CdnFox Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Nope, its entirely ours. Yours maybe I mean look what you and your lefties did to canada already voting trudeau in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 27 Author Report Share Posted February 27 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_VH-92_Patriot It seems we are not the only ones that are having issues with this helo...and lets be honest the EH101 won the intial contract, but was declared to expensive another competition was held, and all the candidates dropped out with the except of ya you guess it H-92... not buying a tested aircraft is a huge mistake, but buying an orphan aircraft, is even worse mistake, in 15 years time when they no longer make parts we will be looking at massive maintenance costs, and extremely hard to get parts... Not including the ability to lunch missiles is just another red flag, this is a major requirement in most navies...it restricts the capabilities of the ship and helo capabilities.. It will be a huge deck wight when the spares run out...then what get a C-17 to fly out a new one....this is another example of someone not getting the right equipment into the hands of those that need it... Yeah like I said it wasn’t expected to he an orphan when we chose it. But when we skimped on missiles and buggered the contract for over a decade we didn’t impress anyone else to buy it. VH-92 complications have been worked out it seems, it will fully assume all presidential transport responsibilities this year Sikorsky VH-92A Patriot to take over Marine One mission completely by 2024 https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/sikorsky-vh-92a-marine-one-2024/amp The EH101 version named VH-71 Kestrel also had delays, performance and cost overrun problems Besides there is no way the US military would ever let the POTUS fly in a European helicopter over an American one. It’s like when the proven Airbus MRTT won the USAF KC-135 replacement competition, the Air Force just redid the competition and them awarded the contract to an unproven and less capable Boeing aircraft that’s plagued with deficienciesbb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 9 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Yeah like I said it wasn’t expected to he an orphan when we chose it. But when we skimped on missiles and buggered the contract for over a decade we didn’t impress anyone else to buy it. VH-92 complications have been worked out it seems, it will fully assume all presidential transport responsibilities this year Sikorsky VH-92A Patriot to take over Marine One mission completely by 2024 https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/sikorsky-vh-92a-marine-one-2024/amp The EH101 version named VH-71 Kestrel also had delays, performance and cost overrun problems Besides there is no way the US military would ever let the POTUS fly in a European helicopter over an American one. It’s like when the proven Airbus MRTT won the USAF KC-135 replacement competition, the Air Force just redid the competition and them awarded the contract to an unproven and less capable Boeing aircraft that’s plagued with deficienciesbb The EH101 is not an "orphan". Over 150 are in operation. The fleet has more than 500,000 cumulative flying hours now. More than 6 countries and several police forces are using it. It is also for commercial (off shore oil) work. Once the American public found out the Marines were going to use the Kestrel, they went berserk and everything stopped. It was Lockheed Martin that won the contract to deliver the Kestrel. We, Canada, through a third party and some magic contractual dealings, bought all the Kestrels the Americans had (12 of them). We are using them fo spare parts. The H-92 (CH148 Cyclone) is what we bought to replace the ship borne Sea Kings. It is not as big or does not have the range of the EH101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 (edited) 14 hours ago, Aristides said: I'm not qualified to comment on its capabilities which may be considerable, just that we have spent a lot of time and money to saddle ourselves to an orphan. However, if you say it isn't capable of carrying anti shipping missiles that seems like a major oversight if we were planning on others to buy it. Seems to me that these days a frigate's helicopter is just as likely to be doing things like chasing Somali pirates and Houthis as hunting subs. A couple of Hellfires would make it a lot more intimidating than just being able to watch. I remember the first action I heard about in the Falklands war was a Lynx helicopter from a frigate or destroyer taking out an Argentine patrol boat with a missile. The CH148 is not an attack helicopter. It was designed purely to be ASW (with minor SAR capability). It is the "eyes and ears" of the ships they are on. They are only offensive for submarines, not any more and never intended to be any more. It does not have the range for anti ship missile operations. (about 450 kms there and back at most efficient speed) Edited February 27 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 (edited) 14 hours ago, Army Guy said: Another media source 'Scott Taylor" addressing our military issues and problems, only this one puts into perspective that the government nor DND is actually telling us the whole truth about shortages...Now well past the 16 thousand we have been told...in some cases 40 % short.... I get it today the liberals have drained the swamp when it comes to funds, and pretty much broken everything in site so massive amounts of funding is going to be needed to bring it all back to normal....everything is more expensive, people are actually struggling to make ends meet....Conservatives are going to have to spend more to dig us out of this hole...sooner than