LAV III Upgrade Project Signed

[Guest Derek L]

I am surprised with your experience that you would suggest Helos could fly and hover in brown/white outs...

They can and do......Ground effects and the inherent negative attributes ( downwash, brown/whiteout, ingestion of FOD etc) are all part in parcel with most rotary wing operations, and these attributes are further magnified when takeoff/landing from a artificially high surface in contrast with mother earth (Helipad on a building or a ship at sea). Now due to the nature of the Osprey’s current combat history, it has been forced to deal with brownout conditions (Sand) almost daily well conducting combat operations, and it’s inherent ability to cope with these conditions has been a marked improvement over the CH-46 Phrog (Or Lab in your case)……The artificial brownout will start to occur at higher altitudes, but due to the placement of nacelles/rotors on the Osprey, it’s actually improved pilot visibility and awareness when compared to operations with the Sea Knight……..

I’ll respond to the rest of your post later, goin’ fishing.

[Army Guy]

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.

ust so i understand , for the most part we are talking about rescues at sea, on ships that landing the helo is not an option. And yet the SAR cummunity has a history of pulling off some pretty hairy rescues regardless.

And i get it the fact that once a spin starts it can or could be violent, but considering the other options, satying on board a sinking ves, i think most would rather have the shit spun out of them rather than stay on board...

Being a grunt i have not had the pleasure of a hoist, i've fast rope and repelled dozens of times and have never had any problems with down wash or spin...so i'm assuming it is just with the trip back onto the helo...

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.

If it was simple then everyone would be doing it...i guess that is why you guys get all that fancy airforce pay...but i thought the larger the helo the more range and time you have over target, the smaller the aircraft the less down wash you experience...which one really holds the most benifits,or wieght when picking a SAR aircraft...perhaps what we need is 2 or 3 different aircraft sort of mission specific...

As derek mentioned white out and brown out in Afghanistan are pretty common, most landings are brown outs, where pilot and FE can not see anything there are no references and in some cases pretty violent....Not sure how the pilots mange to put us on the ground whether its just pray and keep lowing the aircraft, or by instrument...but the do it every day...

Edited January 21, 2012 by Army Guy

[Wiggum]

ust so i understand , for the most part we are talking about rescues at sea, on ships that landing the helo is not an option. And yet the SAR cummunity has a history of pulling off some pretty hairy rescues regardless.

And i get it the fact that once a spin starts it can or could be violent, but considering the other options, satying on board a sinking ves, i think most would rather have the shit spun out of them rather than stay on board...

Being a grunt i have not had the pleasure of a hoist, i've fast rope and repelled dozens of times and have never had any problems with down wash or spin...so i'm assuming it is just with the trip back onto the helo...

If it was simple then everyone would be doing it...i guess that is why you guys get all that fancy airforce pay...but i thought the larger the helo the more range and time you have over target, the smaller the aircraft the less down wash you experience...which one really holds the most benifits,or wieght when picking a SAR aircraft...perhaps what we need is 2 or 3 different aircraft sort of mission specific...

As derek mentioned white out and brown out in Afghanistan are pretty common, most landings are brown outs, where pilot and FE can not see anything there are no references and in some cases pretty violent....Not sure how the pilots mange to put us on the ground whether its just pray and keep lowing the aircraft, or by instrument...but the do it every day...

Landing in brown/white out conditions is VERY different then maneuvering in said conditions. Flying through mountains, conducting hoists(rappelling,fast roping in your case) into trees/onto boats confined area landings etc.. are not things you do with 0 reference points. You would not see a Griffon/Chinook pilot land a chopper in Afghanistan with buildings(for example) 20 feet off his rotors in a complete brown out. Realize there is a difference between complete loss of references and losing 90%. What you perceive as a brown out as grunt in the back in the back is most likely not perceived in the same manner by your pilots. Any pilot can slam down a chopper in an open field with 0 vis using instruments once sand/snow obstructs his view. Add obstacles and things become very different.

Im an ex grunt myself. 2VP

Edited January 21, 2012 by Wiggum

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Then that’s a rub………whether rescuing the proverbial lost skier or the crew of sinking fishing boat, as you say, the ultimate determination of success or failure would be the overall condition of said patient. I would think the Osprey’s ability to transit to and from said patient would be vital to ensuring a successful outcome in a great many cases.

When we look at the MV-22’s attributes it’s comparable to the Buffalo and only lacking in range and cruising speed when contrasted with the Herc……..But it can (and has) demonstrated overall superior capabilities when compared to a helicopter.

