LAV III Upgrade Project Signed

[Guest Derek L]

queue a straw man from Derek in 3... 2... 1...

OK....How many times has your straw man brunt down?

[PIK]

How many land mine are there in Canada? None? Just more proof Harper wants to turn us into a interventionist nation.

The world is falling down around us, and the PM's job is to make sure canadians are protected.I am glad for once we have a PM who does not have the blinders on.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The world is falling down around us, and the PM's job is to make sure canadians are protected.I am glad for once we have a PM who does not have the blinders on.

Our PM just made headlines by saying he was scared of Iran. Afraid? Really? Well what can we expect from a guy who never worked for a living!

Meanwhile I read some folks want to privatize search and rescue operations, lets hope not. Blinders on? How about calling a spade a spade and just say what we now have in government is the blind leading the blind. We have about twenty times more need then realization of being able to even WATCH our borders and shores. The lip service given to that little detail angers me to a very large degree.

I really like the idea of V22's for SAR though. I also like the idea of at least starting to add to our naval defense capabilities, but on the other hand we are really talking about taking older ships of the line out of service and merely replacing them. So we will have new toys, but no real increase in our ability to project force.

I don't think we will ever see an interventionist policy for our military, because that is not who we are. In order to do that we would have to increase spending to the degree that would nearly bankrupt the nation, not a good plan if the nation is not under some DIRECT THREAT.

[Smallc]

A 1 for 1 ship replacement can still mean an increase in capability.

[PIK]

Our PM just made headlines by saying he was scared of Iran. Afraid? Really? Well what can we expect from a guy who never worked for a living!

Meanwhile I read some folks want to privatize search and rescue operations, lets hope not. Blinders on? How about calling a spade a spade and just say what we now have in government is the blind leading the blind. We have about twenty times more need then realization of being able to even WATCH our borders and shores. The lip service given to that little detail angers me to a very large degree.

I really like the idea of V22's for SAR though. I also like the idea of at least starting to add to our naval defense capabilities, but on the other hand we are really talking about taking older ships of the line out of service and merely replacing them. So we will have new toys, but no real increase in our ability to project force.

I don't think we will ever see an interventionist policy for our military, because that is not who we are. In order to do that we would have to increase spending to the degree that would nearly bankrupt the nation, not a good plan if the nation is not under some DIRECT THREAT.

The whole world should be , take sometime and read what these religous freaks are all about and what they believe in. Very hardcore religion. They should just find out where all these sick religious leaders meet and just take them out, most of the iranian pop would thank you.

[PIK]

V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame

And people bytch about the F-35 and you want these.

V-22 crashes have claimed the lives of 30 men — 10 times the lunar program's toll

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666282,00.html#ixzz1jvMWvGWU

[Smallc]

I prefer the C-130j, delivered to the same specs as the earlier order. I might get the plane, but it will probably not have the cargo management system.

[bush_cheney2004]

V-22 crashes have claimed the lives of 30 men — 10 times the lunar program's toll

Apples to oranges comparison...there were more than the three Apollo One deaths in the USA's lunar program.

[Guest Derek L]

V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame

And people bytch about the F-35 and you want these.

V-22 crashes have claimed the lives of 30 men — 10 times the lunar program's toll

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666282,00.html#ixzz1jvMWvGWU

As BC said, complete apples & oranges………2/3rds of the death toll occurred during a single incident………

[Wiggum]

The Osprey is a terrible idea for FWSAR/RWSAR. The downwash is ridiculous on those things. The Cormorant has terrible downwash as well. Blowing down trees on top of Sar Techs, blowing over patients, launching stokes litters into the air, blasting spray into the face of rescuers/victims in water rescues...and people think the V-22 which has more downwash is a good idea? No thanks.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Wiggum

[Guest Derek L]

The Osprey is a terrible idea for FWSAR/RWSAR. The downwash is ridiculous on those things. The Cormorant has terrible downwash as well. Blowing down trees on top of Sar Techs, blowing over patients, launching stokes litters into the air, blasting spray into the face of rescuers/victims in water rescues...and people think the V-22 which has more downwash is a good idea? No thanks.

Ahh…….Do you know how that’s countered? Really simple……….A longer and heavier rescue winch (Like on the CH-53)………One of the Osprey’s intended roles since conception was CSAR, which is many magnitudes more demanding than our requirements. Added, the Osprey has already demonstrated it’s ability in this role over Libya.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Derek L

[Wiggum]

Ahh…….Do you know how that’s countered? Really simple……….A longer and heavier rescue winch (Like on the CH-53)………One of the Osprey’s intended roles since conception was CSAR, which is many magnitudes more demanding than our requirements. Added, the Osprey has already demonstrated it’s ability in this role over Libya.

