Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Not to mention, there’s a significant amount of work just to get to OT&E itself. Huge.
CH-148 Cyclone Progress
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
Not to mention, there’s a significant amount of work just to get to OT&E itself. Huge.
- Reaction score
- 12,961
- Points
- 1,010
The Port and Starboard sponsons are real buggers. They make life miserable for placing door/window guns, as they really limit arcs of fire. I am pretty certain that the CH148 will only have a starboard side gun and (maybe) a ramp gun and both will be C6s (At least the C6s all seem to be brand new) for the foreseeable future. We have much bigger fish to fry.The Port side "crew chief" window is the same as the UH-60, same with the rear (port and starboard) window areas.
- the weird one is the starboard door - as that is not a good spot based on door and winch location - I'd accept 3 window mounts and a ramp mount
Yes I agree you can't cut and paste from one AC to another, but it can make life easier.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,345
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 7,295
- Points
- 1,160
I understand.
But I'm curious.
Wasn't one of the initial design criteria the ability to roll the ASW kit on and off the Cyclone so that it could also function as a utility helicopter?
- Reaction score
- 7,295
- Points
- 1,160
DAP
As usual, what comes of the top of your head leaves me scratching mine.
So, after a few hours scratching I offer this.
Do we have to have on hand all of the approved rounds? Or can we better exploit the national capability to manufacture ammunition?
I don't know the facilities available or the QA and Safety programs they employ but doesn't GD-OTS in Repentigny have to manage supply of multiple types of ammunition concurrently? Wouldn't that be a good place to start looking at the supply chain by modifying their contracts to ensure that there is an appropriate flow and inventory of stock?
If we are only using one round every 20 years, so be it. But we know where we can get it when we need it.
It will be inefficient, and inefficiency costs money, agreed, but maintaining readiness is an inefficient, costly, process.
- Reaction score
- 16,635
- Points
- 1,260
Understand on the other issues - seems to have a lot of accoutrements.
CH-148 Points of Interest: A left bank by the Cyclone, exposes the multitude of active and passive sensors that have been incorporated into the design in order to detect aircraft, surface and subsurface vessels, and radio frequency and laser-threat emitters. The sensors can also survey coastlines and inland geographic features, and detect weather systems. (A Sikorsky photo via Vertical 911 Magazine)
1. AN/AAR-47 Missile Approach Warning System.
2. AN/ALQ-210 ESM.
3. Countermeasures Dispenser.
4. MK-46 anti-submarine warfare torpedo.
5. HELRAS tethered dipping sonar.
6. Sonobuoy Chute.
7. APS-143B(V)3 Multimode Radar (Oceaneye) .
8. FLIR EO/IR STAR SAPHIRE III Multi-sensor thermal imager.
9. HF antenna guide.
10. Personnel hoist
- the Block II MH-47G's manage 5 Miniguns - they kicked the winch on the starboard door out further - so the CC can man the gun when not winching. Those sponsons are similarly awkward for the arcs as the 148 - but admittedly it is a SOF bird that is going to be flying in harms way a lot more than a Cyclone - at least by intent.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Doing T & E (trials and evaluation) on small arms is vastly different than doing the various testing and evaluations on aircraft/aircraft systems (PAT&E, ET&E, OT&E, etc). The airworthiness aspects, permits to fly and under what conditions and restrictions, development of test plans and conduct of testing (ground and airborne) is fairly complex and fairly rigid. There is an entire Order dedicated to flying testing on top of a hockey bag full of other regulations, orders, SOPs, etc.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
I’ll say “yes” while not being 100% on the details.
- Reaction score
- 7,295
- Points
- 1,160
70mm rockets are a pet toy of mine because, although they were originally an air to air weapon for bringing down bombers, and developed a very useful life in the air to ground role I continue to be fascinated by their flexibility and the possibilities in the ground to ground roles, or even the ground to air roles. (I wonder what 19 flechette rounds would do to a UAV swarm?)
I appreciate that it isn't as simple as "suck it and see" but I have to think it would be useful to have a catalogue of certified solutions available to the problem solvers on the ground rather than having a choice between the limited stock on hand and blue sky notions that have to go through the entire OT&E process before they make it to the field.