later we are going to have to address our military before it becomes to expensive to even revive... we are hearing that soldiers are back in food banks, with a small percentage homeless...yes i said homeless...if that is not a red flag i'm not sure what is...we are slowly purchasing equipment, and i'm not sure who or what guides these projects but the big elephant in the room is our procurement and all of it's guide lines, political interference, Military members allowing this type of behavior and kotowing to politicians at the expense of military members lives...by not purchasing the best , but rather the cheapest bidder..politicians should agree to the purchase in general, then agree on a pot of money and let the military pick what, where, and how many.. One day Canadians will wake up, hopefully before it is to late...although i do not have any faith in our current population to due so... Not sure why active military personnel are going to food banks, let alone homeless. Their pay is very good. "Competitive Salary As a new direct entry recruit in the Regular Force, you could earn anywhere from $3,492 to $5,123 per month, while you complete basic training. Once you are fully trained for your chosen occupation, your salary will continue to increase based on your time in the military, rank and acquired skills." "All service personnel, men and women, married or single, are paid on the same scale. A private that has just joined can earn $39,000 annually, increasing to $72,000 when they reach the next rank of Corporal." which is 3 to 4 years after joining. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/regular2024.html As for "by not purchasing the best , but rather the cheapest bidder", that is government policy for everything it buys and has been that way for many many decades. Lowest price wins, not best value for the dollar or best product for the job. Meet the minimum requirements for the cheapest price, you win. Edited February 27 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 27 Author Report Share Posted February 27 6 hours ago, ExFlyer said: The EH101 is not an "orphan". Over 150 are in operation. The fleet has more than 500,000 cumulative flying hours now. More than 6 countries and several police forces are using it. It is also for commercial (off shore oil) work. Once the American public found out the Marines were going to use the Kestrel, they went berserk and everything stopped. It was Lockheed Martin that won the contract to deliver the Kestrel. We, Canada, through a third party and some magic contractual dealings, bought all the Kestrels the Americans had (12 of them). We are using them fo spare parts. The H-92 (CH148 Cyclone) is what we bought to replace the ship borne Sea Kings. It is not as big or does not have the range of the EH101 YepI have no quarrel with the EH/AW 101. Lockheed was the wrapper on the Airbus MRTT too but I think everyone knows those aircraft aren’t “really” American. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 6 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Not sure why active military personnel are going to food banks, let alone homeless. Their pay is very good. "Competitive Salary As a new direct entry recruit in the Regular Force, you could earn anywhere from $3,492 to $5,123 per month, while you complete basic training. Once you are fully trained for your chosen occupation, your salary will continue to increase based on your time in the military, rank and acquired skills." "All service personnel, men and women, married or single, are paid on the same scale. A private that has just joined can earn $39,000 annually, increasing to $72,000 when they reach the next rank of Corporal." which is 3 to 4 years after joining. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/regular2024.html As for "by not purchasing the best , but rather the cheapest bidder", that is government policy for everything it buys and has been that way for many many decades. Lowest price wins, not best value for the dollar or best product for the job. Meet the minimum requirements for the cheapest price, you win. Sure the pay is consider good in certain provinces, here in NB the average pay is 36,k...so ya 39 k to start with would look good, but the average home cost to build is well of 500 K, the average cost to buy is almost the same...not doing that on 39 k, nor 72 k...Not many homes are being purchased here in NB by people that earn less than 50 K , most of them come from out west, and have driven the cost to out ragious levels. with most new homes starting at 500 k and going to 8 to 900 k....less than 5 years ago i purchased a home for 385 k, today it is worth well over 700k ... thats crazy....But lets take a look at Ontario or alberta, or Vancouver, 72 k is not going to get your very far, after mortgage , and other bills......and the military has already destroyed a full 1/3 of it's PMQ's and single housing units so those benefits are gone...... The military is well paid , we are the number one paid in the world...does not mean in todays world it goes as far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 (edited) 20 hours ago, Army Guy said: Sure the pay is consider good in certain provinces, here in NB the average pay is 36,k...so ya 39 k to start with would look good, but the average home cost to build is well of 500 K, the average cost to buy is almost the same...not doing that on 39 k, nor 72 k...Not many homes are being purchased here in NB by people that earn less than 50 K , most of them come from out west, and have driven the cost to out ragious levels. with most new homes starting at 500 k and going to 8 to 900 k....less than 5 years ago i purchased a home for 385 k, today it is worth well over 700k ... thats crazy....But lets take a look at Ontario or alberta, or Vancouver, 72 k is not going to get your very far, after mortgage , and other bills......and the military has already destroyed a full 1/3 of it's PMQ's and single housing units so those benefits are gone...... The military is well paid , we are the number one paid in the world...does not mean in todays world it goes as far... I am not one of those folks that is line with every persons is entitled to own a home. Home prices are high in every province. Many folks cannot afford to buy and many others choose not to be homeowners and the continuous expenses associated with that. Privates with 2 years in make more that $50K, as you know. