# Canada asks for Chinook design changes; military expert worry about delay



## GAP

Canada asks for Chinook design changes; military expert worry about delay
Article Link

OTTAWA - Canada's air force wants to upgrade the design of its planned CH-47 Chinook battlefield helicopters and is offering Boeing a limited contract to construct a couple of prototype aircraft, defence sources have told The Canadian Press.

The chief of air staff, Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, confirmed project staff have asked for changes, but would not discuss the specifics of the negotiations underway with the Chicago-based aircraft giant.

He said he's confident the ongoing talks and the redesign will not affect the delivery date of the 16 medium-lift helicopters, which the army has identified as essential in getting Canadian troops off the bomb-strewn roads of southern Afghanistan.

But air force observers are worried the request, made earlier this year, will knock the project off schedule, pushing the arrival of the aircraft out past 2011.

Much like vehicles coming off the assembly line, helicopters can come with a variety of different features and Watt compared the impending $4.7 billion purchase to buying a pickup truck or SUV.

"We don't want a basic truck," he said in an interview. "Because we have a relatively small fleet without all of the additional bells and whistles and extra capabilities, we want that fleet to be more than a basic truck so it can do those missions in a little more demanding circumstances."

One of the most important upgrades the air force wants to see is better armour and weapons so the choppers can perform casualty evacuation.

Canadian troops wounded in battle in Afghanistan are currently airlifted to hospital in specially outfitted U.S. Blackhawks. The modifications being requested would not upgrade the Chinooks to a full medevac role, which would require the installation of a suite of life-saving equipment, but would allow for the timely airlift of most wounded soldiers.

Watt said there are other design changes meant to allow the Chinooks to operate in bad weather and fly over vast distances - necessary features if the aircraft are to be useful to the army in the Arctic during the summer. The air force also wants the CH-47 to act as a backup search and rescue helicopter for the sometimes troubled Cormorant.

When the medium-lift helicopter program was announced, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor said he expected delivery of the first aircraft in 2010 or 36 months after a contract was signed.

Yet over a year after the Conservative government invoked an advanced contract award notice, citing national security and Boeing as the only company capable of delivering the required aircraft, it has yet to strike a formal contract.
More on link


----------



## dapaterson

Hmmm... is this part of the Air Force brain trust's efforts to sabotage the purchase?  We're getting the C-17s fast in no small part because we're stickign with the design and not adding "Canadian" specific features.

This is either AERE empire building or extreme stupidity.  Methinks the new DM needs to visit Louis St Laurent and inform the PMO that we're buying off the shelf... and perhaps bring with him a briefcase full of pink slips...


----------



## HItorMiss

Agreed Data

I understand the need for certain add on capabilities however I think this first set of aircraft need to be off the shelf to get them into service quickly, no fuss no muss as it were. After that should we be happy and I don't see why we wouldn't be. We can then tender a new contract for say 16 more aircraft (number is off the top of my head and just going with the first purchase order) That we can "Canadianize" as it were. Seeing as we would already have Chinooks in service we could afford to wait some time for the "Canadian" ones and then once they were in service retro fit the older ones to meet the new requirements.

IMO anyway....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Why aren't we just buying the OTS submission for the US CSAR competition rather than once again trying to "Canadianize" them?

Seriously, so much of this dicking around appears to be people with nothing better to do, trying to justify their jobs.


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Flip

> Seriously, so much of this dicking around appears to be people with nothing better to do, trying to justify their jobs.



Agreed - there's the danger.

One thought though - isn't the delay more a matter of waiting our turn 
on the production line? My point is this might not cause an unacceptable delay.

"No contract yet" is the part that bugs me most.  Here's the thing that implies delay to me.


----------



## Loachman

I will not pretend to have much real info on this, as I have no personal interest in Chinook, but my "hearsay" info from a reliable source indicates that there are some very real concerns with the standard US Army version.

Most of what we want is apparently pretty close to what the USAF wants, if they do indeed opt for Chinook as their CSAR helicopter.

Buying a few OTS and attempting later to buy another set built to our requirements is not a viable option, especially with such a small fleet.


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman:

I'd rather have a common fleet with an ally with slightly less capability, than a unique Canadian fleet with increased support costs.

All the CF is guilty of "Canadianizing" fleets and incurring increased support costs; I'd hope that we're learning to do better.


----------



## Pencil Tech

This is the problem with having everything that flies under Air Command. The Chinooks are not "for" the Air Force. If the Army controlled Tac Hel I bet we'd get them faster.


----------



## Bograt

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> This is the problem with having everything that flies under Air Command. The Chinooks are not "for" the Air Force. If the Army controlled Tac Hel I bet we'd get them faster.



hmmm. Anyone see what I did with the can opener- I have a can of worms here.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Here's the OTS solution - It's already designed and the demonstrator has already flown:  http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/hh47/index.html


Matthew.    ???


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Loachman:
> 
> I'd rather have a common fleet with an ally with slightly less capability, than a unique Canadian fleet with increased support costs.
> 
> All the CF is guilty of "Canadianizing" fleets and incurring increased support costs; I'd hope that we're learning to do better.



From what I understand, several of the issues are more basic, ie undesireable characteristics, than "Canadianizing".

None of the desired changes appear to be frivolous.

Not getting it right the first time would end up costing far more in the long run.

The Brits bought MH47s "on the cheap" and are still paying the penalty.

The Dutch CH47F buy differs from the US Army model in cockpit architecture and possibly other areas as well. Cockpit architecture appears to be one of our concerns as well.

Again, I'm not close to this project, but I'd tend to trust the judgement of those that are.


----------



## Loachman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Here's the OTS solution - It's already designed and the demonstrator has already flown:  http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/hh47/index.html



Yes - the manufacturer's website and sales pitch...

I'm not sure if a true "demonstrator" has flown, as this particular variation is more than just the airframe and dynamics.

The USAF have been forced to re-compete. IF HH47 wins the CSAR-X competition again, we will probably get just what we want. If not, it could well be either the stock F or the best compromise that we can squeeze out of Boeing.

For now, this is idle speculation.


----------



## Loachman

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> This is the problem with having everything that flies under Air Command. The Chinooks are not "for" the Air Force. If the Army controlled Tac Hel I bet we'd get them faster.



While that is both a more natural and proper relationship, and one that I have long pimped, it would not speed things up at all.


----------



## Rigger

This shouldn't be a big deal. It not like we are asking them to design and build a folding head or a new transmission. The core aircraft will be the same, we just want extra gadgets up front. Think of it as buying a new truck, we've decided on the type we are going to get, all we want to do is pick out some extra options.


----------



## Loachman

If it was that simple, this wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## TCBF

Perhaps some Workplace Health and Safety Initiative caused by somebody remembering how we had to wear ear plugs riding in and jumping from our old ones, so now we have RFPs outlining six tonnes of noise abatement insulation per aircraft.  Then someone else pointed out that dispatching jumpers over an open ramp negates all that... 

 ;D

...not to mention mounting an HMG on the ramp.  Which opens up a whole new can of worms if we want kits to turn our Chinook into an MH-47(Cdn).

But being only self-loading cargo myself, I will leave serious commentary to our aviation community - rotary wing section.


----------



## dapaterson

TCBF said:
			
		

> But being only self-loading cargo myself, I will leave serious commentary to our aviation community - rotary wing section.



That's the Army Air Corps, bub...


----------



## AIC_2K5

As a side from the heated thoughts on the arrival date, I find this particular tidbit encouraging:



> Air force planners say 16 helicopters are the minimum needed to do the job required, but documents released by the project office suggest the fleet size could eventually grow to 35.


----------



## Loachman

I was wondering about that myself. It's the first that I've heard of an increase in numbers.

That's a hell of a bill, both for the machines themselves, and supporting infrastructure. We still don't know for certain where the initial sixteen will be based, as available hangarage appears to be a significant factor in that decision and there is a shortage nationwide. There seems to be little appetite for building new ones.

And then, post-Afghanistan, what would we do with them all?

Unless we re-roled a brigade as an airmobile one (which we should) there is going to be a dearth of suitable employment.

Our old aviation doctrine of the eighties and early nineties (which I still favour over the current) stated that, at Brigade level, there was continual requirement for light helicopters for reconnaissance and fire direction (AOP, FAC, and AH) and occasional requirement for utility and attack. At Div level, there was continual requirement for utility and attack, and occasional requirement for Medium Transpor.. Medium Transport only became a continual requirement at Corps level.

I have no objection to fielding thirty-five Chinooks, so long as balance is maintained. I fear that this will come only at the cost of the CH146 fleet (not a fan of the machine, but there is a requirement for utility helicopters).

And we still need something to fill the Attack, or at least armed, role.


----------



## Good2Golf

In the defence procurement world, there are a number of options considered, ranging from "DESIREABLE" to "HIGHLY DESIREABLE" to "ESSENTIAL".  It would stand to reason that the 35 aircraft fleet size may have been a "DESIREABLE" (a.k.a. "nice to have") number and that the hard requirement (ESSENTIAL) was the 16 aircraft fleet size.  I would not read much in to the 35 number.

