Canada To Spend $15B On Def, May Incl Attack Helos

AirRyan · Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:51 am

$3B (for C-17's) and $4.6B (for C-130J's) part of the plan...

I wonder what AH-64D's will look like in Canadian colors?

Quote:

But the question in military circles is how those unarmed transport helicopters will be protected in combat zones, such as Afghanistan, where aircraft face the threat of rocket propelled grenade attacks from insurgents on the ground.

The air force will eventually need to either arm existing rotary aircraft or purchase attack helicopter, a senior military officer said in a background briefing.

"It’s a capability we’re going to have to address," said the high-ranking officer in Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

"On landing the (transport) choppers can be fired on with (rocket propelled grenades for example."

Canadians troops currently hitch rides on helicopters belonging to other coalition countries and those aircraft rarely leave Kandahar without an attack helicopter escort, usually U.S. Apache gunships.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/512522.html

dl021 · Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:25 am

I'd say they could equip some of their helos with "gunwagon" equipment such as is found on Marine Hueys, or even as was found on older UH-1D/H models which were equipped with miniguns and rocket launchers.

atmx2000 · Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:34 am

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I wonder what AH-64D's will look like in Canadian colors?

I hope it will be black.

MissedApproach · Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:47 am

IMO the Cobra would be a more realistic (ie affordable) purchase for Canada. Keep in mind, we still haven't got Sea King replacements, despite starting that program in 1993 (& restarting it in 1999).

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
I'd say they could equip some of their helos with "gunwagon" equipment

The Griffon would be hard pressed to carry any usefull weapons load in Afghanistan. The climate already puts certain restraints on the aircraft due to density altitude, then there's the armour & defensive systems that the crews probably wouldn't fly without (rightfully so). No point in putting those guys in harm's way just so they can shoot a few 7.62mm rounds at the bad guys- the troops would have better fire support from the LAVs anyway.

LY744 · Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:04 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 3):
The Griffon would be hard pressed to carry any usefull weapons load in Afghanistan. The climate already puts certain restraints on the aircraft due to density altitude, then there's the armour & defensive systems that the crews probably wouldn't fly without (rightfully so). No point in putting those guys in harm's way just so they can shoot a few 7.62mm rounds at the bad guys- the troops would have better fire support from the LAVs anyway.

As it is now the Griffon can barely lift 6 infantry soldiers (and that's in a Canadian climate!), put gun pods or whatever on it and it will become completely useless.

LY744.

Oroka · Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:14 am

Attack helicopter? I wonder if this is a change in the federal government's use of military power? As much as I love the air force... it is useless. By the time they got the chance to use their nice new CF-188, it was already incapable to carry guided bombs, then it didn't have proper radio ID equipment... the role it played was a token one at that. More like burning our own fuel rather than let the Americans do it for us.

What we do best is peace keeping, we should tailor our military to that. We watch, and when we see something bad, we call our American friends with the big stick.

Qb001 · Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:20 pm

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
What we do best is peace keeping, we should tailor our military to that.

Peace keeping is one thing, but we also must have the ability to establish peace. And for that, Canada needs adapted weaponery.

I personnaly agree with most of the 16G$ order, except for the C-17. If we really need that capacity, it would come at a much cheaper price with the An-124. And if we don't need it, I think we should order the A400 as the CAF work horse.

And I would tend to agree about ordering attack helicopters. My personal choice would be the AH-1Z Super Cobra.

atmx2000 · Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:33 pm

Quoting QB001 (Reply 7):
If we really need that capacity, it would come at a much cheaper price with the An-124.

An-124 is much bigger than a C-17. Its operating costs are going to be much higher due to the much higher weight and larger crew. Not to mention, it may not be easy to integrate into the armed forces of a non-Russian speaking nation.

Quoting QB001 (Reply 7):
And if we don't need it, I think we should order the A400 as the CAF work horse.

You would have to get in line and wait 8 years.

And if it has problems once in service and the C-17 line has been shutdown, I don't think there will be anything larger than an C-130 that would be easily integrated into the Canadian armed forces.

cloudy · Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:48 pm

I'm surprised that Canada isn't more interested in air and missile defense than it is. The country is closer by great circle route to China and North Korea than most of the US is(with the exception of Alaska). It may be a tempting target if US population centers are to far away and/or well protected. Sure, the US would trash their a**'s if they tried anything. But that wouldn't stop the bad guys from doing major damage.