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/regular.html#toc0 Yes, Military personnel are paid well and they are better off than many others. I suspect in NB, the military are at the higher end of the pay scale. While PMQ's and single quarters are decreasing, they are still there. Many folks are struggling and waiting for low income spaces to live and are worse off with far less monthly stipend. "does not mean in todays world it goes as far..." as what?? Edited February 28 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: YepI have no quarrel with the EH/AW 101. Lockheed was the wrapper on the Airbus MRTT too but I think everyone knows those aircraft aren’t “really” American. The "US101" was going to be built in the US. " Originally marketed for various competitions as the US101, it was developed and manufactured in the US by a consortium headed by Lockheed Martin, consisting of Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego (LMSI), AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_VH-71_Kestrel Design of aircraft, any kind, is now a world wide thing, as is the manufacture of the component parts. Be it Boeing, Airbus, Sikorsky, or Augusta/Westland or Eurocopter or Bell, parts come from whomever can build them cheapest and quickest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 2 hours ago, ExFlyer said: I am not one of those folks that is line with every persons is entitled to own a home. Home prices are high in every province. Many folks cannot afford to buy and many others choose not to be homeowners and the continuous expenses associated with that. Yes, Military personnel are paid well and they are better off than many others. I suspect in NB, the military are at the higher end of the pay scale. While PMQ's and single quarters are decreasing, they are still there. Many folks are struggling and waiting for low income spaces to live and are worse off with far less monthly stipend. "does not mean in todays world it goes as far..." as what?? That has been the dream of most couples to own or purchase their own home...it has been for decades...Today many reasons why these dreams are unattainable... Those members that are homeless or visiting food banks most likely not in NB..most likely for the larger cities, where home prices have exceeded 1 million dollars and then some...every pay bracket has it's limits of what is affordable....Military postings are not based on your income or if you can afford housing they are based personal numbers , a young private and his wife posted to toronto where PMQ are filled to capacity is going to have issues...I thought you would be able to see that, maybe you where not exposed to that during your career... Yes PMQ are still there, but what is there like i said have been taken down a full 1/3 atleast in some case or bases more than that. Here is the rub many other people have the option of moving to another city that suits their budget a military member is stuck there until they are posted out, and with posting getting much longer due to restraints, that could mean 10 plus years...So while my heart bleeds for other not as fortunate as those that can not afford a house...The military does not give a rats ass, once your posted it is to fill an open position...like it or not your going or your going to release and find a new job. And instead of the military addressing the problem they continue to close PMQ's due to over all affordability... It means that todays soldiers pay does not go as far as yours use to go, and you had the option of living in a PMQ which were plentiful. most do not...In trenton the base commander has told his troops that perhaps they should look into habitant housing for humanity... why do you think that is, i mean why would a full colonel tell his subordinates that if their was not an issue...Why has the Ombudsman gone in front of parliament to address the issue... Why has the media been covering these stories... You did say you where a CWO, this issue is a CWO problem , and is not going to be solved by the remark "they make good money let them sort themselves out...They are after all his people...Shit even at the MWO level i was dealing with issues like these... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 General Hillier on matters of Ukraine and our state of our military. Ukraine at its 'most fragile, most vulnerable period': Gen. Hillier on 2-year anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion | Watch (msn.com) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 4 hours ago, ExFlyer said: The "US101" was going to be built in the US. " Originally marketed for various competitions as the US101, it was developed and manufactured in the US by a consortium headed by Lockheed Martin, consisting of Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego (LMSI), AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_VH-71_Kestrel Design of aircraft, any kind, is now a world wide thing, as is the manufacture of the component parts. Be it Boeing, Airbus, Sikorsky, or Augusta/Westland or Eurocopter or Bell, parts come from whomever can build them cheapest and quickest. What you say is all