[bootlegga]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

So I question the need for the large helos - it seems like much more of a want to me.

Seems to be answered by:

$1:

Smaller helos like the NH-90 can still do ASW, SAR and transport, they just can't do it all at once.

....assuming you believe being able to do it all at once is important. If you're bobbing up and down in the ocean, and the helo overhead advises that it has to return to base to reconfigure from Maritime Surveillance to SAR and will be back in 3-4 hours,you might feel different.

Each frigate and destroyer carries two helos, so that shouldn't happen - and if they are operating as a task group (1 destroyer, 2 frigates and an SSK), then there's a half dozen helos and it certainly wouldn't.

For the record, I have no problem getting the Navy the very best - but waiting almost three decades for a replacement is utterly ridiculous. They need something now - not something that might be mission ready in a year or three years or maybe even five years.

The Cyclone is the problem here - the Navy wanted what it wanted and demanded that Sikorsky basically re-design the platform to their specs. That's why it's been close to ten years since they ordered the damned things and they still don't have a single operational helicopter.

Had the Navy ordered ANY other helicopter in the world, it would likely be fully operational by now - and if it wasn't fully operational, we'd at least have some helos in service right now.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Each frigate and destroyer carries two helos, so that shouldn't happen - and if they are operating as a task group (1 destroyer, 2 frigates and an SSK), then there's a half dozen helos and it certainly wouldn't.

Frigates never could carry two helos. The 280's did prior to TRUMP, but these days I've heard the SOP is to only carry one. The new ships will also likely only be able to carry one helo.

Three helicopters. Not six.

$1:

For the record, I have no problem getting the Navy the very best - but waiting almost three decades for a replacement is utterly ridiculous. They need something now - not something that might be mission ready in a year or three years or maybe even five years.

Yes, this is very ridiculous.

$1:

The Cyclone is the problem here - the Navy wanted what it wanted and demanded that Sikorsky basically re-design the platform to their specs. That's why it's been close to ten years since they ordered the damned things and they still don't have a single operational helicopter.

Sikorsky didn't have to redesign the platform, they had to design a new platform. There were no ASW Superhawks prior to our order.

$1:

Had the Navy ordered ANY other helicopter in the world, it would likely be fully operational by now - and if it wasn't fully operational, we'd at least have some helos in service right now.

The naval variant of the NH90 (which you've recommended before) isn't exactly moving along without a hitch either. The only alternatives that spring to mind would the be the Seahawk or the EH101.

[housewife]

The EH 101 may have been the wrong bird for todays operations but at least it would have been new and less likely to put all the service personels lives in danger. They would have been in service now.

The cost in fines and lives is on the Liberals door. I don't even care what we get any more just get something and retire the Sea Kings!! Yesterday would be a good day for the retirement party! They are turning 50 for crying out loud!! They TXed years ago. It's a tribute to our service personel that they are still in the air but enough is enough

[BRAH]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Surly, there's a new chopper lot with the right sticker price just waiting for us... perhaps in Helgoland.

Maybe, we should be buying some Russian choppers.

There's probably some for sale on Ebay.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

The only alternatives that spring to mind would the be the Seahawk or the EH101.

EH 101 has problems too though - as does our Cormorant fleet, which is just a base-model EH101. Seahawk is tried and true, but small. I'm not sold on the "small chopper" proposal for RCN. Sadly, it looks like there are no good options in the near future.

$1:

The 280's did prior to TRUMP, but these days I've heard the SOP is to only carry one.

Isn't that just because Sea King availability is low?

[Jabberwalker]

If every 280 gets two Sea Kings, That leaves what, about five total flying airframes for the rest of the Navy to share among the frigates.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Each frigate and destroyer carries two helos, so that shouldn't happen - and if they are operating as a task group (1 destroyer, 2 frigates and an SSK), then there's a half dozen helos and it certainly wouldn't.

Frigates never could carry two helos. The 280's did prior to TRUMP, but these days I've heard the SOP is to only carry one. The new ships will also likely only be able to carry one helo.

Three helicopters. Not six.

My apologies then - I mixed up the DDHs and FFHs.

Either way, in a task group situation, it would be possible to do several tasks simultaneously. No helicopter in the world can do them all at once (transport, SAR & ASW).

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

The Cyclone is the problem here - the Navy wanted what it wanted and demanded that Sikorsky basically re-design the platform to their specs. That's why it's been close to ten years since they ordered the damned things and they still don't have a single operational helicopter.

Sikorsky didn't have to redesign the platform, they had to design a new platform. There were no ASW Superhawks prior to our order.

From my understanding, the Cyclone is based on the S-92, a civilian helicopter.

That meant re-designing all sorts of bits and pieces to military standards, and that is largely why it has been delayed. Had we selected a helo that was already designed for military use, we might have avoided these delays.

$1:

Had the Navy ordered ANY other helicopter in the world, it would likely be fully operational by now - and if it wasn't fully operational, we'd at least have some helos in service right now.

The naval variant of the NH90 (which you've recommended before) isn't exactly moving along without a hitch either. The only alternatives that spring to mind would the be the Seahawk or the EH101.[/quote]

The NH-90, while it has had some glitches, is at least in service in half a dozen NATO countries - not bad for a chopper designed in the early 90s. The same can't be said for the Cyclone.

The EH-101 might be a solution, but given our problems with the Cormorants, I have my doubts. And the Seahawk suffers from the same problem as the NH-90 - it's not big enough for our admirals.

[Jabberwalker]

Can't they just buy off-the-shelf "Royal Navy Special" EH-101s directly from Westland? Surely,they are producing such a machine as we post?

[bootlegga]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Can't they just buy off-the-shelf "Royal Navy Special" EH-101s directly from Westland? Surely,they are producing such a machine as we post?

That will NEVER happen.

Between what we have paid already for the Cyclones and the $500 million we paid to cancel the original EH-101 order, there is no way any government will pay three times for naval helicopters.