Boeing Nut · Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:37 pm

Attack helos?? Hmmmmm...................

I never did trust Canada! stirthepot

I'm keeping a close eye on you Canucks from now on!!! Big grin

krisyyz · Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:05 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8):
An-124 is much bigger than a C-17. Its operating costs are going to be much higher due to the much higher weight and larger crew. Not to mention, it may not be easy to integrate into the armed forces of a non-Russian speaking nation

Canada would not be buying AN-124 but wet leasing them. Skyavaiation would base I believe 2 AN-124 and some Il-76's at CFB Trenton. They would be there for Canadian use first and fore most, but Sky avaiation may use them as well if the CAF has no mission for them.

KrisYYZ

Qb001 · Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:25 pm

Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 11):
An-124 is much bigger than a C-17.

Yes, and for that reason we would only need 3 An-124 to get the capacity of 4 C-17.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8):
Its operating costs are going to be much higher due to the much higher weight and larger crew.

The newest version of the An-124 is operated with a crew of 4. And at 1/5th the cost of a C-17, it will still be cheaper to operate for 40 years than the C-17.

The best comparison between the C-17 and the An-124 is here:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-1.htm

Flying-Tiger · Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:40 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8):
An-124 is much bigger than a C-17. Its operating costs are going to be much higher due to the much higher weight and larger crew. Not to mention, it may not be easy to integrate into the armed forces of a non-Russian speaking nation.

That's why NATO is basing a number of AN-124s at Leipzig Airport / Germany... Wink

Cheaper and more capable for many missions. I might add that those birds have been flying for many European defence forces for quite some time now on charter missions. It will always depend what you really need. The AN-124 is great for replenishment duties, but probably not so much combat zone transporter, a role where the C-17 is better adapted to. However, what does Canada need?

I'm surprised that the Tiger helo hasn't been mentioned here - that might be a good idea. Or a CSAR NH90...

Oryx · Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:45 pm

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 9):
I'm surprised that Canada isn't more interested in air and missile defense than it is.

Perhaps they have a more realistic point of view of the chances to intercept an inbound ICBM.

dl021 · Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:09 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 3):

The Griffon would be hard pressed to carry any usefull weapons load in Afghanistan.

Perhaps they could look into expanding their fleet of S-92s (HH-92 Superhawks)....those could replace some Griffons as well as use the Sikorsky gunship upgrades intended for the S-70. It could carry troops as well as serve as a gunship escort (albeit not as an anti-tank helo per se).

Qb001 · Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:08 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
Perhaps they could look into expanding their fleet of S-92s (HH-92 Superhawks)....those could replace some Griffons as well as use the Sikorsky gunship upgrades intended for the S-70. It could carry troops as well as serve as a gunship escort (albeit not as an anti-tank helo per se).

Canada is apparently going to buy some Chinooks. That should do the job.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 13):
I'm surprised that the Tiger helo hasn't been mentioned here

Good point. But you can safely bet a beer or two that if Canada buys some attack helos, it is going to be the AH-1Z Super Cobra. Bell Textron already operates an assembly plant in Canada; that'll give them a serious edge.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP

dl021 · Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:59 am

Quoting QB001 (Reply 16):
Canada is apparently going to buy some Chinooks. That should do the job.

Well, you can mount miniguns and .50 cals out the side doors and off the ramp, but it's not exactly a point and shooter for escort duty, and there's no facility for rockets, which come in handy for everything up to MBTs.

But Chinooks would be a very useful airplane for them to have and use.

MissedApproach · Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:07 am

There's supposed to be a press conference tomorrow with the minister & the CDS, we should know the details by then.

AirRyan · Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:27 am

Here's more on the helo part of the deal...

Quote:

OTTAWA, June 28 (Reuters) - Canada announced a C$4.7 billion ($4.2 billion) project on Wednesday to buy 16 medium- to heavy-lift helicopters and maintain the fleet for 20 years, but did not say what companies might be contenders for the contract.