factually true but at the same time the pattern never changes. US pretty much never buys major “foreign” aircraft or vehicle fleets, even when a US wrapper like Lockheed is put on them pledging to create US jobs etc. and people point out that the “American” company also makes components all over the worls. Even when those foreign companies win a competition suddenly there’s a glitch in the matrix and they end up losing. I don’t think it really comes down to jobs or where components are made it’s about how much the companies who own the US politicians will benefit Everyone knows that if you choose the “US1010” some of that money is going to Europe as it’s their design. If we assume Boeing and LM both have equal influence over politicians, but Boeing stands to benefit by a billion dollars while LM only benefits half that because the rest is going to Europe, I think politicians will gravitate to Boeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 13 hours ago, ExFlyer said: t does not have the range for anti ship missile operations. (about 450 kms there and back at most efficient speed) What kind of range is needed for anti-ship missiles? Seems comparable to the Seahawk and Wildcat which both carry missiles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 24 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: What kind of range is needed for anti-ship missiles? Seems comparable to the Seahawk and Wildcat which both carry missiles Ya, I don't get that either. There will be times when the ship is too far away to respond in time and any action will have to be taken by the helicopter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 (edited) 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: That has been the dream of most couples to own or purchase their own home...it has been for decades...Today many reasons why these dreams are unattainable... Those members that are homeless or visiting food banks most likely not in NB..most likely for the larger cities, where home prices have exceeded 1 million dollars and then some...every pay bracket has it's limits of what is affordable....Military postings are not based on your income or if you can afford housing they are based personal numbers , a young private and his wife posted to toronto where PMQ are filled to capacity is going to have issues...I thought you would be able to see that, maybe you where not exposed to that during your career... Yes PMQ are still there, but what is there like i said have been taken down a full 1/3 atleast in some case or bases more than that. Here is the rub many other people have the option of moving to another city that suits their budget a military member is stuck there until they are posted out, and with posting getting much longer due to restraints, that could mean 10 plus years...So while my heart bleeds for other not as fortunate as those that can not afford a house...The military does not give a rats ass, once your posted it is to fill an open position...like it or not your going or your going to release and find a new job. And instead of the military addressing the problem they continue to close PMQ's due to over all affordability... It means that todays soldiers pay does not go as far as yours use to go, and you had the option of living in a PMQ which were plentiful. most do not...In trenton the base commander has told his troops that perhaps they should look into habitant housing for humanity... why do you think that is, i mean why would a full colonel tell his subordinates that if their was not an issue...Why has the Ombudsman gone in front of parliament to address the issue... Why has the media been covering these stories... You did say you where a CWO, this issue is a CWO problem , and is not going to be solved by the remark "they make good money let them sort themselves out...They are after all his people...Shit even at the MWO level i was dealing with issues like these... Dreams are not reality, they are dreams. Sometimes dreams cone true, other time not. Home ownership is not a right, it is wanted and desired and perhaps even dreamed about but it is not a right and is not promised by anyone. I am still not aware of any active military members that are homeless. If you have evidence please share. Post Living Differential i(PLD) s still available for those being posted. While it will disappear in a few years, it is still there and has been available in the past. I know what it was like to be posted and the expense difference in various cities, but, we made do. There were never enough PMQ's or single quarters for all the military personnel on most bases. This is nothing new. Exactly what do you suggest the Military do about housing? Anything different than what it does for the general public. The general public has to have 2 incomes if they want to buy a house. When we moved out of PMQ's into a house we bought in Edmonton, my neighbour asked how we could afford it. I looked in his driveway,where he parked his truck and camper and boat and car. I guess our priorities differed. The Military pay today is far greater than it was in my time and it does go farther. We did what e]we had to to make ends meet,. so should they today. I cannot believe that you think the Military is underpaid. The Military, in fact, as I have shown, is very well paid and even you admit they are the highest paid in the world. A CWO problem??? I was a MWO with 25 years in when I first made the money a fully qualified (3 years as a corporal) aviation tech now makes. Habitat for Humanity houses are available for all that qualify. I suspect that most military corporals do not qualify (they make too much).I do not know what the ombudsman has done or said about military pay. As a MWO, I am very sure you could do nothing about your peoples spending habits. If they got into financial trouble you could only send them to counselling. I know I had to do that. Edited February 28 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 10 hours ago, BeaverFever said: What kind of range is needed for anti-ship missiles? Seems comparable to the Seahawk and Wildcat which both carry missiles None, that is why Canada chose to have those missiles on a ship. I am afraid, comparing American military aircraft to Canadian design and requirement is impossible. Our policies and Naval warfare procedures are far far different from the American (or British). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 (edited) 10 hours ago, Aristides said: Ya, I don't get that either. There will be times when the ship is too far away to respond in time and any action will have to be taken by the helicopter. Tactics and procedures are different for every military. Unless you are aware of what the Canadian Navy tactics and procedure are, you are just imagining. Our helicopters are designed to fit our requirement for ASW, anti submarine warfare. Not tactical weapons systems. Cannot play the game of what if, or compare to other Navies, that is not in the picture for the Canadian Navy. Edited February 28 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 3 hours ago, ExFlyer said: None, that is why Canada chose to have those missiles on a ship. I am afraid, comparing American military aircraft to Canadian design and requirement is impossible. Our policies and Naval warfare procedures are far far different from the American (or British). So we can’t anti-ship missiles on a cyclone because we have no doctrine to employ them? Sounds like the solution for the new near-peer adversary threat environment would be to develop the doctrine not maintain the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 (edited) 31 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: So we can’t anti-ship missiles on a cyclone because we have no doctrine to employ them? Sounds like the solution for the new near-peer adversary threat environment would be to develop the doctrine not maintain the status quo. Halifax-class multi-role patrol frigates are considered the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). The ships were originally designed for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, primarily in the open ocean environment. Understand that the Cyclone is a tool for the sub hunting and potentially destroying them. It is not the prime weapon systems for ASW. The ships are the primary weapon system. That seems to be the Canadian Military doctrine. Adding anti ship missiles and the avionics, guidance and electronics for them would make the helicopter less operational and less ASW capable. For every 100 pounds of stuff you add, it is 100 pound less of fuel and that lessens the range. Range seems unimportant to many but really 500 kms range means you can go less than 150 kms away from the ship, drop your sonoboys and listening devices and loiter and look for subs and get back on board for fuel. I am not a Navy or Military planner but I do know the Cyclone is what we wanted for the capbilities that were identified by the Military. You can imagine a lot of things but there comes a point of absurdity. There is no all singing all dancing weapon system anywhere. Edited February 28 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 42 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Halifax-class multi-role patrol frigates are considered the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). The ships were originally designed for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, primarily in the open ocean environment. Understand that the Cyclone is a tool for the sub hunting and potentially destroying them. It is not the prime weapon systems for ASW. The ships are the primary weapon system. That seems to be the Canadian Military doctrine. Adding anti ship missiles and the avionics, guidance and electronics for them would make the helicopter less operational and less ASW capable. For every 100 pounds of stuff you add, it is 100 pound less of fuel and that lessens the range. Range seems unimportant to many but really 500 kms range means you can go less than 150 kms away from the ship, drop your sonoboys and listening devices and loiter and look for subs and get back on board for fuel. I am not a Navy or Military planner but I do know the Cyclone is what we wanted for the capbilities that were identified by the Military. You can imagine a lot of things but there comes a point of absurdity. There is no all singing all dancing weapon system anywhere. Im not saying it has to carry missiles and torpedoes at the same time but it seems incredibly shortsighted to not have an anti-ship missile option… or any air-surface option beyond door guns really. A surface ship is a much greater threat to a helicopter than a submarine and even though it was designed for a world where counter- insurgents/counter-terrorist was the main threat, terrorists and insurgents are far more likely to be in surface vessels than submarines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 Leonardo to equip Canadian Armed Forces with counter-drone technology Leonardo Press Release | February 28, 2024 Estimated reading time 3 minutes, 30 seconds. Illustration courtesy of Leonardo Leonardo has been awarded a contract by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) to provide its Falcon Shield C-UAS system for operation by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The company will provide a number of systems and a 10-year sustainment package that includes options for additional equipment and the spiral development of new capabilities. First systems will be delivered later this year to the CAF, which will