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.

Here we seem at loggerheads.......The data is readily available when discussing the Osprey’s downwash in comparison to both the CH-46 and CH-53, and as I already stated operationally, it has been found that the MV-22’s downwash is less a concern when compared to the CH-46 (For those not in the know, the same aircraft we use to use for RWSAR, the CH-113 Labrador)……….When we contrast the Lab with the Cormorant, as you mentioned, there is a significant increase in downwash, just as there is when comparing the CH-46 to the CH-53.……….By deduction of the data shown from operational experience of the Osprey, a lot of the negative hype is just that………..For what it’s worth, if one was so inclined, you could clear a campsite with a 206.….

Well hardly meant as conclusive evidence, here’s two videos of both the MV-22 & CH-53 landing aboard an LHD, underway (When the effects of downwash will be magnified)

Ultimately any potential purchase of the Osprey will come down to two things: the results of said SAR competition trails and the skill of the marketing arm of Boeing/Bell Textron

[WWWTT]

Hey sorry to bother you guys.

But what does these military machines have to do with federal politics?

You guys should ask the moderators to start a specific heading for military weapons,machinery aviation and you get the idea.There definetely seems to be enough of you guys interested to make it a popular heading.

WWWTT

[Wiggum]

Here we seem at loggerheads.......

Agreed...just my opinion anyways...and we all know what opinions are like.

[Guest Derek L]

Hey sorry to bother you guys.

But what does these military machines have to do with federal politics?

You guys should ask the moderators to start a specific heading for military weapons,machinery aviation and you get the idea.There definetely seems to be enough of you guys interested to make it a popular heading.

WWWTT

It has everything to do with federal politics…………DND is , after all, a federal department…….And thought the specifics that we’ve been drifting towards are not necessarily political in nature, the merits behind such will (hopefully) affect a political decision worth billions of federal taxpayer’s dollars and ultimately directly or indirectly play a part in many Canadians day to day lives.

It’s rather fitting that a topic/thread on military spending and politics, discussed namely by current or former serving members is rather structured (in comparison to the vast majority of other topics here) and civil….even though Wiggum and I disagree on specifies adamantly, we’ve abstained from personal attacks and the trolling that seems commonplace here.

Perhaps we should be an example to follow……..just saying.

[Guest Derek L]

Agreed...just my opinion anyways...and we all know what opinions are like.

It’s all good…….Didn’t you read the memo?…..Pilots and aircrew know everything…..bound to happen

[Wiggum]

It’s all good…….Didn’t you read the memo?…..Pilots and aircrew know everything…..bound to happen

Well that's true...just ask us

[Wiggum]

Gotta say, even though I have misgivings...it looks awesome in yellow

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2011-10-01/bell-explores-new-missions-v-22-tiltrotor

Edited January 22, 2012 by Wiggum

[WWWTT]

It has everything to do with federal politics…………DND is , after all, a federal department…….And thought the specifics that we’ve been drifting towards are not necessarily political in nature, the merits behind such will (hopefully) affect a political decision worth billions of federal taxpayer’s dollars and ultimately directly or indirectly play a part in many Canadians day to day lives.

It’s rather fitting that a topic/thread on military spending and politics, discussed namely by current or former serving members is rather structured (in comparison to the vast majority of other topics here) and civil….even though Wiggum and I disagree on specifies adamantly, we’ve abstained from personal attacks and the trolling that seems commonplace here.

Perhaps we should be an example to follow……..just saying.

Actually from what I have read you guys are more concerned with the mechanics and practicality of such military devices.And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.Aswell your discusions are very civil and in depth.But not political,maybe there are political or could be some kind of political input or political connection directly or inderectly but it does not appear evident.

Its in my opinion that there should be a topic heading specifically for military application or mechanics etc etc.And from seeing this thread grow I would not be suprised if it becomes a popular colum/topic/heading.

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

Actually from what I have read you guys are more concerned with the mechanics and practicality of such military devices.And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.Aswell your discusions are very civil and in depth.But not political,maybe there are political or could be some kind of political input or political connection directly or inderectly but it does not appear evident.

Its in my opinion that there should be a topic heading specifically for military application or mechanics etc etc.And from seeing this thread grow I would not be suprised if it becomes a popular colum/topic/heading.

