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 Turkey View Post
    If the DF ever goes down that route again, then the Helicopters will have to be Navy owned, Navy operated, and Navy maintained...and they will have to be real helicopters, not the present near useless toys.
    I disagree - though with your solution, rather than the problem.

    Any future Naval air arm would simply be too small to function, the only option that makes any sense at all is to have a single military air arm and for that air arm to provide all the military air functions. The solution is not to have, and pay for, a naval air arm for ship based helicopters, an Army air arm for helicopters that get their wheels dirty, and the present AC for that bunch of bluffing lady gardens in the Don, it's simply to change the ingrained culture within the AC.

    How is it that in the UK both RAF and Army AC helicopters regularly and without hassle or resignations manage to deploy on RN ships every day of the week and for months at a time - it's the culture, it's recruiting people who understand that deploying on ships, or to dusty hellholes, is a part of the job, and making crystal clear to current members that deploying on board ship for months at a time is part of the job, and that if they don't like it the DF will happily give them a reference.

    Comment


    • And no doubt pay

      Comment


      • There were 5 Dauphins, of which two were marinised for use with ships and harpoon landings. They were used as an integrated unit by the AC and tasked accordingly immediately impacting availability slots for potential ship board use. In one coastal SAR mission a marinised Helo became a fatal casualty reducing the marine capability of helos to one. This usage coupled with a reluctance to a permanent deployment to sea terminated the project.
        DH248 wasn't one of the navalized ones and naval ops had stopped long before she became a casualty...I assume this is the matter you refer to?
        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
          DH248 wasn't one of the navalized ones and naval ops had stopped long before she became a casualty...I assume this is the matter you refer to?
          It was, but as you point out I was wrong about DH 248 type, however it's loss in 1999 when the project was 15 years old meant BOTH the Dauphin and shipboard use would remain a memory. Mea Culpa,I should have read the report .
          The Naval use of the Dauphin was discussed with RN Overseas Training department which laid out a possible training scheme for Irish naval Pilots. Basic idea was to select trainee pilots from junior seagoing officers. Quailify in Ireland or Uk to about 50 hours fixed wing flying. Then proceed to the Joint Services Rotary School in UK. Convert to Lynx and do deck landing exercises to the training barge in UK, followed by ship deck landings to an RN Frigate. Then move to a facility ( France ) for conversion to Dauphin and a series of deck landings. Base helicopters (2) at a new facility at Cork Airport for local maintenance by the resident Helicopter Servicing Company and operation by the Naval Detachment to build hours. A unit would join ship at Sea, on Ship departure from Cork and Fly off to return to Cork Airport on day before arrival for maintenace and continued flight hours. An experienced head of Department could be secunded from the RN (Conversion required) or FNS ( Conversion not required ) pro temp.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            It was, but as you point out I was wrong about DH 248 type, however it's loss in 1999 when the project was 15 years old meant BOTH the Dauphin and shipboard use would remain a memory. Mea Culpa,I should have read the report .
            The Naval use of the Dauphin was discussed with RN Overseas Training department which laid out a possible training scheme for Irish naval Pilots. Basic idea was to select trainee pilots from junior seagoing officers. Quailify in Ireland or Uk to about 50 hours fixed wing flying. Then proceed to the Joint Services Rotary School in UK. Convert to Lynx and do deck landing exercises to the training barge in UK, followed by ship deck landings to an RN Frigate. Then move to a facility ( France ) for conversion to Dauphin and a series of deck landings. Base helicopters (2) at a new facility at Cork Airport for local maintenance by the resident Helicopter Servicing Company and operation by the Naval Detachment to build hours. A unit would join ship at Sea, on Ship departure from Cork and Fly off to return to Cork Airport on day before arrival for maintenace and continued flight hours. An experienced head of Department could be secunded from the RN (Conversion required) or FNS ( Conversion not required ) pro temp.

            The issue was partially with the type as once the AC had increased the spec and the weight went up, the performance and range came down and it became inherintely unsafe to operate from ship due to the limitations of the flight envelope during take off and landing procedures.

            The owner ship and pilot issue wasn't Insurmountable but the DH244 and 245 should have been bought as extras as opposed to being included in the AC compliment of aircraft. It was the shortage of aircraft that ulimately lead to the down fall, had the air assets no been under control of the AC and Naval officers were given the opportunity to broaden their horizons , it would have worked or at least established the precedent that AC ownership in the DF was the sole preserve of the AC
            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

            Comment


            • If we are talking naval choppers, which role do we foresee for them?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                If we are talking naval choppers, which role do we foresee for them?
                There isn't!!