A heavier winch does nothing but hopefully stop a down wash induced spin.(chances are it'll happen anyways on occasion)A longer winch is insignificant as each hoist sequence is performed at different heights depending on the mission requirements. In fact, the higher the hoist, the more difficulty pilots have keeping reference placing rescuers and victims at greater risk.

A longer and heavier hoist also doesn't solve any of the other issues I stated above. We aren't talking CSAR. This is in country SAR where saving lives and patient care is the priority. Big difference in requirements.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Wiggum

[Army Guy]

A heavier winch does nothing but hopefully stop a down wash induced spin.(chances are it'll happen anyways on occasion)A longer winch is insignificant as each hoist sequence is performed at different heights depending on the mission requirements. In fact, the higher the hoist, the more difficulty pilots have keeping reference placing rescuers and victims at greater risk.

Correct me if i'm wrong but a longer winch will allow for the aircraft to obtain a greater hieght , thus negacting the dangerous down wash would it not, as for the pilots lossing reference, i thought the Cormorant had an Auto hover capability....that and i thought that was the Flight Engineer's job to keep the pilot informed on where the helo was in ref to crew on the ground...could the Osprey not have the same tech put in side it.

[Army Guy]

The Tories can buy all the toys for the military it wants but if you don't have the man/woman power to run them they just rust from sitting there. Would they increase pay to equal their own because I think the military should have as much pay and pensions as the MP's do. If the Tories, don't increase pay but need the man/woman power, the only other way is mandatory 5 year run in the military for ALL Canadians, even their own.

Where did you get this...Have you looked at what our soldiers make....A cpl with 3 to 4 years time in is making well over 50 k a year...how many industries can match that,with only grade 12 education...yes there are some but not many...Pay is not the problem, what is, is the lack of infra structure to house them all, not enough equipment, thats the problem....

[cybercoma]

The world is falling down around us, and the PM's job is to make sure canadians are protected.I am glad for once we have a PM who does not have the blinders on.

The world is just fine. It certainly isn't our place to go around the world telling sovereign nations what they should do.

[Wiggum]

Correct me if i'm wrong but a longer winch will allow for the aircraft to obtain a greater hieght , thus negacting the dangerous down wash would it not, as for the pilots lossing reference, i thought the Cormorant had an Auto hover capability....that and i thought that was the Flight Engineer's job to keep the pilot informed on where the helo was in ref to crew on the ground...could the Osprey not have the same tech put in side it.

The higher you are the more pilots wander in their hover causing induced swinging and spinning. In a Cormorant for example, with 300 feet of cable out that small maneuvering up top causes major havoc down below...Same on a Griffon with it's 250ft.

The flight engineer does call clearances and give adjustments. That does not stop a pilot with no references(and some with great references ) from wandering all over the place. An FE can correct all he wants but the pilot must have some sort of reference to hold a steady hover. Add that to the fact that from 200ft(for example) an FE cannot judge if he is a foot or two out on the pick up. That small amount induces a small swing. Once tha small swing hits the down wash it quickly translates into a spin...which can be quite violent.

The Cormorant does have auto hover but that doesn't mean the pilots don't need to adjust the aircraft left/right forward and back...which requires references to hold. Now add wind etc into the equation...it's never as simple as it seems. Which is why SAR flying relies heavily on the crew concept.

[Smallc]

The world is just fine. It certainly isn't our place to go around the world telling sovereign nations what they should do.

Sometimes, they need to be told....unless Lyon think that countries killing their own citizens are okay.

[Guest Derek L]

A heavier winch does nothing but hopefully stop a down wash induced spin.(chances are it'll happen anyways on occasion)A longer winch is insignificant as each hoist sequence is performed at different heights depending on the mission requirements. In fact, the higher the hoist, the more difficulty pilots have keeping reference placing rescuers and victims at greater risk.

A longer and heavier hoist also doesn't solve any of the other issues I stated above. We aren't talking CSAR. This is in country SAR where saving lives and patient care is the priority. Big difference in requirements.

Really simple question.......Has ground effects ever affected winch operations so drastic that a CH-53 was unable to carry out a rescue?

But what about the washed induced spin?