Helicopters likely to be on the list are the Boeing (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Chinook, the S-92 made by United Technologies Corp. (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) subsidiary Sikorsky, and the NH90 from European manufacturer Eurocopter.

http://today.reuters.com/stocks/Quot...ENSE-CANADA-HELICOPTERS.XML&rpc=66

kc135topboom · Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:50 pm

Quoting QB001 (Reply 12):
Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 11):
An-124 is much bigger than a C-17.

Yes, and for that reason we would only need 3 An-124 to get the capacity of 4 C-17.

The C-17 has a much higher reliability rate than the An-124, so you may need to lease 5-6 of them. Which brings up another point, leasing, or in this case wet leasing the An-124. On some missions, the contractor can simply claim it is too dangerous to risk the cilivan crews and the aircraft. But, C-17s flown by CF pilots and crews will go wherever they are ordered to go.

Pronto · Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:22 am

IMO, having our own C-17s goes with above comment: it's there to perform the mission for Canada, with no second party having to agree/disagree with it. Reliability is a factor, as is availability. (A400 hasn't flown yet, let's not take that one any further...) As for attack helos? I can't see Canada purchasing such an item. It's never been on "our list", and the public would not accept such a purchase(remember the reaction to ALCM testing in Canada?). Only possibility would be the larger helos(CH-47, H-92 if used) be armed with door guns for troop transport.

atmx2000 · Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:01 am

Quoting Pronto (Reply 28):
As for attack helos? I can't see Canada purchasing such an item. It's never been on "our list", and the public would not accept such a purchase(remember the reaction to ALCM testing in Canada?). Only possibility would be the larger helos(CH-47, H-92 if used) be armed with door guns for troop transport.

Quoting Pronto (Reply 28):
IMO, having our own C-17s goes with above comment: it's there to perform the mission for Canada, with no second party having to agree/disagree with it

Then the Canadian public is being unrealistic. As mentioned in the thread starter, how do you protect your transports? By depending on a second party who has attack helicopters?

LY744 · Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:49 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 29):
As mentioned in the thread starter, how do you protect your transports? By depending on a second party who has attack helicopters?

The best use for attack helos is tank hunting IMO. Most helo transport missions in the world are performed without escort anyways.

LY744.

RAPCON · Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:46 am

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
it would come at a much cheaper price with the An-124.

Try slamming a loaded AN-124 unto a 5000ft rwy in Afghanistan. Cant' do it! But the C-17 can!

And don't try to wet lease Russkie junk around the Christmas holidays. Those flights are all booked up by the toy manufacturers!

HanginOut · Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:50 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 3):
IMO the Cobra would be a more realistic (ie affordable) purchase for Canada. Keep in mind, we still haven't got Sea King replacements, despite starting that program in 1993 (& restarting it in 1999).

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 13):
I'm surprised that the Tiger helo hasn't been mentioned here

Quoting QB001 (Reply 16):
if Canada buys some attack helos, it is going to be the AH-1Z Super Cobra. Bell Textron already operates an assembly plant in Canada; that'll give them a serious edge.

There are no plans to buy attack helos, although I'm sure if you ask the CF would love to have them. If they do decide to buy, it will be the Cobra (because it is made in Canada) or some other helo, but not the Apache (with all of the Apaches that have been downed in Iraq, their survivability would be questioned by the public). If we do get attack helos, I pray it isn't the Cobra, as it is even more vulnerable than the Apache. I would say that the Tiger would have a good chance, although the CF would want the Apache (if the US has it, the CF wants it).

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
$4.6B (for C-130J's)

Quoting QB001 (Reply 7):
I think we should order the A400 as the CAF work horse.

QB001, I agree with you to a point. I think that the C17 will be fantastic for the CF, but instead of the C130J, which even the USAF is unhappy with, I think the CF would be better off buying A400s to replace the Herc fleet.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 9):
I'm surprised that Canada isn't more interested in air and missile defense than it is.

The issue here is the Canadian public. They are against Missile Defence and want no part of it and the government is reluctant to join the program. Even when you point out the fact that any missile attack will undoubtedly involve Canada, the public is still against it. Now if the Conservative government were to win a majority government, then there is a possibility, but as long as we have a minority it isn't going to happen.

RAPCON · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:01 am

Quoting QB001 (Reply 7):
My personal choice would be the AH-1Z Super Cobra.