                99% of warships that carry Helos use them in an anti submarine capacity or to deploy boarding parties . We already do this quite efficiently using ships boats which are far cheaper...and we don't have any anti submarine capacity.

                What we can't offer is the use of a flight deck to other parties who may require it in any eventuality and this should be on the wish list for any future build.
                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                  If we are talking naval choppers, which role do we foresee for them?
                  Originally the job of the heli was to provide a greater visible range to observe vessels of interest. The heli could also do much of the eyeball interrogation. Most of this work is no longer necessary as AIS and CASA with flir can do the same work in the designated patrol area.
                  However there is still a role for naval helicopters.
                  Primarily at present the priority would to reclaim the skillbase required to operate helicopters from the deck of a moving ship, so quite a lot of training of ships crew would be necessary. Committing an aircraft or two to this task would be vital. Having an aircraft for a few hours a year is insufficient. I believe the first qualified FDO recently retired from his civvy job (long gone from the NS) so that's how behind we are on those skills.
                  Then the ability to operate rotary wing drone aircraft would be a useful skill in all operations.
                  Once that is achieved then you can look at being in a position to operate a non integrated aircraft aboard ship, when engaged on overseas operation. For example a Spanish SH-60 or NH-90 when operating in the Med.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • The naval helicopter is traditionally largely an extension to the range of the ship’s sensors (radar, sonar, eyeball, ESM etc) it can use them for ASW, anti-ship, fishery protection etc.

                    It can also be used for SAR, maritime interdiction (anti-piracy, boardings etc).

                    Then of course it could be used to land recce troops, resupply (troops or the ship).

                    We could use it to invade Rockall.

                    The point is a helipad (even without a hanger) increases the capabilities of a ship.

                    If nothing else a hanger is a useful extra space to have (although it is more useful if you have a heli to put in it)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      The naval helicopter is traditionally largely an extension to the range of the ship’s sensors (radar, sonar, eyeball, ESM etc) it can use them for ASW, anti-ship, fishery protection etc.

                      It can also be used for SAR, maritime interdiction (anti-piracy, boardings etc).

                      Then of course it could be used to land recce troops, resupply (troops or the ship).

                      We could use it to invade Rockall.

                      The point is a helipad (even without a hanger) increases the capabilities of a ship.

                      If nothing else a hanger is a useful extra space to have (although it is more useful if you have a heli to put in it)
                      The hangar only becomes a necessity for an assigned helicopter. As well as SAR, we can add specific and general recce duties, and provide Early Warning using airborne radar. Weapon delivery systems are also a possibility.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                        The issue was partially with the type as once the AC had increased the spec and the weight went up, the performance and range came down and it became inherintely unsafe to operate from ship due to the limitations of the flight envelope during take off and landing procedures.

                        The owner ship and pilot issue wasn't Insurmountable but the DH244 and 245 should have been bought as extras as opposed to being included in the AC compliment of aircraft. It was the shortage of aircraft that ulimately lead to the down fall, had the air assets no been under control of the AC and Naval officers were given the opportunity to broaden their horizons , it would have worked or at least established the precedent that AC ownership in the DF was the sole preserve of the AC
                        The launch and recovery of helos from P31 was NEVER inherently unsafe. True, there were limitations on the SHOL, but this is to be expected on what is a relatively small heli platform (85m OPV).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dogwatch View Post
                          The launch and recovery of helos from P31 was NEVER inherently unsafe. True, there were limitations on the SHOL, but this is to be expected on what is a relatively small heli platform (85m OPV).
                          Given what was unearthed during the Waterford /Tramore incident about the severe limitations of the SA 365fi and its inability to carry out various manouvres when approaching MTOW (Max Take of Weight )the machine was unsafe by current standards.The single engine performance was marginal even at empty weights and there was no was no way of recovering the helo close to max weights with one engine out. Any loss of power during any take off evolution while close to MTOW was also a potential disaster. Now given that the machine was operated with a full crew compliment and max fuel while departing it was a significant risk factor and the power to weight limitations were either brushed over or ignored

                          The issue has always been the helicopter and never the ship, the only flaw from the ships perspective was the expected method of rescues in the vent of a crash on deck using the foil suits, which were only ever used in military or naval ops. I only later found this out when I qualified with the UK CAA as a firefighter, specializing in aircraft! Snatch rescue as practised is a major no - no!

