Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    In general your resume of Heli / Ship interface is interesting. we were happy to have a Gazelle land on and visit us on the Bridge. The redacting of the Naval Helicopter was assiduously planned by Air Corps interests to the final point where the Dauphines were disposed of through agencies to the Chilean navy, for use aboard their ships. Any naval future involving Helicopters must be purely a Naval development with rotary training carried out in an overseas Naval Helicopter Unit. Control, type and size would be an exclusive naval choice with NO input from non Naval departments or Directors.
    I seem to remember that all the early renderings of the proposed P30 class had a Lynx helicopter deployed. Was the Naval Preference a lynx, instead of the dauphin which was then only still being developed?
    I also remember reading the Air Corps in 1983 hoping to get Pumas for SAR.
    Instead the dauphin was shoehorned in to do both jobs, never doing either competently.
    What is your own recollection?
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • From the earliest beginnings of the P31 project, the only helicopter in question was the naval version of the Dauphin i.e. SA365 Dauphin 2. The choice was an Air Corps one based on IFR Day Night flying, twin engined, instrumentation to meet full international flight requirements, extra stability in directional flight and landing by having a full tailfin as in the Gazelle. The aircraft as chosen was also the choice for the USCG. The Air Corps had a Puma on lease/ assessment for a time but for some reason they went "Off" the French Connection.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
        From the earliest beginnings of the P31 project, the only helicopter in question was the naval version of the Dauphin i.e. SA365 Dauphin 2. The choice was an Air Corps one based on IFR Day Night flying, twin engined, instrumentation to meet full international flight requirements, extra stability in directional flight and landing by having a full tailfin as in the Gazelle. The aircraft as chosen was also the choice for the USCG.
        And the French

        Comment


        • Unfortunately the finished product we got was neither the same aircraft the USCG or the Marine Nationale were using. If we had either maybe things may have been different. Was the HH65 ever used aboard ship in the way we had planned here?
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • The HH-65' s are deployed on NSC cutters for all types of mission from SAR to intercepting drug trafficers.
            In fact they have been upgraded over the years and the next version will enter service this year.
            Last edited by EUFighter; 1 January 2017, 21:40.

            Comment


            • A video to set the mark to aim for future Irish Naval Helicopter Pilots .......at least a sailor ...ultimately a Naval Aviator in weather when others seek shelter .....http://https://youtu.be/NJIZTL2ZyEw

              Comment


              • More shipboard Helo-Ops ........Atlantic weather akin to West Coast of EIRE future ops , with INS Naval Heli -Pilots ..maybe ....one day ......

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                  Unfortunately the finished product we got was neither the same aircraft the USCG or the Marine Nationale were using. If we had either maybe things may have been different. Was the HH65 ever used aboard ship in the way we had planned here?
                  The finished product met all specifications as laid down. The US version MH365, about a 100 of them, are used widely aboard USCG vessels, with various upgrades, including increased SHP on both turbo engines, improved avionics, and armament as required by task. They are used extensively on all French naval vessels so equipped. Built under license in China. Used by Army Air Corps for SAS duties. We retired them to the benefit of the Chilean Navy. There were two officially reported accidents, one by the Malaysian Air force, and another by Irish Army Air Corps. There are more than a 1000 out there, most doing the long list of tasks which include those planned for the Irish package.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    The finished product met all specifications as laid down. The US version MH365, about a 100 of them, are used widely aboard USCG vessels, with various upgrades, including increased SHP on both turbo engines, improved avionics, and armament as required by task. They are used extensively on all French naval vessels so equipped. Built under license in China. Used by Army Air Corps for SAS duties. We retired them to the benefit of the Chilean Navy. There were two officially reported accidents, one by the Malaysian Air force, and another by Irish Army Air Corps. There are more than a 1000 out there, most doing the long list of tasks which include those planned for the Irish package.
                    My point stands. We didn't buy them off the shelf, we bought 5 unique aircraft, 2 of whom were different to the other 3. The 5 screen Glass cockpit was unique in service.
                    The SA365F in french service was a naval aircraft only. The french didn't try to do SAR with the same aircraft, except very later when deployed aboard its aircraft carriers. You will remember that the initial versions were armed with anti ship missiles, and operated from the larger frigates.
                    The USCG version comes in 2 types. One for short range SAR, the other for operation aboard cutters. The current version is a very different aircraft to the type that was in use by the USCG in the early 80s. Different powerplant, avionics, fuselage, etc. The USCG lost many an early HH-65 in service due to engine failure. The Tupperwolf was falling out of the sky at quite a frequent rate, and the USCG has lost 5 in service with crew fatalities. The current version in service is closer to the EC155 than the SA365.
                    I firmly believe our aircraft should have been limited to either Naval Co-Op or 24 hour SAR. Not both. Reading the Dh248 accident report tells a very sad story about the end result of trying to jam too many roles and equipment into a small aircraft. Minions in Baldonnel decided that some of the avionics features incorporated into the state of the art aircraft that assisted in its safe operation should not be used in Irish service. This decision, and others directly contributed to the unnecessary death of 4 members of the Irish Air Corps.
                    I firmly believe that the failure lay with the Air Corps Management taking control of something they knew nothing about, and refusing to admit they were out of their depth, instead of doing like those in the NS were doing, listen to the Forces with real world experience of operating aircraft from small vessels at sea, and learning from them. They were put under pressure to get the new aircraft into service doing 24 hour SAR out to 200 miles (so the RAF didn't have to) and naval operations became a secondary task, maybe even tertiary to VIP transport in the Haughey years.