Could OT&E work more pro-actively with suppliers?
- Reaction score
- 7,295
- Points
- 1,160
70mm Flechette rounds.
| M255E1/A1 | Flechette warhead | 14.0 pounds (6.4 kg) | 1179 60 grains (3.9 g) flechettes |
| WDU-4/A | APERS warhead | 9.3 pounds (4.2 kg) | 96 flechettes of unknown weight |
| WDU-4A/A | APERS warhead | 9.3 pounds (4.2 kg) | 2205 20 grains (1.3 g) flechettes |
| M255 | APERS (anti-personnel) warhead | 2500 28 grains (1.8 g) flechettes |
- Reaction score
- 1,515
- Points
- 1,140
It’s not so much OT&E than DT&E (development of the solution) and ET&E (certification/qualification). We already work extensively with manufacturers.
- Reaction score
- 16,635
- Points
- 1,260
Flechette warheads aren't really what you want for a drone swarm.
Prefragmented proximity warheads tend to work best - as flechettes - even from a 120mm tank gun aren't nearly as effective as one would think - they can cut a small channel - but as they are so light - they loose energy quickly and they generally don't spread out much.
One of the most disappointing things I've seen used - followed by the Claymore mine and Fragmentation grenades and the 60mm Mortar being the other major disappointments.
*One of the most "exciting" things I have used is "Smoke, Screening, Delay" - Note: maybe the UK should just mark it WP Grenade in small print below that, and that way coalition troops raiding their little pile in the ASP won't have such a shock when they thought they threw a smoke grenade.
- Reaction score
- 7,295
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks Max.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
For those not familiar with RCAF flight testing and evaluation terminology & sequence, I'll expand on SSM's post; ref is the CFTO "Flight Test Orders for the CF" (UNCLAS, non-CG).
PURPOSE OF FLIGHT TEST AND EVALUATION
The specific purpose of flight T&E is to gather quantitative and qualitative data that cannot be collected by any other practical means, to validate a computer based model or simulation, or make recommendations based on the evaluation of that data regarding the airworthiness or other relevant characteristics of the article under test.
TYPES OF FLIGHT TEST AND EVALUATION
There are three general types of flight testing:
A. Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) - used to assist in design and development, and to demonstrate the degree to which technical performance specifications and regulatory safety standards have been met. DT&E is normally the responsibility of the developer or integrator and can be conducted for the purposes of research and development (R&D) or prototype integration of systems.
B. Engineering Test and Evaluation (ET&E) - used to determine if a design is in compliance with contracted technical performance specifications and regulatory safety standards, to determine if a test item is in conformance with an approved design, or to collect other technical data related to weapon system life cycle management. It should validate the technical adequacy and safety of the weapon system in preparation for Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E). ET&E is sub-divided:
1. Compliance T&E - determines whether or not a particular specification has been met. Commonly referred to as Proof of Compliance Demonstration Test and Evaluation (PCDT&E) and is further sub-divided according to the type of specification including: (a) Certification T&E - determines whether or not technical airworthiness specifications have been met; and (b) Qualification T&E - determines whether or not contractual specifications have been met.
2. Conformance T&E - determines if a particular test item conforms to its approved design. It is conducted as part of the process of transferring an item from a contractor’s manufacturing or modification process to DND. Conformance T&E may also be required when a modification has been performed by a DND or CF organization. In the case where the manufacturing or modification process is performed by a contractor or ATESS, conformance T&E is known as acceptance testing and is commonly referred to as Production Acceptance Test and Evaluation (PAT&E).
3. Technical T&E - provides technical authorities with information required for making engineering decisions related to inservice or disposal issues, where these are not related to compliance or conformance.
C. Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) - determines whether a weapon system is operationally capable when operated and maintained by the end users, in realistic operational scenarios, and with the provided support systems, training and documentation. It is performed by designated operational aircrew with OT&E specific training. OT&E is sub-divided:
1. Initial Operational Assessment (IOA) - provides estimates of operational effectiveness of a system and operational suitability prior to an
acquisition decision
2. Initial OT&E (IOT&E) - follows the decision to proceed with acquisition or adoption of a new role.
3. Follow-on OT&E (FOT&E) - is conducted after the completion of IOT&E and is conducted on production items in an operational environment. It is conducted after operational airworthiness has been established and can extend throughout the entire service life of a weapon system as part of its ongoing development or the development of tactics, techniques and procedures.
