Topic: CH-148 Cyclone Progress

[Good2Golf]

H92/CH148 is fly-by-wire.  The 60-series and the S-92 were not.  It was like transplanting the Comanche's flight control system into a different helicopter.

Regards
G2G

[GK .Dundas]

  This project dates back to 1983 and we have yet to receive one single operational aircraft ! Am I the only one bothered by this? 
I have even seen statements  that it will be at least ten more years before we see aircraft in fleet use.That's almost 40 years from the start of the first program to replace the Sea King.
 Other countries manage to run Defence procurement projects .Some of them actually get them done on time and on budget.
 I'm incredibly frustrated right now I can only imagine what the Sea King crews are feeling right now!
 

[dapaterson]

Other countries manage to run Defence procurement projects .Some of them actually get them done on time and on budget.

The C17 acquisition was ahead of schedule and under budget.  Others have also come in on time and on budget.

No need to badmouth all the folks working in procurement because one inititative with lots of outside DND/CF fingerprints on it isn't making the grade.

[h3tacco]

The claim that the S-92 or the CH148 are simply evolutions of the UH-60 are mainly for marketing purposes.  The only thing the S-92 or CH148 shares with the UH-60 are the same engines. The S-92 and CH148 are significantly different enough that they have separate production lines. Sikorsky does not take a S-92 and turn it into a CH148. They are for all sakes and purposes two different but related aircraft.

[CDN Aviator]

They are for all sakes and purposes two different but related aircraft.

"Based on, but not a conversion of"

[Zoomie]

The RCAF is also the premiere customer for the H-92 airframe.  They are using us as a test bed for future evolutions.  Fly-by-wire and tail folding are two such systems that are being developed.

[CDN Aviator]

The RCAF is also the premiere customer for the H-92 airframe.  They are using us as a test bed for future evolutions.  Fly-by-wire and tail folding are two such systems that are being developed.

We're the testbed......the German Navy is Sikorski's real target.

[Haletown]

Anyone know the differences in the S-92 airframe & the H-92 model ?

Ya'd think going fly FBW would drop a lot of weight but we heard here they need more HP, a stronger tranny and work on vibration issues.

[Zoomie]

Ya'd think going fly FBW would drop a lot of weight but we heard here they need more HP, a stronger tranny and work on vibration issues.

As a complete outsider to this program, I can only speculate.

/speculate mode
Mission gear, torpedoes, armour(?), RADAR, dipping SONAR, winches, folding tail assembly, etc would make the airframe considerably heavier than a passenger carrying one.

/end speculate mode

[h3tacco]

Probably not all inclusive but here are some of the top of my head.

The FBW is the biggest change as it is total change in the Flight Controls, Flight Modes, Flight Director etc. The aircraft subsequently have different handling and flight envelopes that requires a significant amount of certification. For example the Auto-rotation envelope for the S-92 and CH148 will be different as will basically all flight maneuvers.

Other changes include the following:

1. Folding head and tail which in turn means different main rotor blades. Different rotor head. Different Nr.

2. The cockpits look similar and share some of the same controls and displays but a number of changes were made to account for the different aircraft systems functionality. Different FMCDU from commercial S-92s. Armoured Seats. The addition of the Cable Angle hover. Interface between mission system and the FMCDU.

3.  Different variant of the same engine to produce more power. (Mostly software change)

4. Different Landing Gear and the addition of the RAST probe.

5. Changes to fuel sponsons to make them ballistically tolerant. Different amount of fuel.

6. Different All-up-weight. (ie changes again to flight envelope)

7. Changes to both the electrical and hydraulic systems (mostly to account for the mission system).

8. Changes to the MGB. 

9. Changes to the anti-ice system.

10. Changes to the Cabin to include new main door, 2 x GPMG mounts, changes to various avionics racks/storage, basic cabin layout is all new. Requires completely different egress certification.

11. Different Radio Fit and new ICS.

Some of these changes in themselves are fairly minor (ie new radios and amoured seats) but when they all add up they are significant. In addition,  all these changes are for the most part without considering the mission system which in itself are significant. The individual bits of the mission system of are mostly C/MOTS but the integration is all developmental.

Oh yeah almost the forgot the addition of Cup Holders to all crew positions. Although I am pretty sure this requirement has been already been demonstrated and isn't holding up delivery.

[GK .Dundas]

P
Oh yeah almost the forgot the addition of Cup Holders to all crew positions. Although I am pretty sure this requirement has been already been demonstrated and isn't holding up delivery.

Don't be too sure 

[milnews.ca]

.... from the CF Info-machine on the status of the project:

.... Current Status: DND continues to closely monitor progress towards achieving all delivery requirements for the interim maritime helicopters, as well as the potential impact on the schedule for delivery of the final version of the Cyclone. The Canadian Forces expect to take formal delivery of the interim maritime helicopters later this summer ....