G2G


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

Is it the CH-47D/F Chinook?

MH-47E/G Special Operations Chinook?

Or the HH-47 CSAR-X (Combat Search and Rescue) Helicopter?


----------



## Loachman

From what little I know, a bit of a blend.


----------



## armoured recce man

left one look a lot like the HH-47 CSAR-X right one i don't know for sure..

cheers


http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/hh47/index.html

the picture is from boeing site


----------



## Spencer100

Are we getting infight refeuling?  I would think not but I don't know anything.


----------



## MarkOttawa

No contract till the end of 2008; I smell pork problems (from the C-130J contract announcement):
http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372519



> *3. Medium- to Heavy-Lift Helicopters (Chinooks)
> 
> Procurement process*
> 
> In July 2006, PWGSC issued an Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) on MERX, the government’s electronic tendering service.
> 
> An ACAN signals the government’s intention to award a contract to a specific supplier for a specific requirement. Other suppliers then have an opportunity (at minimum 15 days) to submit a Statement of Capabilities clearly demonstrating how they can meet the mandatory requirements set out by the government.
> 
> This method of procurement fosters competition by giving suppliers the opportunity to respond to the government’s requirements before a contract is awarded. It is typically used when the government believes there is only one supplier or product capable of meeting its needs. It is also open and transparent by letting suppliers know the government’s intention well in advance of any contract award.
> 
> *Schedule*
> 
> A Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued to Boeing by the spring of 2008. Contract award is expected by the end of 2008. Under the RFP, Boeing will be required to meet all of the high-level mandatory requirements including delivery of first aircraft 36 months after a contract is awarded. The last aircraft will be delivered within 60 months of contract award.
> 
> *Trade agreements*
> 
> This requirement was excluded from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization – Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO – AGP) and the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Helicopter shortage still hovers over forces
_National Post_, Jan. 30
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=272344



> In recent weeks, the federal government has approached European allies and major U.S. manufacturers *for four to six aircraft* [emphasis added], on a lease or loan basis, but has had no luck.
> 
> The government plans later this year to award a sole-sourced contract for 16 new CH-47 Chinook helicopters to the U.S. defence contractor Boeing, but because the first of those helicopters is not due to arrive until 2011, the military wants a temporary solution to the lack of air support in order to lessen the exposure of Canadian troops to deadly roadside bombs.
> 
> The Manley commission has called on the government to secure medium-lift helicopters by next year as a condition for continuing the Canadian Forces combat mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> Now there is growing frustration within Defence Department headquarters over the delay in getting helicopters. Many are second-guessing a decision two years ago to pass on buying second-hand U.S. army Chinooks, while others are growing increasingly frustrated with the air force's position to hold out for the new fleet of customized Chinooks, instead of trying to find less deluxe versions that could be retrofitted for the battlefield in the coming year.
> 
> "They are looking into options," said a senior defence industry insider. "To accelerate the Chinooks or [by] going to other manufacturers to see what they have available or what can be made available."
> 
> Late last year, the government asked Germany if it could lend Canada four of its CH-53 transports. Germany was unable to do without any of the 18 specially retrofitted aircraft it currently rotates through Afghanistan because they are already being heavily used.
> 
> Germany offered less deluxe CH-53s that Canada could have had retrofitted with special filters to cope with southern Afghanistan's dusty climate as well as other features to protect the choppers from ground fire.
> 
> Upgrading the helicopters for Afghanistan could take anywhere from several months to a year.
> 
> Canada also approached Sikorsky Aircraft, the American company that makes the CH-53, but was told every aircraft the company has produced is now being used.
> 
> Some Defence Department insiders say the best option for getting a few new helicopters within the next year is to persuade Boeing to allow Canada to jump the queue on its current busy assembly line...
> 
> A Defence Department source blamed delays on the air force's desire to get a highly customized new fleet of the CH-47, instead of settling for a few "bare bones" versions of the helicopters in the short term.
> 
> "With the right amount of high-level political and military representation in Washington, we should be able to secure four to six airframes initially. Given that the Americans want us to stay in the south, they should be persuaded that giving up a few slots in the production line is a small price to pay to keep an important and trusted ally in the game," said the source...



Working out the distribution of regional industrial benefits is also certainly a reason for the contract delay, as they were with the C-130J contract.

From a Jan 23. _Toronto Star_ story:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/296597



> Canada could...negotiate with Washington to snag some CH-47 Chinooks off the production line where they are now being made for the United States army, said Mark Kronenberg, vice-president of international business development for Boeing's defence business.
> 
> "There's going to have to be some government-to-government discussions. ... It's always in the realm of the doable when governments get together," he said in an interview.
> 
> Ottawa did a similar deal with Washington that allowed Canada's air force to take quick delivery of C-17 transport jets last year...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## beenthere

It would take a long time to get the show up and running. The whole operation has to start from scratch and there is a vast difference between what's coming down the tube--CH-47s and the current helicopters.


----------



## darmil

Too bad. We need those chopper now in Afghanistan, why can't they just get them of the shelf like the C17's.


----------



## GK .Dundas

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Helicopter shortage still hovers over forces
> _National Post_, Jan. 30
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=272344
> 
> Working out the distribution of regional industrial benefits is also certainly a reason for the contract delay, as they were with the C-130J contract.
> 
> From a Jan 23. _Toronto Star_ story:
> http://www.thestar.com/News/article/Canada could...negotiate with Washington to snag some CH-47 Chinooks off the production line where they are now being made for the United States army, said Mark Kronenberg, vice-president of international business development for Boeing's defence business.
> 
> "There's going to have to be some government-to-government discussions. ... It's always in the realm of the doable when governments get together," he said in an interview.
> 
> Ottawa did a similar deal with Washington that allowed Canada's air force to take quick delivery of C-17 transport jets last year...
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


 And we're still hearing the screaming from those poor,poor aerospace types in Quebec , Manitoba. B.C.  Ontario ,N.B. etc etc........ad nauseum about how they never got as much pork as they're entitled to with every Defence Contract issued.


----------



## karl28

What I don't understand is that there was an offer according to the above article( reply 25 )  to buy some second hand chinooks till our new ones become available  and I presume that it was turned down .  Well than why the heck doesn't the Canadian Government  just go back to our US Allies and ask for the same deal ?


----------



## beenthere

Further to my previous post. To acquire Chinooks and get a unit up and running with trained and qualified personnel takes considerable time and effort. To put a new unit into an operational area with crews that have nothing more than the minimum qualifications to operate the aircraft would be more than questionable.
I was one of the people who was around the last time that we got Chinooks and there was a huge learning curve. The squadrons had operated the CH-113A (CH- 46) before getting the Chinook and dispite them both being from the same family--Boeing tandem rotor there was little in common. Both the Chinook and the 113A are ages away from helicopters like the Twin Huey and Griffon in terms of sophisticated systems and the new generations of Chinooks are a whole lot farther along than the old ones in the same respect. 
We had snags that kept very experienced (but not on the Chinook) technicians completely baffled for days. We had integral systems techs at that time who's specialty was all of the systems where electronics interfaced with hydraulic and other systems and they had a full time job just discovering how everything worked. I don't believe that there's such a trade any more and someone else has to do their job along with other things. Who ever these people are they will have to learn the whole thing all over again and that isn't going to happen fast as usually the snag is something that isn't covered in any of the maintenance books that come with the aircraft. The same things apply to airframe and engine techs but the story is too long to get into here.
As for the people who are going to operate them the leap from little helicopters to Chinooks is a big one. The Chinook is big and heavy and it can destroy big things on the ground with rotorwash like you have never even dreamed of and when you are sitting in the front of it you will have something like the total legnth of a Griffon---rotors and all somewhere out behind you in a place that you can't see.
On one of our first operations which was in Frobisher Bay I watched a Chinook with a full load of 45 gallon drums of fuel take off from a loading area and it was hurling  48 x 48 pallets around like they were a deck of cards. All of the bystanders were on the run as they were raining out of the air and one of them--a loadie received a concussion. 
Flight Engineers were never seen without a stack of books that they were trying to decipher as everyone was asking them to find out why something didn't work and when they left home base they had an inventory of spare parts that a Griffon couldn't lift on a cold day at sea level--and cases of oil and hydraulic fluid. I still long for the smell of hydraulic fluid.  I was usually wearing at least a couple of cans of it from something that had burst open and sprayed it on me.
I'm not trying to discourage anyone with my recollections of the Chinook as it's a great helicopter. Fantastic. I'm just using my experiences to pass on to you that it's a whole world away from anything that is familiar and that there's going to be a lot to learn about it before it can be used. Too bad that I'm just an old retired guy. I'd love to be there.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Well, there's a solution in your last sentence. They could invite you 'Old retired guys' back in to save our asses!