Edited January 21, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

The higher you are the more pilots wander in their hover causing induced swinging and spinning. In a Cormorant for example, with 300 feet of cable out that small maneuvering up top causes major havoc down below...Same on a Griffon with it's 250ft.

The flight engineer does call clearances and give adjustments. That does not stop a pilot with no references(and some with great references ) from wandering all over the place. An FE can correct all he wants but the pilot must have some sort of reference to hold a steady hover. Add that to the fact that from 200ft(for example) an FE cannot judge if he is a foot or two out on the pick up. That small amount induces a small swing. Once tha small swing hits the down wash it quickly translates into a spin...which can be quite violent.

The Cormorant does have auto hover but that doesn't mean the pilots don't need to adjust the aircraft left/right forward and back...which requires references to hold. Now add wind etc into the equation...it's never as simple as it seems. Which is why SAR flying relies heavily on the crew concept.

The lack of reference point seems “astounding“………What would the flight crew do if the rescue point was covered in fog? Or at night?

[Wiggum]

The lack of reference point seems “astounding“………What would the flight crew do if the rescue point was covered in fog? Or at night?

Night they use NVGs but still require references to hold a steady hover. There is no such thing as flying into fog and holding a hover...that would be aborted.

[Guest Derek L]

Night they use NVGs but still require references to hold a steady hover. There is no such thing as flying into fog and holding a hover...that would be aborted.

Oh yeah......what about a brownout?

Edited January 21, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Night they use NVGs but still require references to hold a steady hover. There is no such thing as flying into fog and holding a hover...that would be aborted.

So to clarify, you mention three limiting factors associated with RWSAR operations (downwash, fog and night time) and I added brown/whiteout conditions………Obviously these conditions would detract from the probability of a successful rescue……..And of course, none of these limiting factors are recent developments and have plagued rotary winged operations since it’s inception.

Hence my reference to the CH/MH-53 and it’s comparable attributes to the MV-22 when referencing a winch rescue…….The USAF/USN/USMC have been performing rescues, in all the world’s environments, with the Jolly Green Giant for decades, with the added factor (unlike our domestic SAR types) of being shot at well doing it.

Now with the Osprey replacing both the Phrog and Sea Stallion, and having cut it’s teeth in both Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, with the utmost success and improvement in terms of capabilities over it’s predecessors, I’m forced to question your opposition to the MV-22.

As demonstrated, the US has conducted rescues in similar or more difficult circumstances then our domestic SAR types, and in the case of the MH-53, with equipment of lesser or same capabilities, with any short comings being addressed via technology in the MV-22. That leaves training and the resistance to change (And perhaps empire building within the RCAF) doctrine as to the only limiting factors in using the MV-22 for a platform for Canadian domestic SAR.

One other factor that has yet to be brought up is money…….No way around it, the Osprey is expensive, but operational savings could be felt by adopting it and replacing four aircraft types (possibly five if we include the Totter) for domestic operations………To say nothing about the expansion of capabilities that it would offer in terms of arctic SAR and presence, what with it’s ability to self deploy (unlike a Helicopter) to Northern Canada………SAR aside, one could even argue that based on our own experiences in the dirt box, the Osprey would make a perfect complement to our future CH-47s by reducing our reliance on the Griffon in the THS/SOAS……..

Edited January 21, 2012 by Derek L

[Wiggum]

So to clarify, you mention three limiting factors associated with RWSAR operations (downwash, fog and night time) and I added brown/whiteout conditions………Obviously these conditions would detract from the probability of a successful rescue……..And of course, none of these limiting factors are recent developments and have plagued rotary winged operations since it’s inception.

Hence my reference to the CH/MH-53 and it’s comparable attributes to the MV-22 when referencing a winch rescue…….The USAF/USN/USMC have been performing rescues, in all the world’s environments, with the Jolly Green Giant for decades, with the added factor (unlike our domestic SAR types) of being shot at well doing it.

Now with the Osprey replacing both the Phrog and Sea Stallion, and having cut it’s teeth in both Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, with the utmost success and improvement in terms of capabilities over it’s predecessors, I’m forced to question your opposition to the MV-22.

As demonstrated, the US has conducted rescues in similar or more difficult circumstances then our domestic SAR types, and in the case of the MH-53, with equipment of lesser or same capabilities, with any short comings being addressed via technology in the MV-22. That leaves training and the resistance to change (And perhaps empire building within the RCAF) doctrine as to the only limiting factors in using the MV-22 for a platform for Canadian domestic SAR.