I agree for different reasons. Bell has a long history of excellence with their Canadian subsidiary, and BECAUSE JOBS ARE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS IN DEFENSE CONTRACTS, Canada ought to select a modern helo such as the AH-1Z that it can also be built it in their plant.

And if Canada decided upon purchasing the AH-1Z, then it only makes sense that they also replace the 412's with the UH-1Y (commonality and all that stuff and MORE JOBS!!).

p.s. Canada is still in need of a few 47's.

LY744 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:31 am

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 37):
Canada is still in need of a few 47's

Or some CH-53Es! Wink

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 37):
makes sense that they also replace the 412's with the UH-1Y

It's sad that the Griffon really does need replacing, even though it's about 10 years old. I don't know if this is true, but people say that the -212s we had before could lift more payload than the Griffon that replaced them.

LY744.

GDB · Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:33 am

Canada's armed forces are still, nearly 40 years on, feeling the effects of the wilful vandalism of Truedeau (SP?)

If Canada is prepared to put troops in combat operations beyond peacekeeping, as they are right now in Afghanistan, then attack choppers should be a part of this.
Currently, UK and US AH-64's are providing cover in Afghanistan.
The former is overstretched, the latter might not be involved in operations where Canada is.

My own choice would be for C-130J, C-17, CH-47, NH-90, Tiger.

HanginOut · Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:03 am

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 37):
And if Canada decided upon purchasing the AH-1Z, then it only makes sense that they also replace the 412's with the UH-1Y (commonality and all that stuff and MORE JOBS!!).

God no!!!

Canada should have bought Blackhawks, but because the 412 is built in Canada, it was a no brainer that they would be bought (I mean no brainer as in the politicians deciding this have no brain).

If the CF is to replace the 412s, they would be better off buying the Cyclone, as the NH90 would be adding another different helicopter type to the fleet.
Ideally, the Cyclones ordered for the navy would go to the army and a follow on order for Merlins would be made for the navy.

The ideal helicopter fleet for the CF would be:
Chinooks, Merlins, Cyclones (and if we get a gunship - the Apache or Tiger).

LY744 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:07 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 40):
Canada should have bought Blackhawks

Amen.

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 40):
they would be better off buying the Cyclone, as the NH90 would be adding another different helicopter type to the fleet.
Ideally, the Cyclones ordered for the navy would go to the army and a follow on order for Merlins would be made for the navy.

Um, the "Cyclone" is Chinook sized. It's huge. No way are they a replacement for the Griffon.

LY744.

dl021 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:48 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 36):
the C130J, which even the USAF is unhappy with,

That attitude has changed. The USAF is pleased with the performance of their C-130Js and even decided that it's probably better to buy new J models than refurbish old H and Es. It appears that many who decried the Js did so either for reasons of fund scarcity and placement, or simply that they were repeating what they heard some higher ups say.

It's overcome it's teething problems and is providing excellent service for all forces using them. Even the RAF has gotten past the software integration issues they were having.

Here's an article by a pilot in the USAF who flew them in combat conditions.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...articles/oct_05/haulers/index.html
fair use excerpts
Gen. John Handy, the former commander of US Transportation Command and Air Mobility Command, pointed out, the aircraft needed to get off the bench and into combat. It was time to let the Super Hercules stand on its own merits.

We did exactly that in December 2004 when we stepped out with a team of Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and active duty members to see exactly what this aircraft could do. We intended to validate its capabilities, discover its shortcomings, and identify the practical limits of the C-130J as opposed to what appeared in the glossy brochures.....

....As for other C-130J operators, we worked side by side with the Royal Australian Air Force and were linked telephonically to the Royal Air Force C-130J operators who were also in theater at the time. .....
We flew Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Horn of Africa missions for the 120 days we were in the Middle East. We made day trips, while the C-130E and C-130H crews had to remain overnight somewhere. We flew 625 sorties and 1,371 hours. We carried 7,031 passengers and moved 1,151 pallets loaded with 2,400 tons of cargo. ....