"The shortest distance between 2 points, with all your stuff, is a Chinook"


----------



## darmil

Thats why I think they should have people at least training on them now.I've flown in a Chinook its a great heli.Too bad its taking to long to get things rolling.


----------



## Rigger

The first A/C I worked on in the airforce was the Chinook. That was almost 19 years ago. It was a great A/C then and I bet a greater A/C now with the new versions. Back then it had an all up weight of 50 000 lbs, weighing in empty at 22 000Lbs. That left 28 000lbs of fuel and cargo (figures are close but maybe not exact). The Buffalo we fly now is lucky to haul 10 000 lbs of usefull cargo. The Chinook is by far, in my opinion, the most capable A/C the air force ever had, capable of lifting more than it's basic weight.
I hope one day to finish my career in the airforce they way it started, on Chinooks.
There are still some chinook pilots kicking around the airforce, and some old crusty FEs . I'm sure there is a pile of experience still to draw on, but don't wait to long.


----------



## daftandbarmy

If we did, we'd have to pay you all to come back on contract


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If we did, we'd have to pay you all to come back on contract



I understand complexity issues that were mentioned however I think that if we can do it quickly for C17s we can get it done quickly for these birds too.


----------



## Loachman

I would echo that.

We learned much from the introduction of Griffon, which was done in great haste, and there are a lot of people around who remember what was done wrong and have some pretty good ideas for preventing similar mistakes.

There aren't many left with experience on Old Chinook, but those that have it are well-placed. And New Chinook is going to be much different from Old Chinook, aside from general appearance, size, and rotorwash. What is inside the basic box has changed a lot.

We already have an Instructor Pilot (IP) gaining experience in the US.


----------



## darmil

> We already have an Instructor Pilot (IP) gaining experience in the US.



Well thats a start hopefully they get more people trained soon.


----------



## beenthere

The last Chinooks that we bought were also much different than the Old Chinook of that time but they came with many of the old problems and a whole lot of new ones. 
One thing that became obvious was the inherent disconnect between Boeing and the U.S. Army in regard to technical problems. Generally speaking Boeing built the aircraft according to the contract terms but despite the technological advances that had been made over the years since the first Chinooks were built nothing was ever done to build a better product unless the improvement was initiated by the army and covered by a contract. Obviously no company is going to do uncontracted work but some of the things were so outstanding that it was hard to believe. 
The U.S. Army  seemed to operate in a manner where they operated the equipment that they were issued and did little or nothing to change it unless a company was contracted to find a problem and another one was contracted to come up with a solution. Both the problem finding and solution finding contracts were dependant on money being approved and the results of these may or may not get attention depending on money being approved once again and more contracts drawn up.
Boeing wasn't in a position to advise us of what the U.S. Army doing other than a few general things that they were aware of and the U.S. Army only knew of issues that had gone to contract.
The sales people at Boeing were always around to flog all of the new innovative things that the company was conjuring up for future models but there was no one to tell us about the ones that we had.
We were sold a huge pile of crap that came with no support and left to sort it out on our own.


----------



## tomahawk6

The KISS principle should apply to all procurement programs otherwise costs get out of hand. The more tweaks to the original design the more the system costs with the invariable delays in fielding.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/chinooknews/news_2008.pdf


----------



## beenthere

Boeing pays for the glossy publications but that's part of the sales pitch.


----------



## tomahawk6

beenthere said:
			
		

> Boeing pays for the glossy publications but that's part of the sales pitch.



Dont buy Boeing then.


----------



## beenthere

I'm just trying to keep it realistic. Nothing is ever as good as it looks and it's not what you know that gets you. It's what you don't know.


----------



## aesop081

beenthere said:
			
		

> I'm just trying to keep it realistic. Nothing is ever as good as it looks and it's not what you know that gets you. It's what you don't know.



No problems, there are lots of other suitable manufacturers of Heavy lift choppers around to chose from.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US Army has flown Chinooks in various forms since 1961 so for us its a proven platform or else we wouldnt be flying the platform today.


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US Army has flown Chinooks in various forms since 1961 so for us its a proven platform or else we wouldnt be flying the platform today.



Exactly.

The 100% solution doesnt exist and i think that the Chinook is as close as it gets.


----------



## beenthere

I'm not knocking the Chinook as a choice. I'm just pointing out some of the things from the previous Chinook experience. New and improved doesn't equate with problem free and I tend to be sceptical of accepting both the manufacturers claims and the experience of other users.


----------



## beenthere

I would suggest that a demonstration of the Chinooks capability to fulfill part of our requirements would be a trip through Arctic Canada on a published itinerary with a departure from Ottawa in February with a Boeing crew of two pilots and one technician. I had a look at the weather today in the Arctic and temperatures are about typical with -35 and -40 being the lows.
Ottawa--Churchill overnight,--7 am departure to Hall Beach, overnight,--7am departure to Resolute, overnight,  --7am departure to Eureka,overnight  --7am departure to Alert. One day crewrest Alert. One day slinging operations Alert area.   Alert--Grise Fiord, overnight,  --7am departure to Clide River,overnight  --7am departure to Coral Harbour,overnight  --7am departure to Moosonee,overnight  --7am departure to Ottawa.
If that trip worked out and kept to itinerary it would be a great first step in confirming that the Chinook would be able to operate in the Arctic.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Other nations have operated Chinooks in similar conditions in arctic Norway quite successfully for decades. I also assume that when we DID have Chinooks, someone flew them around up in those parts of our country. So I'm not sure what that would prove.


----------



## Loachman

It took us several weeks to get one of two Griffons to Eureka this past summer, between weather, major unserviceabilities (some aggravated by the environment), and delays getting techs and parts to the location, and much the same problems were encountered getting it back again. The other one of the pair had very little difficulty. Mind you, the temps were not down to your proposed levels. Everything that could possibly go wrong did go wrong.

Success or failure of a single example of a helicopter, or any machine for that matter, is not necessarily an indication of quality or suitability.


----------



## beenthere

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/crew/index_e.asp?id=5293#s1   Some day in the future we will be called upon to provide resources for a mission to the Arctic and there is no doubt that a single Chinook will have to participate and it will be an immediate tasking.   http://www.dnd.ca/site/reports/dps/main/03_e.asp


----------



## beenthere

Loachman: This is from my "brag bag".  8) I would have to dig out my log book for the exact details but in the good old days we flew a CH-113 from Ottawa to Alert--5 flying days. We spent 5 flying days laying cable from Alert with an improvised cable laying device--about 50 miles of  3/4 inch communication cable. Flew back to Ottawa--5 flying days.  Crew was 2 pilots, 2 flight engineers, 1 loadmaster. No maintenance techs or other support. The helicopter arrived back in Ottawa with some snags but was back flying within 24 hours. No. It wasn't in the winter.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US Army and National Guard operate Chinooks in Alaska since the 70's, maybe before.Some of those have seen service in Afghanistan. The Chinook has performed rescue's on Mt McKinley too. I really doubt that a tour of arctic Canada is necessary - it just delays the delivery of Chinooks for the CF.

An interesting discussion about the Chinook being selected as a replacement for some of the PaveHawk fleet the USAF runs for CSAR. No one aircraft is perfect in all roles and the CH-47 is no exception.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/04/combat_search_a.html


----------



## geo

For some odd reason,  we've always "canadianized" off the shelf equipment & complicated what could have been a relatively simple transaction.  While the Chinook purchase is not a small (or cheap) transaction, our conditions are no different than what the US military has to deal with in Alaska AND our Scandinavian allies deal with on their side of the Arctic circle.

Are these special canadian modifications essential?


----------



## beenthere

What the U.S. Army or any other operators do in Alaska or other places has little in common with how we operate. We have no hangars (or anything else) up there and we have been flying in the Arctic since we've had an air force. I would consider that taking a Chinook up north and giving it a run through the places where we will be using it would be a perfect opportunity to see just how it's going to perform for us. The real bonus would be to bring the people from the headshed who are going to be signing off on the purchase along for the trip so they can see first hand just how well it performs.  We've all heard the old saying about "buying a pig in a poke".


----------



## ArmyRick

How often do we plan to use these in the far north?


----------



## beenthere

Do we have a 30 year plan?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

This isn't my lane but...

There are a lot of SOF mentions in the operational requirements docs on the ADM Mat MHLH site. Could some of the Canadianisation changes be for MH-47-ish requirements? If they are, it might be completely legit for a small fleet. 

Or I might be way off....


----------



## AIC_2K5

Just to comment a bit about fleet size. In Appendix E on the ADM Mat site for MHLH it lays out the requirements for # of chinooks required to carry out operations. It appears the project staff envision three purchasing options the CF can undertake in accordance with CF transformation:

Option 1 - 35 aircraft - allows the CF "to meet all of the objectives of CF transformation and to satisfy the full extent of operational requirements..." This plan allots 19 airframes to operational squadrons, 9 to the operational training unit, 6 to 427 SOAS, with 1 reserved for operational training and evaluation. Overall, this option allows for "a sustained 6 aircraft capability to support conventional TF deployed operations."