immediately deploy Falcon Shield to forward operating bases to protect deployed personnel. Falcon Shield is the UK’s operationally proven solution to the growing threat from group 1 to 3 (smaller, slower, and lower flying) UAS, which are usually undetectable by conventional air surveillance equipment. Using a mix of advanced sensors from Leonardo and industry partners, the system rapidly detects, tracks, and prioritizes threats and gives operators the means to neutralize them effectively. Produced at Basildon and Southampton sites, Falcon Shield is in service with the UK’s Armed Forces, is trusted by close allies on operations, and is readily available for export customers worldwide. Leonardo continues to update Falcon Shield to ensure it remains cutting-edge in a rapidly evolving security landscape. For its UK Royal Air Force (RAF) customer, Leonardo has delivered seven complete baseline counter-drone systems (called ORCUS in RAF service) for the service’s ‘Synergia’ research and development programme. The RAF is also employing these systems as a national standby capability in support of the Emergency Services. In this role, the RAF has operated Leonardo counter-UAS technology during high-profile events including the 2021 G7 summit in Cornwall and Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games. During Christmas 2018, Falcon Shield was deployed at both London Gatwick and Heathrow airports following suspected drone sightings, allowing air operations to resume. Leonardo has also been working with the United States Armed Forces as part of the ongoing collaboration between the UK and US on counter-drone research and development. Under this partnership, the company has integrated the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)’s NINJA technology into the RAF ORCUS system and demonstrated its ability to detect dozens of small drone platforms in the airspace around airbases and then mitigate them. Leonardo will be operating Falcon Shield at Canada’s ‘Counter Uncrewed Aerial Systems Sandbox 2024’ exercise, being held in Suffield, Alta., in June, where it will counter drones flown by the CAF’s “red team” operators. This press release was prepared and distributed by Leonardo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: Im not saying it has to carry missiles and torpedoes at the same time but it seems incredibly shortsighted to not have an anti-ship missile option… or any air-surface option beyond door guns really. A surface ship is a much greater threat to a helicopter than a submarine and even though it was designed for a world where counter- insurgents/counter-terrorist was the main threat, terrorists and insurgents are far more likely to be in surface vessels than submarines Look, ya gotta get over your personal desires. The Cyclone was designed upon the requirements the Canadian Military needed for the job it was to do. You may not like it but it is for the Navy to decide, not you. Second guessing on Military planning and policy that you are not privy to is foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Look, ya gotta get over your personal desires. The Cyclone was designed upon the requirements the Canadian Military needed for the job it was to do. You may not like it but it is for the Navy to decide, not you. Second guessing on Military planning and policy that you are not privy to is foolish. Well I think there’s a lit about the multi-decade maritime helicopter program that is fair game for criticism even by us outsiders. Ironically I’m usually the one defending the helicopter (but not its procurement debacle). For countries that only jave ONE type of maritime helicopter, not have anti-ship or air-surface is a glaring omission IMO especially these days. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see that at its next upgrade/replacement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 36 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: not have anti-ship or air-surface is a glaring omission IMO especially these days. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see that at its next upgrade/replacement I don't see what the barrier would be to CH-148 launching anti ship missiles it's the same NATO standard databus to connect a homing torpedo for an anti ship missile pretty sure you could strap a Kongsberg NSM to the BRU-14 hardpoint the issue is more that the RCN only intends to operate off of frigates and frigates don't have the room to carry anti-ship missiles & torpedoes for the helicopter for helicopter anti ship, you would need a larger vessel to carry & load the ordinance, like an LHD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Well I think there’s a lit about the multi-decade maritime helicopter program that is fair game for criticism even by us outsiders. Ironically I’m usually the one defending the helicopter (but not its procurement debacle). For countries that only jave ONE type of maritime helicopter, not have anti-ship or air-surface is a glaring omission IMO especially these days. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see that at its next upgrade/replacement You can criticize all you want but the bottom line is the decisions on requirement and tasking was made decades ago. The procurement processes, and I was involved with them for well over 20 years is fraught with political interference, be it Liberal or Conservative and all the way down to the MP level. With your defense of our defence system, you must know by now we are not an offensive Military. We, Canadians and our political leaders chose a long time ago to be passive and only when we deploy because of our commitments do we do anything offensively and then, it is with so much oversight our people are scared to do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.