors and catching the rotor outflow full force. It gave an appreciation of what the TAMS or gun team was experiencing under the hook. The new Chinook has significantly wider sponsons given it carries double the fuel of the older Chinooks, and I heard from the TAMS and guns that it’s got a bit of a ‘lull’ (relative) once you’re right under it.
 
I don’t know if there are any CH-113/113A Labrador folks left in RWSAR, but aside from the marginal power concerns of the Lab at close to all-up weight, all the folks I talked to loved the stability and control of a tandem rotor in the mountains. The rotor configuration actually spreads downward over an expanded oval, which reduced downward velocity compared to a similarly weighted single-rotor helo. That said, form chatting with some folks who’ve done the rope, rappel and SPIES rig thing from a CV-22 (KevinB, you probably have as well), the downwash of the Osprey’s relatively smaller rotors (compared to a Chinook) makes for some wicked airflow issues…which for the particular mission are worth the risks. The Osprey is a big beast…similar MGAUW as the Chinook at 55,000lbs (I think it adds a few more thousand in rolling takeoff ferry mode), but it’s rotor disks are 2-1/2 times smaller in total area than a Chinook, which is where the intense/insane/[insert adjective] downwash comes from. Unless the person you’re trying to pluck off the side of the mountain is a specially-trained bubba who knows the drills to be safely recovered, I’m not sure an Osprey is an optimal recovery assets. Can’t comment on recovering folks from a stricken vessel, that might be a more forgiving recovery environment for an Osprey than mountains…still would probably need a significant hoist height not to blow the cramp out of the crew or rescuee below.
There is a reason that I was a tad concerned about the rotor wash - I've done very minimal rope work from the 22 - but enough to make me concerned if one was trying to hover over someone, or to go up - or worse trying a basket type recovery in on tight space.

I'd never made the connection about the Hook wash to the size of the rotors - learn something new everyday - but the hook was significantly nicer to rope out of - or even run to on the ground than the Osprey, so I now have that knowledge gap filled (only 99% more gaps to go ;) )

I'm curious about the draft from the double rotor LockMart craft now...
 
Yeah, that’s why the EH-101 / CH-149’actually has higher speed down wash than a Chinook. 35,000 lbs spread over a single 61’ rotor of the Cormorant versus 55,000 lbs max spread over two 60’ rotors makes a difference. The only plus to the 101’s downwash I heard of was from an RAF Air Commodore telling me about his experience flying Merlins in Iraq; the downwash was so intense, it actually cleared lighter sand out of the way in an LZ, leaving heavier coarse sand behind that made for marginally better visibility from brownout than other helicopters (including the ‘Chinnies’)
 
Yeah, that’s why the EH-101 / CH-149’actually has higher speed down wash than a Chinook. 35,000 lbs spread over a single 61’ rotor of the Cormorant versus 55,000 lbs max spread over two 60’ rotors makes a difference. The only plus to the 101’s downwash I heard of was from an RAF Air Commodore telling me about his experience flying Merlins in Iraq; the downwash was so intense, it actually cleared lighter sand out of the way in an LZ, leaving heavier coarse sand behind that made for marginally better visibility from brownout than other helicopters (including the ‘Chinnies’)

Which reminded me of this allegation, about which I am not qualified in the least to comment!

MoD 'should hang heads in shame' over death of Army hero​


MINISTRY of Defence chiefs were today told by a coroner they "should hang their heads in shame" over equipment shortages that led to the death of a heroic British soldier in Afghanistan.

Coroner Andrew Walker delivered the damning verdict after hearing that Corporal Mark Wright was killed while trying to help an injured colleague caught in a minefield. The "downwash" from a Chinook helicopter set off a mine.

The inquest into his death heard that Corporal Wright, 27, and colleagues had requested a helicopter with a winch because of the danger of triggering a mine but were sent the Chinook because nothing with a winch was available.

The decision proved fatal when the air pressure caused by the Chinook's rotors as it approached the ground set off a landmine which inflicted severe shrapnel wounds on Corporal Wright.

 
US army Hooks from the 101 getting in trouble. Hmmm the rotor wash get the fans upset?


In this vid...is that the front of a Chinook?

No, AH-64.
 
Which reminded me of this allegation, about which I am not qualified in the least to comment!

MoD 'should hang heads in shame' over death of Army hero​


MINISTRY of Defence chiefs were today told by a coroner they "should hang their heads in shame" over equipment shortages that led to the death of a heroic British soldier in Afghanistan.

Coroner Andrew Walker delivered the damning verdict after hearing that Corporal Mark Wright was killed while trying to help an injured colleague caught in a minefield. The "downwash" from a Chinook helicopter set off a mine.

The inquest into his death heard that Corporal Wright, 27, and colleagues had requested a helicopter with a winch because of the danger of triggering a mine but were sent the Chinook because nothing with a winch was available.

The decision proved fatal when the air pressure caused by the Chinook's rotors as it approached the ground set off a landmine which inflicted severe shrapnel wounds on Corporal Wright.

I've always found the MoD using coroner inquests that way to be odd.
Downwash itself isn't going to setoff a pressure mine, but some of the mines in Afghan had been sitting for a while - so you ended up with both ends of the spectrum - sometimes in the same minefield.
1) Some got so sensitive that they'd go off if anything jostled them lightly - or
2) on the other end where either so packed in mud or rendered inert due to time/weather that you could jump on them repeatedly and they wouldn't go off (I don't recommend that method - but people do get bored at times).

Some of the locals started stacking mines as IED's not so much for a Big Bang - but the fact that if you put 3-4 old Russian AT mines in a hole - at least 1 would usually go off with vehicle pressure.

So Mines where best worked on with something like this - what HALO used to clear mines - the MineDozer.

HALODozer.jpg
 
US army Hooks from the 101 getting in trouble. Hmmm the rotor wash get the fans upset?


In this vid...is that the front of a Chinook?

FAA rules are guidelines to the Military - they don't control what the Military does with Aircraft.

I don't think the rotor wash worried anyone - it'e the Debbie downers who want to armchair everyone based on ground perspectives.
The cables everyone seems to in a roar about aren't even possible to fly under - the issue is the view the ground camera gave - so some people freak out rather than looking at what was done and what was actually possible.

The public would lose their mind to see what happens during a RUT.
 
Back
Top