Option 2 - 23 aircraft - allows the CF to meet "the key CF transformation objectives, provided the sustainability of a 6 aircraft deployment is not essential." Option 2 allots 11 airframes to operational squadrons, 5 to the operational training unit, 6 to the SOAS and 1 for OT&E. The option allows for "a sustained 3 aircraft capability to support conventional TF deployed operations" with an "unsustained surge capability to 6 aircraft."

Option 3 - 16 aircrat - is the "minimum viable fleet size necessary to achieve the key objectives of CF transformation." This option allots 12 airframes to operational squadrons (divided between 2 main operating bases) and 4 to the operational training unit (no dedicated CANSOFCOM or OT&E aircraft).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/mhlh/docs/mhlh_sor_v1_annex_e_13_June_06.pdf

So right now we're obviously going for Option 3. But what I find interesting is that this Appendix is from the Statement of Requirements issued in June 2006, this being the same month as the govt announcement to buy the fleet of 16 aircraft. To me, this indicates that the CF had its sights set higher from the beginning. This could *possibly* mean that a) after the initial purchase the Air Force has intentions to eventually expand the fleet, or b) AF officials are in negotiation right now to grow the initial # of aircraft to be purchased.


----------



## beenthere

I've not seen all of the requirements. Nothing more than the notice of intent document which indicates off the shelf models. I've heard of the proposal for more armour and some guns or whatever but nothing that would indicate that it would have to meet any technical specifications that are specifically Canadian. Also I've never heard of any intention to have Canadian flight trials or anything similar as a means of verification that it will perform as we would expect it to.
Our previous Chinooks came with the promise that they were new and improved and were the frontrunners of the new modern fleet that was going to replace all Chinooks that had previously been built. In fact they had many of the old Chinooks problems and many of the improvements were just new problems. The engine was one of the improvements that turned out to be an outstanding liability. There were many other things as well.
That purchase was also made without first flying the aircraft or having it checked out. It appears that the same process is underway again and the people at the top are as blissfully unaware as their predecessors were more than 30 years ago.


----------



## beenthere

I've found the SOR and have read it. Not understanding the process I'm left in the dark as to what happens to verify that the aircraft that is selected meets the criteria of the SOR.


----------



## beenthere

Obviously we're all in the dark.-- Sort of like mushrooms.


----------



## Spencer100

And mushrooms grow in what?   


Sorry I had too


----------



## STONEY

FYI - On Feb. 1  US Army ordered 10 new CH-47F's  will be delivered by 2012.   The Brits are to deploy modified Seakings  to the sandbox  they are being fitted with new Carson blades to both main & tail rotor which in hot & high conditions give them 2000 lbs more lift & 49 km more speed.

Cheers


----------



## beenthere

GAP said:
			
		

> Canada asks for Chinook design changes; military expert worry about delay
> Article Link
> 
> OTTAWA - Canada's air force wants to upgrade the design of its planned CH-47 Chinook battlefield helicopters and is offering Boeing a limited contract to construct a couple of prototype aircraft, defence sources have told The Canadian Press.
> 
> The chief of air staff, Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, confirmed project staff have asked for changes, but would not discuss the specifics of the negotiations underway with the Chicago-based aircraft giant.
> 
> He said he's confident the ongoing talks and the redesign will not affect the delivery date of the 16 medium-lift helicopters, which the army has identified as essential in getting Canadian troops off the bomb-strewn roads of southern Afghanistan.
> 
> But air force observers are worried the request, made earlier this year, will knock the project off schedule, pushing the arrival of the aircraft out past 2011.
> 
> Much like vehicles coming off the assembly line, helicopters can come with a variety of different features and Watt compared the impending $4.7 billion purchase to buying a pickup truck or SUV.
> 
> "We don't want a basic truck," he said in an interview. "Because we have a relatively small fleet without all of the additional bells and whistles and extra capabilities, we want that fleet to be more than a basic truck so it can do those missions in a little more demanding circumstances."
> 
> One of the most important upgrades the air force wants to see is better armour and weapons so the choppers can perform casualty evacuation.
> 
> Canadian troops wounded in battle in Afghanistan are currently airlifted to hospital in specially outfitted U.S. Blackhawks. The modifications being requested would not upgrade the Chinooks to a full medevac role, which would require the installation of a suite of life-saving equipment, but would allow for the timely airlift of most wounded soldiers.
> 
> Watt said there are other design changes meant to allow the Chinooks to operate in bad weather and fly over vast distances - necessary features if the aircraft are to be useful to the army in the Arctic during the summer. The air force also wants the CH-47 to act as a backup search and rescue helicopter for the sometimes troubled Cormorant.
> 
> When the medium-lift helicopter program was announced, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor said he expected delivery of the first aircraft in 2010 or 36 months after a contract was signed.
> 
> Yet over a year after the Conservative government invoked an advanced contract award notice, citing national security and Boeing as the only company capable of delivering the required aircraft, it has yet to strike a formal contract.
> More on link


 I must admit that I got somewhat away from the subject that got this whole thing going. I would consider the proposal to issue a contract for a couple of prototypes to be the ideal way to introduce the helicopter. Historically, we have bought production models- the CH-113A and previous Chinook only to discover that they had many shortcomings which limited our ability to use them. The CH-113A Voyageur (Army model) was severely handicapped in that it didn't have sufficient fuel capacity to get it from where it was based to where it was expected to go. If the people who bought it had insisted on a system to give it longer range there would never been a problem. It took 10 years to develop an extended range fuel system. By the same token the CH-113 (RCAF) Labrador was bought without an optional Auxiliary Power Unit which was a must have item. The fix for that little oversight was to buy complete tail sections and APUs from damaged U.S. Marine helicopters and fit them onto the Labradors. For those who aren't familiar with them the tail section constitutes about 1/3 of the aircraft.
Our old Chinooks came with the same fuel capacity problems as the CH-113A Voyageurs that they replaced. They also had lots of problems that we had never heard of because no one bothered to properly check into them in the big rush to get them. While one of them was undergoing acceptance flights in Pennsylvania the whole *** end blew out of an engine. We discovered that it really wasn't an uncommon event but they were working on a fix for it and in the meantime we'd just have to expect that it would happen from time to time. We also discovered that the compressor turbine blades on the engines were very delicate little things that were prone to damage when pebbles got sucked into the engines. It created so much rotor wash that it blew rocks around but no one had yet developed a particle separator to filter out all of the debris that was going into the engines. The cabin windows that regularly blew out in flight weren't one of the features in the brochures that Boeing handed out either. There were lots of other unadvertised features as well but I'm not writing a book. >
We should buy a couple of trial models so we can work the bugs out before we commit them to general use. The manufacturer gives about the same response to their customers as a used car dealer when problems crop up so if we want something that's going to provide good service we should get a head start.


----------



## GAP

I was under the impression the Chinooks we are purchasing are already in use by the US, and most of the bugs had been worked out. Canadianize......don't these operate in Alaska?

 If they work there what more do we need other than a Maple Leaf?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Aren't our left wings larger than theirs?


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Aren't our left wings larger than theirs?



 :rofl:


----------



## beenthere

___Quote: "If they work there what more do we need other than a Maple Leaf? "  Lets not get into this.   We don't want to get into a conflict of interest scandal. Try a google search using Ti Domi and the name of a certain cabinet minister.  ;D


----------



## newfin

Here's a positive development:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/02/10/pf-4838866.html

Canada's Defence Department has approached the Pentagon about obtaining as many as six refurbished U.S. army battlefield helicopters for use in Afghanistan, defence sources tell The Canadian Press. 

The request for information was made as part of a worldwide search for medium-lift transport to get Canadian soldiers off the dangerous highways and biways of Kandahar. 

Almost two years ago, Canada's air force was offered, but turned down access to used Chinooks under a program called Cargo Helicopter Alternate Procurement Strategy, or CHAPS. 

With the Manley commission laying down helicopters as a requirement for extending Canada's mission, defence officials are scrambling to fill the order. 

The helicopters said to be under consideration are 'D' model CH-47 Chinooks, a slightly older variety of the 'F' model Canada's air force hopes to buy, said a NATO source. 

The aircraft would be refurbished by Boeing and would be available for delivery well within the one-year time frame set out by the independent commission. 

"There's not a lot of time, but its doable," said a defence source. 

The aircraft come with few frills, but would contain at a minimum a defence suite of machine-guns, flares and chafe to protect against ground-based attack. 

The cost is said to be $15 million per aircraft - or less than half of the pricetag of a new one. A brand new Chinook can go for up to $40 million in some cases. 

Canadian pilots have already been training on CH-47s in the U.S. and Australia in anticipation of the Tory government's long-promised $4.7 billion purchase of 16 brand new Chinooks. 

That could help speed the introduction of the refurbished ones, said the NATO source, who asked not to be named. 