Maintenance test flights (MTF) are normally conducted as part of the continuing airworthiness plan which ensures that an aircraft or aircraft system has been returned to its approved type design following a maintenance activity and that it is ready to return to service.
These differing types of test and evaluation occur throughout the lifecycle of a weapon system. The sequence of events will vary depending on the nature and objectives of the test program. Figure 1-1-1 depicts the common sequence of T&E activities within the Materiel Acquisition & Support (MA&S) process of conception, acquisition, support and disposal.
* screenshot of Fig 1-1-1 attached.
Attachments
Last edited:
OceanBonfire
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 363
- Points
- 1,080
Apparently first time changing a Cyclone engine while the ship is underway:
- Reaction score
- 3,364
- Points
- 1,120
I think this was a routine thing for Sea Kings....probably more than routine actually.
- Reaction score
- 12,961
- Points
- 1,010
It wasn’t super routine. I think I saw maybe one engine change at sea on a Sea King in my sailing time.
FSTO
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,714
- Points
- 1,210
I can't exactly recall which ship I was in when the det did an engine change at sea. It was a big deal.
- Reaction score
- 12,961
- Points
- 1,010
The old -8f engines were getting pretty unreliable by the late 1990s. However, once they were upgraded and rebuilt to Dash 100 standard, they were pretty freaking bullet proof, right to the end in 2018 (we had alot of engine life left in cans when we retired the Sea King).
The thing is: it isn’t (wasn’t?) that big a deal to change a Sea King engine at sea, assuming you had the correct spare engine (they were either left-handed or right-handed. Even then, if you had an Engine Tech with the right experience and parts, they could swap them either way). Taking one out was usually only a few hours of work. The trick with putting the new one in was that sometimes getting the output drive shaft vibration analysis into acceptable limits could take days of ground runs (and rotating or weight balancing the shaft) if you were unlucky. This could drive ship’s COs and OOW mad, as it put the ship at flying stations for hours at a time. Or, you could have an issue with an engine mount that you would only discover once the engine was out, which required an ACS tech to fix that dets did not have. That could take weeks to get an MRP to a ship.
The Cyclone (to circle this all back to the thread at hand) is designed to be even easier. “Engine change” is a now bit of a misnomer, because the current engines are highly segmented. Usually, only a section of a Cyclone engine is changed, not the whole assembly. Caveat- I am not following why this particular Cyclone needed a component swap, so I have no idea what got changed.
I changed a few engines at sea, it was pretty uncommon in the latter part of the Sea King's life. It could be a finicky job and as SKT points out, the high speed shaft could give you some trouble from the VA side. The forward mount required a Non Destructive Testing inspection while the engine was removed which demanded silver soldering skills should the mount bushing need replacing. Those skills were not available on the dets at the time, current 148 dets sail with an ACS tech. We used to have to lean on the Hull Techs for fabrication or structural skill-sets, they did great work and they usually got a kick out of working on the helo.
Main rotor blade changes are a much bigger pain, I was unlucky/fortunate enough to have to do a few while sailing. Same issue with ground run/test flight requirements. Adjustments can be a pain and it really disrupts the ship's daily operations to have a spread helo on the deck or to be obligated to keep returning to a flying course while underway.
This recent engine change on the 148 was an unfortunate requirement, they've been pretty solid thus far. The whole engine needed to come out.
Main rotor blade changes are a much bigger pain, I was unlucky/fortunate enough to have to do a few while sailing. Same issue with ground run/test flight requirements. Adjustments can be a pain and it really disrupts the ship's daily operations to have a spread helo on the deck or to be obligated to keep returning to a flying course while underway.
This recent engine change on the 148 was an unfortunate requirement, they've been pretty solid thus far. The whole engine needed to come out.
Similar threads