......The main operational lesson we learned is that size does indeed matter. The two extra pallet positions the C-130J provides and the increased maximum gross weight it accommodates were critical operational improvements. The Super Hercules proved to be a force multiplier. On one particular mission in early January, we were tasked to transport 140 troops and all their associated equipment. A move this size would have required three C-130E or C-130H aircraft. We were able to accomplish the move with only two C-130Js.....

......On the surface, this payload advantage may not seem like a big deal. Practically speaking, however, it has major ramifications in the combat environment. First and foremost, we exposed just eight crew members — we typically flew with a pilot, copilot, loadmaster, and a second loadmaster who also acted as a scanner — and only two aircraft to the enemy threat, as opposed to three aircraft and eighteen crew members had we used the older aircraft. Second, the Combatant Commander and the Director of Mobility Forces gained additional resources to expend on other priorities.....

...... The tremendous power in the C-130J is another significant operational advantage....

.... The C-130E and C-130H aircraft have an extremely limited cargo-carrying capacity in hot temperatures and high pressure altitudes. Performance data for the C-130J predicted we could increase the cargo limit under those same conditions by as much as 300 percent.

In reality, when the Super Hercules crews were assigned to those missions, they exceeded the C-130E and C-130H model capacities by nearly 400 percent......

..... At one point during the deployment when many of the C-130Es were operationally restricted because of center wing box cracks, we began to task our aircraft at 100 percent to test their true durability. During this period, aircraft No. 1431 flew for eighteen days in a row without missing a single mission in spite of the harsh conditions. Together, our two aircraft presented nearly a ninety-four percent mission capable rate for the deployment....."

It seems that it's performed fairly well in combat and would definitely meet the needs Canada has along with the C-17. The RAF, Italians and US forces have all flown their Js in combat, as a matter of fact the first airplane into Baghdad was an RAF C-130J.

....

HanginOut · Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:41 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 41):
Um, the "Cyclone" is Chinook sized. It's huge. No way are they a replacement for the Griffon.

No, the Cyclone (based on the Superhawk is meant to be the successor to the Blackhawk) and is smaller than the Merlin, which is itself smaller than the Chinook. The Cyclone/Superhawk can carry 22 troops, the Merlin can carry 30, and the Chinook 44 (actually can carry more but this is the manufacturers figure). It is true that the Cyclone is indeed larger than the Griffon (which can carry 8-12 troops) but that is a good thing. I'd rather have a helicopter that is a little too big, than one that is too small/underpowered etc, etc, as the Griffon is. Considering the vast size of Canada, I'd rather have better helicopters than medicore ones meant to buy votes for an election.

Griffon: Cabin length 2.3m, Cabin width 2.4m, Cabin volume 6.2m³
Cyclone: Cabin length 6.10m, Cabin width 2.01m, Cabin volume 16.9m³
Merlin: Cabin length 6.5m, Cabin width 2.49m, Cabin volume 28 m3
Chinook: Cabin length 9.3m, Cabin width 2.3m, Cabin volume 42m³

Quoting DL021 (Reply 42):
That attitude has changed. The USAF is pleased with the performance of their C-130Js and even decided that it's probably better to buy new J models than refurbish old H and Es. It appears that many who decried the Js did so either for reasons of fund scarcity and placement, or simply that they were repeating what they heard some higher ups say.

It's overcome it's teething problems and is providing excellent service for all forces using them. Even the RAF has gotten past the software integration issues they were having.

Here's an article by a pilot in the USAF who flew them in combat conditions.

DL021, thanks for this info as all I have heard is what a piece of junk the J series is. It's good to see that it is (finally) living up to expectations. That said, I still think that Canada would be better of with the A400. It is larger and with a country our size, I'd rather have more capacity to carry equipment and personnel around the country/world.

dl021 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:04 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 43):
It is true that the Cyclone is indeed larger than the Griffon (which can carry 8-12 troops) but that is a good thing.

I think that the NH-90 or the Superhawk is a much better choice to replace that helo, as the Merlin/Cyclone is far too big. You could not buy enough of them to replace the Griffons. Perhaps a dual buy of smaller helos for home use (perhaps a civil lease operated by the CAF and maintained by civilians) and a number of combat transports that can get the jobs needed done.

THe Labrador was always too small for its job, which is why replacement of that smaller helo by the Cyclone was an excellent idea. It's also an excellent replacement for the H-3s still in the fleet. The Griffon could be replaced by the same helo the USA is buying for domestic use.