The potential purchase was apparently discussed among Canadian and American officials at last week's informal meeting of NATO defence ministers in Vilinius, Lithuania. 

At the same time Defence Minister Peter MacKay kept up pressure on the Americans to allow Canada to slip ahead of the U.S. military in Boeing production line orders for the few 'F' model Chinook. 

Officials were expected to plead their case with U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates. Canada has been asking since late 2006 such consideration, but has repeatedly been turned down. 

A spokesman for MacKay confirmed this weekend that Canada has asked to skip ahead in the production line, but Dan Dugas could not provide any details about the refurbished helicopter proposal. He conceded other options were being studied. 

Poland had offered to make available two of its Mi-17 transport helicopters for NATO allies in Kandahar, including Canada. 

MacKay had follow-up discussions with Poland's defence minister about timing and availability of those aircraft. 

"More importantly though, we're pursuing our own means to procure helicopters and I'll have something more to say about that in the very near future," he said leaving Vilnius on Friday. 

In June 2006, the Conservative government announced it was going to buy 16 heavy-lift helicopters and within weeks said Boeing was the company best-suited to meet the requirements. 

The program has since stalled, a formal contract has yet to be signed and delivery of the first aircraft isn't expected until 2011. Part of the reason is that Canada's air force has asked for design changes to make the helicopter more versatile in order to carry out other types missions beyond the desert battlefields of Kandahar. 

The demand for Chinooks from the American military and other allied countries is high. The Boeing assembly line is running at full tilt thanks mostly to an order of 450 aircraft from the U.S. army. 

One of the attractive aspects to the refurbished Chinook proposal is that the deal could be done through a direct commercial sale rather a foreign military sale through the U.S. army, which would be fraught with complications and restrictions. 

The U.S. is pleased with the CHAPS program because whatever money it makes selling rebuilt helicopters to allies can be plowed back into its program to buy new ones


I can't see that the government has any other credible options to persue.  If they are asking allies to put their aircraft in harms way they they need to make sure that they are doing everything possible to secure aircraft of our own.  Hope it happens and they add these six to the other sixteen so we end up 24 altogether.


----------



## beenthere

They wouldn't talk about it unless they knew that there was something in the works. However getting a viable operation up and running within the timeframe demanded by the commission would still have the the same problems that I noted regarding our previous Chinook  fleet. Hopefully someone will realize that there's a lot more involved with this issue than getting possession of the helicopters.


----------



## Bearpaw

Acquiring 6 refurbished CH-47D for about $90 million seems to be a very good deal if there is a reasonable amount
of lifetime remaining for them after refurbishment.  It may even be worthwhile getting more if all checks out.

Wondering about the cost of the 16 new F-models--the cited article implies that a deluxe new F-model
costs about $40 million/airframe(I assume for the airframe only).  Our proposed contract for 16 new F-models with support,...
is for $4.7 billion----> about $290+ million/airframe.  

$250 million "supporting" costs for EACH airframe seems more than a bit excessive.  
With limited funds available, we should be trying to get the most advantageous deal possible.

Perhaps so many pigs are being slaughtered for the Boeing pork-barrel that our cost of bacon should soon
jump more than a little bit!

Perhaps someone more familiar with the cost per flying hour of these two models of helicopter could
contrast the two proposed purchases.


----------



## aesop081

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> Wondering about the cost of the 16 new F-models--the cited article implies that a deluxe new F-model
> costs about $40 million/airframe(I assume for the airframe only).  Our proposed contract for 16 new F-models with support,...
> is for $4.7 billion----> about $290+ million/airframe.
> 
> $250 million "supporting" costs for EACH airframe seems more than a bit excessive.
> With limited funds available, we should be trying to get the most advantageous deal possible.



You are not taking into account everything else that usualy comes with the purchase of a new aircraft. In most cases, the OEM provides all the required technical and operating publications, training, ground support equipment and other various things.As with anything aviation, its adds up faster than most people can grasp. The ISS contract will likely be for 20 years and likely has a large value attached to it.


----------



## beenthere

Here's something that may help with understanding how the CH-47 Chinook program works. Rather than building complete new Chinooks the old ones are recycled through the Boeing facility where they are reworked and modified to different models. Some new built from scratch models are also added to the fleet to replace aircraft which have been lost or to expand overall numbers. Aircraft that come off the Boeing line may have originally been built many years ago and reworked several times into B, C, D or whatever models but are considered to be new and indeed they are as nothing is overlooked in the process. The upgrades are limited only by budget constraints and technology available at the time. Budget constraints prevail over technology and what comes off the line isn't the best Chinook that can be built but the best compromise. This works out to be the perfect situation for Boeing because every time that they wave good by to a departing Chinook they know that they will be seeing it again in a few years when it comes back for another rebuild.
There are no Chinook junkyards and no surplus Chinooks and virtually the only way to buy them is to order new ones. Scooping six aircraft from the U.S. Army inventory is a rather major event even if they do stand to profit in the long term. Hopefully they don't come with long term political commitments.


----------



## OldSolduer

So why did we sell our Chinooks in the first place?

OHHHHH...yes I'm sorry, the Air Force bought into the "peace dividend". Now us "grunts" are paying the price for that folly. 
I said it was a mistake when they were sold, and people looked at me like I had tree heads. 
"we'll never need them again" was what I heard.

Then why did the CF-18's not go at the same time????


----------



## daftandbarmy

Easy. Jet jocks get promoted to become CDS. 'Garbage Truck Drivers' (at least that's what they used to call it) don't.


----------



## aesop081

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> So why did we sell our Chinooks in the first place?
> 
> OHHHHH...yes I'm sorry, the Air Force bought into the "peace dividend". Now us "grunts" are paying the price for that folly.
> I said it was a mistake when they were sold, and people looked at me like I had tree heads.
> "we'll never need them again" was what I heard.
> 
> Then why did the CF-18's not go at the same time????



You need a history lesson obviously..........it was not the AF that decided to get rid of the Chinooks

 :


----------



## Nfld Sapper

It was us ground pounders that decided to get rid of the Chinooks


----------



## danchapps

Now, I may be out of my lane, heck, maybe even on the wrong highway, but isn't the Lab fairly similar to fly compared to the Chinook? And the Lab wasn't retired all that long ago. Would we not have pilots capable of flying the Chinook with a little less time required to come up to speed so to speak? Please correct me if I'm wrong, again, I may be out of my league on this one, but it almost makes sense.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chapeski, a lot of the ex-Lab guys stayed in the Primary SAR world and are flying the Cormorant now.  One might consider that the tactical aviator skills, which take years and years to develop to a tactical mission commander capable of going into combat, would be the longer pole in the tent than the basic skills required to convert from one helicopter to another.  It probably stands to reason, that unless the Government is willing to significantly reduce the National SAR capability, the SAR pilots will stay SAR, and the tactical aviators will just learn to fly another aircraft when they do what it is they do.

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## danchapps

Fair enough. Thanks for the input. I miss seeing both the Lab and the Chinook out flying. Also my uncle works for Boeing (now Arnprior Aerospace) and I'm sure they miss the Labs too.


----------



## Loachman

Chapeski said:
			
		

> but isn't the Lab fairly similar to fly compared to the Chinook?



It's not the "similar to fly" that's significant, it's all of the knobs and switches and buttons and the patterns in which they're twiddled, flipped, and pushed that makes the difference, plus the nature of the job as G2G explained.

In more serious terms, all of the onboard systems will be different, including the instrumentation, and it is that and the procedures that require time and effort to learn even when moving between different versions of the same aircraft in many cases.

And it's not just the flying - techs take time to train as well, and even more time to thoroughly understand the new aircraft. There will be a lot of frustrating gremlins for them to find and fix for the first few years.


----------



## dapaterson

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> Acquiring 6 refurbished CH-47D for about $90 million seems to be a very good deal if there is a reasonable amount
> of lifetime remaining for them after refurbishment.  It may even be worthwhile getting more if all checks out.
> 
> Wondering about the cost of the 16 new F-models--the cited article implies that a deluxe new F-model
> costs about $40 million/airframe(I assume for the airframe only).  Our proposed contract for 16 new F-models with support,...
> is for $4.7 billion----> about $290+ million/airframe.
> 
> $250 million "supporting" costs for EACH airframe seems more than a bit excessive.
> With limited funds available, we should be trying to get the most advantageous deal possible.
> 
> Perhaps so many pigs are being slaughtered for the Boeing pork-barrel that our cost of bacon should soon
> jump more than a little bit!
> 
> Perhaps someone more familiar with the cost per flying hour of these two models of helicopter could
> contrast the two proposed purchases.



We're talking apples and oranges.

$15M per airframe is just that - a helicopter airframe with no spares, no support, no infrastructure.  It's the price you pay the dealer for the new car.

The $4.7B for 16 airframes is the new car from the dealer.  It's lifetime support including spares (less the bits of maintenance we do ourselves - but that's being greatly reduced).  It's training to teach people to drive the new car - and the learning curve is slightly greater to go from a Griff to a Chinook than for going from a Dodge to a Toyota.  And it's also building new a garage because the new car won't fit in the old one.