                          True, there were limitations on the SHOL, but this is to be expected on what is a relatively small heli platform (85m OPV).
                          I don't disagree but this wasn't the issue I was highlighting, my issue was with the helicopter and not the ship. Although the practise of carrying out landings and take offs with the hanger door was not optimal as it presented a hazard to the ship if the helo had crashed.
                          Last edited by hptmurphy; 4 April 2018, 15:09.
                          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            Given what was unearthed during the Waterford /Tramore incident about the severe limitations of the SA 365fi and its inability to carry out various manouvres when approaching MTOW (Max Take of Weight )the machine was unsafe by current standards.The single engine performance was marginal even at empty weights and there was no was no way of recovering the helo close to max weights with one engine out. Any loss of power during any take off evolution while close to MTOW was also a potential disaster. Now given that the machine was operated with a full crew compliment and max fuel while departing it was a significant risk factor and the power to weight limitations were either brushed over or ignored

                            The issue has always been the helicopter and never the ship, the only flaw from the ships perspective was the expected method of rescues in the vent of a crash on deck using the foil suits, which were only ever used in military or naval ops. I only later found this out when I qualified with the UK CAA as a firefighter, specializing in aircraft! Snatch rescue as practised is a major no - no!



                            I don't disagree but this wasn't the issue I was highlighting, my issue was with the helicopter and not the ship. Although the practise of carrying out landings and take offs with the hanger door was not optimal as it presented a hazard to the ship if the helo had crashed.
                            Just to point out that the weight of DH248’s SAR kit at the time of the crash (excluding winch) was 180 kg (it was 90kg in 1990).

                            Wasn’t there also an issue with water in the ship’s aircraft fuel tank?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              Just to point out that the weight of DH248’s SAR kit at the time of the crash (excluding winch) was 180 kg (it was 90kg in 1990).

                              Wasn’t there also an issue with water in the ship’s aircraft fuel tank?
                              Water contamination in JET A! is always a fear, especially in a helo over water, the oncern in the early days was how the fuel would be contaminated as the water is held in suspension as opposed to being layered. Contamination in suspension is normally caused by condensation forming in the storage facility on the ship.It was believed that the location of the Jet A1 storage was a possible cause.

                              If Jet A1 is left sitting samples can be contaminated but repeated sampling will provide clear samples eventually. Wasn't my department at the time but I became very familiar with the product and its associated problems in my next job after the NS.

                              ust to point out that the weight of DH248’s SAR kit at the time of the crash (excluding winch) was 180 kg (it was 90kg in 1990).
                              The MTOW for the navalized Daupins was compatible as they had winches fitted and various other bits of kit such as Harpoon that the others didn't have. The ones leaving the ships were full to the gills with people and kit and tools...and duty free!
                              Last edited by hptmurphy; 5 April 2018, 13:15.
                              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                                Water contamination in JET A! is always a fear, especially in a helo over water, the oncern in the arly days was how the fuel would be contaminated as the water is held in suspension as opposed to being layered. Contamination in suspension is normally caused by condensation forming in the storage facility on the ship.It was believed that the location of the Jet A1 storage was a possible cause.

                                If Jet A1 is left sitting samples can be contaminated but repeated sampling will provide clear samples eventually. WAs my department at the time but I became very familiar with the product and its associated problems in my next job after the NS.



                                The MTOW for the navalized Daupins was compatible as they had winches fitted and various other bits of kit such as Harpoon that the others didn't have. The ones leaving the ships were full to the gills with people and kit and tools...and duty free!
                                There is always water in some form in JET A1. It is present in three forms- dissolved in the fuel- suspended in an emulsion- or layered in the bottom of the tank. The degrees of presence depends on the make up of the fuel which can come from a number of sources- petroleum based from crude oil- Gas to liquid based- animal/plant fats based- or a mixture.
                                Dissolved water is generally not a problem as aircraft systems should handle the filtering or heating treatments required. Suspended water should be removable by routine QC and daily processing of the fuel store. Suctions in fuel tanks are higher to avoid bottom water and drains are provided. To be water free may not be entirely possible but the degree or type of presence, to allow for normal fuel useage, is down to handling. A tank with no sea contact would help matters of condensation, however fuel processing on board should resolve such matters.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X