                    I strongly hope that the DoD can learn from this experience when developing the EPV. P31, thanks in no small part to its development team, has proved itself to be an excellent design, which has served the state very well during its service, and is showing no signs of slowing down. It was future-proofed before such a phrase existed, and has demonstrated so on many occasions. While it may have been designed around it's helideck, the extra space that came with this has been invaluable in the 30 plus years since, being put to use for deploying towed sonar (Air India crash), carrying stores and vehicles for overseas on deck (though the trip was scrubbed at short notice, the concept was proved sound) and most recently carrying rescued survivors safely on deck having been plucked from unsuitable small boats in the Mediterranean. Even the extra accomodation provided for the aircraft crew became invaluable as extra accomodation when the vessel is used on overseas trips as a floating embassy. The groundwork has been done. The helideck space works. Every naval vessel should have one, if it is big enough to hold one. The bigger the space provided, the more useful it can be.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • The aircraft delivered in 1986 were in a very different situation than in 1999 (13 years later), in fairness.

                      Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                      My point stands. We didn't buy them off the shelf, we bought 5 unique aircraft, 2 of whom were different to the other 3. The 5 screen Glass cockpit was unique in service.
                      AFAIK the differences with the Naval Co-Op helos was crash worthy fuel tanks, uprated landing gear and I think "harpoon" system (but I could be wrong).

                      The unique hybrid analogue/digital avionics were an issue in later years due to the obsolescence but prior to that they were very capable (as you say below they were state of the art).

                      I firmly believe our aircraft should have been limited to either Naval Co-Op or 24 hour SAR. Not both. Reading the Dh248 accident report tells a very sad story about the end result of trying to jam too many roles and equipment into a small aircraft. Minions in Baldonnel decided that some of the avionics features incorporated into the state of the art aircraft that assisted in its safe operation should not be used in Irish service. This decision, and others directly contributed to the unnecessary death of 4 members of the Irish Air Corps.
                      I assume your talking about the 180kg of SAR kit in 1999? That was 90kg in 1990 which had an effect on fuel etc.

                      IMHO the idea of going for a single airframe type was better as it made training, maintaining currency, a wider pool of pilots & techs, spares stock keeping etc simpler, easier, cheaper and safer.

                      What features couldn't be used?

                      At the time of the crash you are quite correct but a lot of water had passed under the bridge since 1986.


                      i firmly believe that the failure lay with the Air Corps Management taking control of something they knew nothing about, and refusing to admit they were out of their depth, instead of doing like those in the NS were doing, listen to the Forces with real world experience of operating aircraft from small vessels at sea, and learning from them.
                      thing is the AC had plenty of experience of piloting and maintaining helos (or be it with less capable ones from land), the NS had/has zero.


                      They were put under pressure to get the new aircraft into service doing 24 hour SAR out to 200 miles (so the RAF didn't have to)
                      RAF had to do the long range jobs until all the bases were contracted out (and possibly even after).

                      Comment


                      • AFIK two Dauphins were designed for purely Naval use aboard P31. The other three were a matter for Aer Corps planning and selection. The two Naval versions were test flown and integrated to shipborne operations Day/Night by the French Navy through it's Paris Technical Bureau. Looking at subsequent operating modes our involvement with Maritime air is mainly in an observational hands off role with no naval interface other than communications. It seems to me a case of weak implementation, and no consequences, at an overall cost matching that of the ship.
                        The OTS aspect was one of AC choices which were many and expensively demanding for both ship and airside. In any event when building anything, ship or aircraft, there are always owners demands that will introduce elements of prototype to the finished articles . Useage of anything in the military/naval field requires a set of beliefs, one being a willing participant, otherwise failure can be a consequence.
                        Last edited by ancientmariner; 8 January 2017, 10:55.

                        Comment


                        • sorry, short derail. What is EPV the TLA for?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                            sorry, short derail. What is EPV the TLA for?
                            Enhanced Patrol Vessel

                            RFP 2007


                            Consultants engaged to evaluate proposals but decided to complete OPV replacements first

                            2015 White Paper has the NS to get a Multi Role Vessel (MRV)

                            Comment


                            • WP says it will replace Eithne, will not carry a helo but will be enabled for helo ops, it will have a freight carrying capability, will be adaptive and flexible in terms of ops at home and overseas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                AFIK two Dauphins were designed for purely Naval use aboard P31. The other three were a matter for Aer Corps planning and selection. The two Naval versions were test flown and integrated to shipborne operations Day/Night by the French Navy through it's Paris Technical Bureau. Looking at subsequent operating modes our involvement with Maritime air is mainly in an observational hands off role with no naval interface other than communications. It seems to me a case of weak implementation, and no consequences, at an overall cost matching that of the ship.
                                The OTS aspect was one of AC choices which were many and expensively demanding for both ship and airside. In any event when building anything, ship or aircraft, there are always owners demands that will introduce elements of prototype to the finished articles . Useage of anything in the military/naval field requires a set of beliefs, one being a willing participant, otherwise failure can be a consequence.
                                Aircrews did not want to be there,
                                Last edited by sofa; 18 January 2017, 20:34.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X