----------



## OldSolduer

OK two questions:

1. Who made the decision to get rid of the Chinooks we had? I apologize if I insulted anyone.
I remember flying in those choppers years ago. I was in the very back and we flew with the ramp down.....AWESOME sight!!


2. How long will it take to gain the necessary skills for pilots to fly the Chinooks?


----------



## Bearpaw

A Google search yielded the following information about the CH-47F program in the US---Dated Jan. 21, 2004

Department of Defense
Office of the Inspector General -- Audit
Acquisition of the CH-47F Improved Cargo Helicopter - Report No. D-2004-046(PDF) - Project No. D2003AE-0069.000

The "web" synopsis of the report has the following statement:

"The Army estimated the cost of the CH-47F Program at $13.6 billion for 301 CH-47F aircraft, including $156.2 million for research, development, test, and evaluation; $5.4 billion for procurement; and $8.0 billion for operations and support."

$13.6 billion/301 = $45.2 million per airframe (which includes support---the US Army probably has fairly extensive support)

Since this was 4 years ago, exchange rates, inflation,.... assume that today's cost of this contract would be about $100 million/airframe.

For Canada---we are getting 16 airframes plus support and have to build infrastructure---hangars, parts depots,....

at a per airframe cost of $293+ million.

I would not be so concerned if we were getting 50 or 60 airframes but these numbers simply do not add up.

I wonder how many airframes the US could afford at those prices----it seems a bit like the torpedo deal a few years back when
we received a "refund" for the excessive prices charged.

On another site:

http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Support-Helicopters/CH-47F-Chinook_a000504003.aspx

there is more interesting figures on the US CH-47F program.


----------



## dapaterson

Once again, apples and oranges.  American purchases are disclosed as equipment acquisition costs; Canadian purchases are life-cycle acquisition costs.

A tremendous differnece.  Unless you can read the actual contract documents, you cannot compare the two.


----------



## aesop081

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> A Google search yielded the following information about the CH-47F program in the US---Dated Jan. 21, 2004
> 
> Department of Defense
> Office of the Inspector General -- Audit
> Acquisition of the CH-47F Improved Cargo Helicopter - Report No. D-2004-046(PDF) - Project No. D2003AE-0069.000
> 
> The "web" synopsis of the report has the following statement:
> 
> "The Army estimated the cost of the CH-47F Program at $13.6 billion for 301 CH-47F aircraft, including $156.2 million for research, development, test, and evaluation; $5.4 billion for procurement; and $8.0 billion for operations and support."
> 
> $13.6 billion/301 = $45.2 million per airframe (which includes support---the US Army probably has fairly extensive support)
> 
> Since this was 4 years ago, exchange rates, inflation,.... assume that today's cost of this contract would be about $100 million/airframe.
> 
> For Canada---we are getting 16 airframes plus support and have to build infrastructure---hangars, parts depots,....
> 
> at a per airframe cost of $293+ million.
> 
> I would not be so concerned if we were getting 50 or 60 airframes but these numbers simply do not add up.
> 
> I wonder how many airframes the US could afford at those prices----it seems a bit like the torpedo deal a few years back when
> we received a "refund" for the excessive prices charged.
> 
> On another site:
> 
> http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Support-Helicopters/CH-47F-Chinook_a000504003.aspx
> 
> there is more interesting figures on the US CH-47F program.



OK, for the last time......

Do you know exactly what Canada is buying ?

NO, you do not. You simply divided the total contract project cost by the number of airframe and decided that was the answer. Nice way to do research. Come back when you have found detailed contractproject clauses for the entire meduim-to heavy lift project.


----------



## peaches

I was in Winnipeg recently and attended a Q&A session with the 1 CAD General.  One of the many question brought up was Chinooks.  He basically said it comes down to what they can get first of the production line.  He did not answer direct questions about 47F vs 47H, so nothing to add there.  However, he did say that they were leaning toward basing all 16 in one unit in Bagotville, althought nothing has been finalized.


----------



## George Wallace

Bagotville?

That seems a little out of the way.  They would use up quite a bit of flying hours getting to a task, before even conducting a task.  Seems like a more centralized location would be better, or to divvy up the numbers between the Bdes and a OP Commitment.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Bagotville?
> 
> That seems a little out of the way.  They would use up quite a bit of flying hours getting to a task, before even conducting a task.  Seems like a more centralized location would be better, or to divvy up the numbers between the Bdes and a OP Commitment.



Bag-town doesnt make much sense but with some deployed ,there are not enough to break down in more than 1 or 2 places, let alone having some located at each brigade.


----------



## peaches

The issue is hanger space believe it or not!!  He mentioned that Bagotville has the space, and it does.  There is a big hanger ther built for USAF AWACS ops.  As well, we can't forget politics.

He was asked the question about distance to customer, and said that as far as 2 & 5 Bge, not an issue, 1 Bge would see cross country ops....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

newfin said:
			
		

> Here's a positive development:
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/02/10/pf-4838866.html
> 
> Canadian pilots have already been training on CH-47s in the U.S. and Australia in anticipation of the Tory government's long-promised $4.7 billion purchase of 16 brand new Chinooks.



Can anyone add more details this statement? Are we currently bringing people up to speed or is this a case of just a few people getting trained so they can write the training manuals?


----------



## beenthere

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> OK two questions:
> 
> 1. Who made the decision to get rid of the Chinooks we had? I apologize if I insulted anyone.
> I remember flying in those choppers years ago. I was in the very back and we flew with the ramp down.....AWESOME sight!!
> 
> 
> 2. How long will it take to gain the necessary skills for pilots to fly the Chinooks?


There's a post a couple of pages back regarding the decision to get rid of the old fleet.

As for gaining the necessary skills to fly them ---that's a loaded question but certainly a good one. It looks like the pilots that hang out here aren't about to rush in with an answer so I'll give you my biased opinion.
It would only take a few months to train enough pilots to operate them. However they would only have the basic qualification and with the exception of those with previous flight time on the Chinook they would be qualified but lacking experience. Experience only comes with time and as everyone is different in gaining skill, absorbing knowledge and putting them together there's virtually no way to predict just when a group of individuals would become proficient enough to operate in a theatre of operations.


----------



## beenthere

Having the whole fleet in one location would be the best plan but Bagotville is a bit remote when it comes to supporting deployed operations. Also, it's not central to most users.
Trenton is by far the best location for supporting deployments as that's where everything is shipped from. 
A perfect example is the C-130s on past deployments. When spares or specialists such as metal techs were needed they were on the first flight out. Often it was just a matter of getting a part from supply and carrying it over to the AMU. Same thing applied to replacement personnel. Except of course they didn't come from supply.


----------



## peaches

The old CH47 fleet would not do us any good today if we'd kept them.  they were old when we got rid of them, the Dutch paid big bucks to rebuild them.  Canada was not & would not have done that.  We would have 40 year old Chinooks right now that were no good.

As for training, there are some pilots that may have do exchange tours with the USA or UK on Chinooks.  Then you could train some more in the USA, combine the two groups and you'd have an initial cadre of Chinook crews;  which you use to train more crew....

were they are based, how many are moot points until we have them on the ramp.  If the gov't changes anytime soon, bye bye Chinooks!!!


----------



## peaches

You can't base the whole AF in Trenton.  Trenton has a full ramp as it is, & no hanger space.  Hanger space is the driving force, & Bagotville has plenty.  Do not forget politics, of all the new aircraft the CF is buying, none to date are based in Quebec.  Quebec only has Grifs & F18's......


----------



## beenthere

Had we kept the old Chinooks they all would have been replaced or rebuilt by now, the fleet would have grown by several numbers and we would have experienced crews and maintenance personnel. 
However we didn't and that's why we're discussing operations rather than doing them.


----------



## karl28

Just a question from a curious Civilian who doesn't know allot about Air Force matters ,  but why wouldn't the Airforce station them at an army base like Valcatier , Pet , or Edmonton wouldn't it make sense to have near the infantry units that they will be flying around for ease of training ?      If not one of those places cause of the hanger issues than why not Mountianview it has hangers and close to Trenton as was previously pointed out and still close to Pet .


----------



## beenthere

peaches said:
			
		

> You can't base the whole AF in Trenton.  Trenton has a full ramp as it is, & no hanger space.  Hanger space is the driving force, & Bagotville has plenty.  Do not forget politics, of all the new aircraft the CF is buying, none to date are based in Quebec.  Quebec only has Grifs & F18's......


Mountainview.


----------



## George Wallace

Not too much left of Mountainview these days.  Most of the hangars are gone, and those still standing are probably on the verge of coming down.


Take a fly by with Google Earth.   ;D


----------



## danchapps

My vote for placement would be North Bay, close to Pet, still has huge hangars, huge runway, lots of everything that you would need. They'd have to rebuild a couple of things, but that's the same on any base. Just my 2cents.