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 43):
I'd rather have a helicopter that is a little too big, than one that is too small/underpowered etc, etc, as the Griffon is

Unless its cost overwhelms the available budget. You can't buy enough to get the coverage needed. You need a smaller and less expensive helo to get the needed jobs done. There's nothing cheap about the NH-90 or Superhawk.

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 43):
That said, I still think that Canada would be better of with the A400

I have to disagree with you there. The combination of C-17 and C-130J is one that would serve Canada extremely well by having a true strategic airlifter ready for the jobs that currently get outsourced, and the C-130 will meet Canadas tactical needs for years to come at a lower price and with more local support for the airplanes.

RAPCON · Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:09 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 40):
and a follow on order for Merlins would be made for the navy.

Well in view of the current operational experience of the SAR Marlins, I think that the Canadian Armed Forces may pass on that option.

LY744 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:33 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 43):
No, the Cyclone (based on the Superhawk is meant to be the successor to the Blackhawk) and is smaller than the Merlin, which is itself smaller than the Chinook. The Cyclone/Superhawk can carry 22 troops, the Merlin can carry 30, and the Chinook 44 (actually can carry more but this is the manufacturers figure). It is true that the Cyclone is indeed larger than the Griffon (which can carry 8-12 troops) but that is a good thing. I'd rather have a helicopter that is a little too big, than one that is too small/underpowered etc, etc, as the Griffon is. Considering the vast size of Canada, I'd rather have better helicopters than medicore ones meant to buy votes for an election.

My bad, I was thinking about the EH-101. Can't keep up with all these marketing names.

Why do they have a replacement for the Black Hawk? The UH-60M seems like the definitive mid-sized military transport chopper in the world today.

LY744.

GDB · Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:06 am

RAPCON, the Merlin is in full scale operational service, in combat zones, with the RAF, has been too with the RN.
For a machine of it's size and complexity, it's doing quite well export wise too.
Including with the US.

I don't deny Canada has had problems with it, but aircraft get temporary groundings quite often, that's happened in the past with the AH-64 to give one example.

RAPCON · Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:23 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 47):
don't deny Canada has had problems with it, but aircraft get temporary groundings quite often, that's happened in the past with the AH-64 to give one example.

But the prospective purchaser, Canada, is not happy with the product: EH101. That is a huge problem.

HanginOut · Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:14 am

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 42):
But the prospective purchaser, Canada, is not happy with the product: EH101. That is a huge problem.

Actually, the problem is that the aircraft while almost identical to the EH101, is not the EH101, which could be why it is having problems. The Cormorant in service with the CF has been modified from the military specifications of the EH-101 to include search and rescue-specific equipment and physical characteristics and performance requirements to meet Canada's SAR responsibilities. This modification provided reduced procurement costs, a rear-fuselage ramp, a single rescue door with both hoists on one side, and eliminated unnecessary military equipment. Also, My understanding is that the crews love them and that the problems they are having are no different than anytime a new aircraft is put into service (especially, considering the harsh conditions that the Cormorants work in).

RAPCON · Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:45 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 37):
The Cormorant in service with the CF has been modified from the military specifications of the EH-101 to include search and rescue-specific equipment and physical characteristics and performance requirements

Something aking to the RN's work?

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 37):
This modification provided reduced procurement costs, a rear-fuselage ramp, a single rescue door with both hoists on one side, and eliminated unnecessary military equipment.

So, it's a lighter version of the RN's units?

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 37):
My understanding is that the crews love them

Flying with cracked tail rotor half hubs just like the RN?

I'm sure the crews have a little issue with that:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...story/2006/07/13/scotia-crash.html

HanginOut · Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:05 am

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 38):
I'm sure the crews have a little issue with that:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia....html

I am well aware of the crash, but as the report indicates the CF is well aware of the tail rotor problem and would not have sent out an aircraft that wasn't cleared to fly (after thorough checks of the tail rotor).

Also, aircraft (especially military aircraft) crash all the time. Until we know what caused the crash, it is premature to say if it is an aircraft problem.

If there are any a.net members who fly/work on the EH101/Cormorant, I'd be interested in hearing what the crews who work them think of them?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net