One other factor that has yet to be brought up is money…….No way around it, the Osprey is expensive, but operational savings could be felt by adopting it and replacing four aircraft types (possibly five if we include the Totter) for domestic operations………To say nothing about the expansion of capabilities that it would offer in terms of arctic SAR and presence, what with it’s ability to self deploy (unlike a Helicopter) to Northern Canada………SAR aside, one could even argue that based on our own experiences in the dirt box, the Osprey would make a perfect complement to our future CH-47s by reducing our reliance on the Griffon in the THS/SOAS……..

I suggest you reread my previous posts as you are obviously not comprehending.

Helos don't purposely fly into brown/white outs. Sometimes they happen when they are landing. Sometimes they are still able to land with some small reference on the ground and sometimes they will need to abort.You would NEVER see a rescue hoist happen in a complete white/brown out. Your thoughts on flight seem to be a little skewed.

Your also still comparing a need for domestic SAR dealing with civilians to a CSAR war scenario. Two completely different beasts.

I agree that the Griffon is sad a best. Especially used in a SAR role in a country the size of Canada.

I should add that I am speaking from 10 years of pointy end CF SAR experience and have worked on all four of our current SAR platforms.

435

424

442

Edited January 21, 2012 by Wiggum

[Guest Derek L]

I suggest you reread my previous posts as you are obviously not comprehending.

Helos don't purposely fly into brown/white outs. Sometimes they happen when they are landing. Sometimes they are still able to land with some small reference on the ground and sometimes they will need to abort.You would NEVER see a rescue hoist happen in a complete white/brown out. Your thoughts on flight seem to be a little skewed.

Your also still comparing a need for domestic SAR dealing with civilians to a CSAR war scenario. Two completely different beasts.

I agree that the Griffon is sad a best. Especially used in a SAR role in a country the size of Canada.

I should add that I am speaking from 10 years of pointy end CF SAR experience and have worked on all four of our current SAR platforms.

435

424

442

Yes, I understand the complexity of rotary flight in various environments (Speaking from 13 years of experience on the pointy end of the Maritime Helicopter Community, then several combined years with Boeing on the CH-46 DCU program in the 90s and various other civil rotary wing programs through Bell).

I have read your posts, but yet to find anything that could be a deal breaker in terms of the RCAF adopting the MV-22.………As I mentioned numerous times on here, my first preference is to either privatize and/or transfer responsibility of domestic SAR to the Coast Guard. If this is not to be, then the RCAF should continually adopt newer capabilities that not only improve it’s current skill sets but also add to them, hence the Osprey.

As for CSAR vs. SAR, would you care to outline the differences between rescuing a lost hiker in the woods as opposed to a downed fighter pilot? Perhaps I’m lacking in this knowledge and this is creating the apparent disconnect.

[Wiggum]

Yes, I understand the complexity of rotary flight in various environments (Speaking from 13 years of experience on the pointy end of the Maritime Helicopter Community, then several combined years with Boeing on the CH-46 DCU program in the 90s and various other civil rotary wing programs through Bell).

I have read your posts, but yet to find anything that could be a deal breaker in terms of the RCAF adopting the MV-22.………As I mentioned numerous times on here, my first preference is to either privatize and/or transfer responsibility of domestic SAR to the Coast Guard. If this is not to be, then the RCAF should continually adopt newer capabilities that not only improve it’s current skill sets but also add to them, hence the Osprey.

As for CSAR vs. SAR, would you care to outline the differences between rescuing a lost hiker in the woods as opposed to a downed fighter pilot? Perhaps I’m lacking in this knowledge and this is creating the apparent disconnect.

I am surprised with your experience that you would suggest Helos could fly and in brown/white outs...when it happens the top priority is getting out of it ASAP...not carrying out a hoisting land sequence.

Huge difference between picking up a wet, hypothermic father and his 8 year in Muskoka after they plunged through the ice and saving a downed F18 pilot under Taliban fire in Afghanistan. In the first case patient care is top priority, in the second security and speed (in and out)is top.

I understand where you are going with your idea of a V-22 application. Honestly I agree. I think domestic SAR should be passed on the the Coast Guard and a CSAR application stood up...it is the military after all. It's been talked about for years but it doesn't seem to be happening. If the CF SAR world does go the CSAR route then I might be inclined to agree with you. However, as it stands right now, the requirements of domestic SAR are not met with a V-22 based on its down wash alone.(IMO of course) I couldn't imagine trying to pick up the said 8yo above as he is blown about the ice by V-22 down wash.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Wiggum