----------



## peaches

beenthere said:
			
		

> Had we kept the old Chinooks they all would have been replaced or rebuilt by now, the fleet would have grown by several numbers and we would have experienced crews and maintenance personnel.
> However we didn't and that's why we're discussing operations rather than doing them.



This would have been the approach any normal country might have taken, but I do not think Canada would have.  There is no way the Libs would have replaced/upgraded them (you know the Sea King story) they would not even replace or upgrade the SAR Labs.  

I am sure you were around in the '90s.  The Gov't & AF had no fore site for operations.  Aircraft were not bought based on their value in combat operations.  We de-fanged our AF in the '90s, that is why the AF is irrelevant in todays combat Ops!!

The military recently announced they are putting mini-guns on the Grifs.  The US had mini-guns in Vietnam, we should have had they on our Chinooks & Heuys 20 years ago (Kiowas had them, I know).  We are supposed to be the AIR COMBAT arm of the military, yet we only now, after 5+ years of combat decide to seriously arm the Grifs.  Should have rocket pods too....  Look at the new F18 upgrade, no major weapons upgrade beyond the AMRAAM.  Aurora upgrade, no weapons at all???

Had we the fore site to put the proper arms for our F18's, Grifs & CP140's we'd be in good shape today.  Every other country has armed planes, why not us??  We go out of our way in Canada not to have a combat Airforce!!


----------



## George Wallace

That being the case, think back on some of the grandiose plans there were such big news a few months back.  Bagotville was to get the Quick Reaction Bn.  Trenton/Mountainview was getting the JTF and perhaps CSOR too.  Could that be the reason that Bagotville would get the complete fleet - a Quick Reaction Bn is moving in?


----------



## peaches

karl28 said:
			
		

> Just a question from a curious Civilian who doesn't know allot about Air Force matters ,  but why wouldn't the Airforce station them at an army base like Valcatier , Pet , or Edmonton wouldn't it make sense to have near the infantry units that they will be flying around for ease of training ?      If not one of those places cause of the hanger issues than why not Mountianview it has hangers and close to Trenton as was previously pointed out and still close to Pet .



It come down to infrastructure!!  The hangers at the army bases are for Griffons.  Chinook will not fit in the hanger, too big.  That means $$ for hanger upgrades.  Mountainview's hangers are WW2 vintage, will not work, you'd have to spend millions to upgrade them and the airfield.  I have heard that Borden was discussed, but that the top of the list is Bagotville.  There is a huge hanger in Bagtown built for USAF AWACS deployments.  It is being looked at, again, we are in Canada, think politics!!!!  Canada is not going to do what makes sense, we will do what makes "political" sense!!

Myself, I would like to see an Air Assault Brigade formed.  Me, I would do this; take the light bats out of each BG, consolidate them together with the helos.  I would put all the helos together on one base (with the AAB).


----------



## beenthere

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/07/20/qc-bagotville0720.html There is a plan. ?


----------



## peaches

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That being the case, think back on some of the grandiose plans there were such big news a few months back.  Bagotville was to get the Quick Reaction Bn.  Trenton/Mountainview was getting the JTF and perhaps CSOR too.  Could that be the reason that Bagotville would get the complete fleet - a Quick Reaction Bn is moving in?



I heard that CSOR & Dwyer Hill folks were relocating to Trenton.  MV would make sense, but you'd need millions in upgrades.  Would be nice to see another base opened.  I would love to see some bases opened in areas we are not in, such as SW Ontario....


----------



## karl28

peaches  

Thanks for the info  makes sense when you put it that way .


----------



## geo

beenthere said:
			
		

> Had we kept the old Chinooks they all would have been replaced or rebuilt by now, the fleet would have grown by several numbers and we would have experienced crews and maintenance personnel.
> However we didn't and that's why we're discussing operations rather than doing them.


UMMM... the same way as we had all our Hercs rebuilt/refurbished?


----------



## geo

Chapeski said:
			
		

> My vote for placement would be North Bay, close to Pet, still has huge hangars, huge runway, lots of everything that you would need. They'd have to rebuild a couple of things, but that's the same on any base. Just my 2cents.



Mirabel?
Big honking airport with lots and lots of hangar space


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> UMMM... the same way as we had all our Hercs rebuilt/refurbished?



and we should have replaced those with something new years ago.


----------



## Fraz

Has anyone heard anything new WRT to the possible CHAPS procurement of 6 D models?


----------



## geo

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> and we should have replaced those with something new years ago.



Heh... T'was my point


----------



## beenthere

geo said:
			
		

> UMMM... the same way as we had all our Hercs rebuilt/refurbished?


They were rebuilt regularly. New wings twice, lots of upgrades and they are still going strong with the exception of some that won't get any more structural work done. New aircraft were added to the fleet up until production ceased and only J models were being built. 
Most U.S. Army Chinooks are rebuilt and some date back to the 60s. 
All CH-113s went through rebuilds several times and the ones that we spared from becoming museum displays have moved on to civilian careers.


----------



## danchapps

geo said:
			
		

> Mirabel?
> Big honking airport with lots and lots of hangar space



The rebuilds I was thinking of would be a few PMQs, not much more than that, maybe get the Fire Dept. back up the hill. The rest is still standing, mind you there are tenants in the hangars (Bombardier CL-415 assembly, Voyageur Airways) I believe I remember hearing about a clause where if DND needed the space back it was theirs, but I could be way off on that one. I guess I just like rooting for my hometown, I'd love to see the place boom again.


----------



## George Wallace

Chapeski said:
			
		

> The rebuilds I was thinking of would be a few PMQs, not much more than that, maybe get the Fire Dept. back up the hill. The rest is still standing, mind you there are tenants in the hangars (Bombardier CL-415 assembly, Voyageur Airways) I believe I remember hearing about a clause where if DND needed the space back it was theirs, but I could be way off on that one. I guess I just like rooting for my hometown, I'd love to see the place boom again.



Are you confusing Mirabel, North of the city, with St Hubert, South of the city?  As far as I know Mirabel was never DND.  It was farmland expropriated solely for the construction of a newer, larger International Airport.


----------



## danchapps

Sorry Mr Wallace, I was talking about North Bay. Due to NORAD being there most of the buildings were left up, but they off-loaded most of the services (snowplowing and such) onto the city. There would be relatively few upgrades needed I would think. But again, this is out of my league.


----------



## beenthere

Rebuilding has lots of merits. Providing that enough money is made available a rebuild allows for modifications to bring the aircraft up to date by incorporating new equipment during the process. This way one aircraft at a time can be scheduled to be out of the fleet and can be stripped down to the state where structural components are easily accessable for mods or replacement and all of the wiring and plumbing associated with new equipment can be installed. It's also the only time that a lot of nooks and crannies get well enough exposed to reveal them for proper inspection and invariably corrosion and cracks are discovered and repaired.
When a new system is installed on rebuild it can be evaluated in use on the rebuilt aircraft and necessary changes made to the system before incorporating it into successive aircraft as they are rebuilt. 
The close association of our CH-113 program with the Boeing facility in Arnprior was a perfect example of what can be done to provide updates and rebuilds for a military fleet.  Unfortunately, the cast of wizards in headquarters was as usual the weakest link in the chain and managed to keep the program at a predictably marginal level of success.


----------



## Sf2

Bagotville not central?

Between Pet and Gagetown, you can't get more central than that.  Pet has no infrastructure for Chinooks, Bagotville does....lots of it.


----------



## George Wallace

SF2 said:
			
		

> Bagotville not central?
> 
> Between Pet and Gagetown, you can't get more central than that.  Pet has no infrastructure for Chinooks, Bagotville does....lots of it.



I guess Shilo, Wainwright, Suffield,  and Edmonton don't exist in your world.


----------



## Sf2

Ok then, by your logic, we should station them in Kenora.....

Problem solved.


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess Shilo, Wainwright, Suffield,  and Edmonton don't exist in your world.



Suitable hangar space is a major factor in the decision.

There aren't any in those locations.

Major exercises, and probably even some minor ones, will be supported by deploying aircraft as needed. We do this with the Griffon fleet today. There is usually little choice due to manning issues that drive serviceability and crewability and high demand. We were flipping crews and hels from one side of the country to the other last summer with two northern ops, support to Montebello, and exercises occurring either simultaneously or very close together - and during posting and leave seasons.


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> Suitable hangar space is a major factor in the decision.
> 
> There aren't any in those locations.
> 
> Major exercises, and probably even some minor ones, will be supported by deploying aircraft as needed. We do this with the Griffon fleet today. There is usually little choice due to manning issues that drive serviceability and crewability and high demand. We were flipping crews and hels from one side of the country to the other last summer with two northern ops, support to Montebello, and exercises occurring either simultaneously or very close together - and during posting and leave seasons.