WWWTT

I still don’t see why this shouldn’t be in federal politics though……..One could construed many angles……….The reaction of some who are opposed to military spending……..The NDP’s support of the SAR purchase…….The aircraft I support, is made by Boeing and Bell, both companies have major facilities within Quebec and Manitoba……..Should domestic SAR be done by the military at all?…….Would the Government base their choice solely on political reasons as opposed to technical, for example would they choose inferior aircraft produced by Canadian companies from BC (Viking) or Quebec (Bombardier)?…….Would picking the C-130J, made by Lockheed, coupled with the JSF purchase come across as sole sourcing?

One thing is certain and a constant with Canadian defence purchases, they are very political

As for the lack their of political discussions directly, I’d assume that’s due to like minded people talking and being already of the same mind.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Derek L

[Smallc]

How does Spain have such a large military on a $15B budget?

[Guest Derek L]

How does Spain have such a large military on a $15B budget?

Two reasons namely (And the same can be said about most European Countries) heavily subsidized industries (Navantia, CASA, ENASA etc) and reduced Human resource commitments (military pay) made up by civilian social programs…Both of these, though directly benefiting the military, do not come out of it‘s budget……Also, for many years, many European militaries benefited from conscription.

[Smallc]

Interesting. Do you think that the NSPS and building of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship before the Canadian Surface Combatant, and the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel and Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels before the JSS/AOR, arctic icebreaker, and other CCG ships will potentially reduce costs for us the same way that it does for other countries.

[Guest Derek L]

Interesting. Do you think that the NSPS and building of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship before the Canadian Surface Combatant, and the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel and Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels before the JSS/AOR, arctic icebreaker, and other CCG ships will potentially reduce costs for us the same way that it does for other countries.

Not really……I expect the inverse……Many of the subsidized industries (Shipbuilding for example) in Europe have been as such for many decades and already have the “expertise” so to speak……Where as we are basically starting from the ground up in many aspects again (Many of the workers on the 330s have retired or are getting close to) and we will have to regain many skill sets……..Perhaps, if the strategy eventually allows the Canadian yards an increase in commercial building, when we replace these ships we might see some cost savings…….Maybe.

That being said, the actual steel bashing of the ships is the (relatively) easy and cheap part……Remember, steel is cheap and air is free……..It’s what you put into the ships that is expensive…….

[Smallc]

I was just thinking that since we'll be building the smaller and simpler ships first, it may result in less cost that would have been borne for the larger, and more expensive ships.

[Guest Derek L]

I was just thinking that since we'll be building the smaller and simpler ships first, it may result in less cost that would have been borne for the larger, and more expensive ships.

Perhaps, at the very least, it will reduce the possibility of structural issues associated with poor/novice ship construction when they get to the combatants (But is never a guarantee…ie LPD-17 issues)…….Like the old adage, learn to walk , then to run………

[Guest Derek L]

Though this thread is not directly relating to the replacement for Fixed wing SAR, we did have several pages of discussion relating to it here, so I thought I’d add this piece:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/replacement-for-50-year-old-air-force-search-planes-postponed-another-year-141970143.html

Of interest:

A senior defence official, who asked not to be identified, said the specifications are now wide. Companies will be asked to submit proposals that demonstrate their aircraft will be able to cover the country's three search-and-rescue geographic sectors; carry survival and life-saving gear; possess a rear-loading ramp; and be able to conduct operations within a 15-hour crew day.

The specifications would require the winning bidder to provide a single aircraft to be on stand by in each sector 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The parameters are so broad they even leave it up to the companies to suggest where the planes should be based.

Taken together the requirements have led to speculation the federal government is prepared to farm out fixed-wing search-and-rescue, possibly as an alternative service delivery contract.

Other countries, notably Australia, have moved in that direction.

The Royal Australian Air Force has taken a step back from search duties allowing the country's customs authority to carry out the role with aircraft that are owned and maintained by a private contractor.

About time the Federal Government seriously looks at refocusing DND’s role in domestic SAR………….I’d think giving the role to the Coast Guard and/or private contractors would be ideal.

One more thing to add:

The maker of the controversial F-35 stealth fighter, Lockheed Martin Corp., is in line to offer more C-130J Hercules transports. The company argues that since the air force just finished buying 17 of those planes there are cost savings to be had in training and spares by adding to the fleet.

Boeing Aircraft has apparently demonstrated its V-22 Osprey tilt-wing plane.

Alenia, makers of the C-27-J Spartan, are also in the running.

Hehehehe