It wasn't the hangars I was thinking about, but the locations of the troops that would be using them.  Where would the central location be to serve the largest number of 'clients'?  Is it economical to constantly be using up flying hours to fly from one end of the country to the other to provide services?   Bagotville would reasonably cover the Valcartier/Gagetown areas, with Petawawa on the fringes.  The West would involve more expense, time, flying hours, etc. or are they to be left out of the picture?


----------



## Sf2

They aren't left in the cold...you deploy a det when you need them.

Would Edmonton train often enough with Chinooks often enough to justify a permanent housing for them?
You have the minivan - Griffon, and the Motorhome - Chinook.  Do you drive your kids to soccer, get groceries, return the videotapes (eh bateman?) in a Motorhome?  Or do you do it in the minivan.  Then, when you wanna do the family road trip, once, twice, maybe three times a year, you get the motorhome out of storage and have fun.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It wasn't the hangars I was thinking about, but the locations of the troops that would be using them.  Where would the central location be to serve the largest number of 'clients'?  Is it economical to constantly be using up flying hours to fly from one end of the country to the other to provide services?   Bagotville would reasonably cover the Valcartier/Gagetown areas, with Petawawa on the fringes.  The West would involve more expense, time, flying hours, etc. or are they to be left out of the picture?



So where would YOU put them ?


----------



## George Wallace

So I park my motorhome way out in the boonies, and leave it there, while I tool around the job site in a Chevy pickup.........except for those weeks when the In-laws and Out-laws visit?    Sounds a little bit Chretianist doesn't it?


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So where would YOU put them ?



Good question.  Where are they most needed?


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Good question.  Where are they most needed?



You tell me George. I asked where YOU would put them .


----------



## beenthere

As far as training goes far more time is required for crew training than troop training. We're talking about a logistical support helicopter that's used to move big loads around an operational area.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You tell me George. I asked where YOU would put them .



Two places I would have figured, that they would be used the most in country, would be the MTC and CTC.  Operationally there may be the requirement for a Det close to the JTF and DART should they be collocated in Trenton.  

Operationally, overseas; where would they be transported out of?  Montreal?  Trenton?  Halifax?  Vancouver?

Questions would arise as to costs.  What are the costs of new Hangars compared to long term long flying hours to get them from Bagotville to their taskings? 

Who has the hangars already?  Who is getting new infrastructure?

What commonality do we find in all the above questions.  

Some numbers cruncher may conclude Trenton.  A Tactical guy may pick CTC or MTC.  A Logistician may pick an Airhead or Seaport.


----------



## aesop081

What about a base where suitable ground facilities already exist ?

That has suitable low-flying training areas already established ?

In range of 3 major army bases and 2 major ports ?


Ferrying aircraft around in the CF is just a fact of life. We do that with almost every fleet we have. Its not that big a deal.


----------



## George Wallace

So?  Goose Bay would be an option?

Northern Bn and all.   ;D


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Goose Bay would be an option?
> 
> Northern Bn and all.   ;D



I was thinking that Bagottville isnt that bad a choice after all......


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What are the costs of new Hangars compared to long term long flying hours to get them from Bagotville to their taskings?



It doesn't make any difference. It's capital versus O&M costs - the same issue that prevents us from cost-effectively replacing all major fleets (trucks, aircraft, ships, etcetera) rather than spending many times that amount to prevent them from falling apart from twenty to fifty years of hard (ab)use.

Yes, Petawawa and Edmonton would perhaps be the wisest choices, but unless some hangars sprout spontaneously they are not likely to be based in either location.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I was thinking that Bagottville isnt that bad a choice after all......



Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be putting them all in Kandahar? Work back from there to the base where it's easiest to support Kandahar from Canada and that would be....?


----------



## beenthere

The former Chinook locations of Ottawa and Edmonton were quite acceptable. The big problem was that the fleet was too small and the only time that they provided effective support for operations or training exercises was when the two squadrons got together.
Flying from Ottawa to Gagetown was never considered unusual and was just another part of the operation. Much the same for Wainwright. The long range fuel system extended the range and made Ottawa to Halifax in one leg possible. Ottawa Winnipeg was a stretch but was done in one leg. 
The most noticeable difference in operating from places like Petawawa or Gagetown was lack of hangar space and support. Most air bases are geared for air operations with more equipment and support services and 24 hour operations.


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be putting them all in Kandahar? Work back from there to the base where it's easiest to support Kandahar from Canada and that would be....?



Would you be taking a Circumnavigational Route, a Polar Route, or a 'Rental'?  Are you going to go East or West?


----------



## aesop081

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be putting them all in Kandahar? Work back from there to the base where it's easiest to support Kandahar from Canada and that would be....?



Maybe we should keep some here...you know, to train pilots, FEs, technicians, troops doing pre-deployement training......

You know, that kind of stuff

and maybe we should give just a tiny thought to after Afghanistan, since its going to take a while before we get out Chinooks. Just maybe......


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good points.

So let's keep a few here to maintain training etc and deploy the rest to the front where they can help destroy bad guys while saving the infantry's arses. If I have to walk across Wainwright training area to reduce our casualties in A-stan while increasing Taliban KIA levels, then rock on Tommy.


----------



## Loachman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be putting them all in Kandahar?



Unless we're going to make Kandahar a posting, and move families in, no.

We need a certain number in an OTU for aircrew and groundcrew. We need a bunch of people training to go, a bunch in location, and a bunch reconstituting upon return - with the training/reconstituting bunches supporting Army training and assorted ops in Canada during the same time. Those four groups split the personnel and airframes into four approximately equal groups.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Work back from there to the base where it's easiest to support Kandahar from Canada and that would be....?



Immaterial. Ports are only a few flying hours away. We sent Chinooks to Norway for a major ex in the eighties, along with a large number of Kiowas and Twin Hueys. They came from several Squadrons..


----------



## beenthere

Loachman. We've already proved that four Chinooks in one unit is the exact number that won't do anything other than cause problems. We had four in Edmonton and four in Ottawa. One was always undergoing a series check which leaves three. One often had some big problem that kept it grounded so it became a rob aircraft to supply the remaining two with parts. One would go out someplace to do some work and the last one usually had to go out with a repair crew to rescue it. It wasn't like that every day but it often was the case. Four is a bad number because it's an awfully low  number to start subtracting from.


----------



## dapaterson

So that's why we're getting four C-17s.

I do agree with a single sqn in a single location for the Chinooks - it's cheaper, and given the number of hours pilots need at the yoke to stay proficient, having them fly to and from other training locations actually works out well.


----------



## beenthere

Dapat: You can never equate helicopters with fixed wing aircraft. Fixed wing aircraft fly willingly. They even look like birds. Helicopters on the other hand look like exactly what they are ---thousands of parts bolted together---all fighting with each other. http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/video/Ground_Resonance_Rear_View.mpg


----------



## Good2Golf

beenthere said:
			
		

> Dapat: You can never equate helicopters with fixed wing aircraft. Fixed wing aircraft fly willingly. They even look like birds. Helicopters on the other hand look like exactly what they are ---thousands of parts bolted together---all fighting with each other. http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/video/Ground_Resonance_Rear_View.mpg



Shame on you, beenthere!  You're scaring the youngin's...  ;D

G2G


----------



## GAP

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Shame on you, beenthere!  You're scaring the youngin's...  ;D
> 
> G2G



He need to think of beautifully colored dragonflys, wonderful acrobatics, etc......just natural helicopters.....


----------



## geo

Let's face it, a helicopter looks like a bus that's suddenly found itself airborne & is trying to find a slightly less painful way of landing VS full frontal  nose plant


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> Let's face it, a helicopter looks like a bus that's suddenly found itself airborne & is trying to find a slightly less painful way of landing VS full frontal  nose plant



OK you owe me a large Timmes and a ne keyboard!!!!


----------



## geo




----------



## Loachman

beenthere said:
			
		

> Loachman. We've already proved that four Chinooks in one unit is the exact number that won't do anything other than cause problems.



Same with any other helicopter - Cormorant, Griffon...

I agree completely.

Notice that I did not say the four approximately equal chunks should be in different places - except for the approximately equal chunks actually deployed.


----------



## beenthere

There must be some kind of fetish for chunking things in the Tac Hel world. I've seen lots of references over the years where individual squadrons are earmarked or identified for various deployments. I've never seen the plan or heard anything about the logic but it would look like an awful lot of training and preparation goes on before individual units rotate into operational roles. Has anyone considered that deploying a composite unit with crews from all of the operational squadrons and associated components of the organization would fulfill the commitment with less impact on individual units in Canada.


----------



## George Wallace

It would make sense to station what little we have in one location, along with the troops that they support and make an Airmobile Bde.


----------



## beenthere

Here I am wide awake in the middle of the night, long since retired , with no dog in the race , nothing to lose other than what little remains of my sanity and I find myself wondering how all of these helicopter purchases come about and just who or what decides where they will go and how they will be used. Actually last nights dinner is what has me wide awake and when I'm awake in the middle of the night I usually have lots of time to think.
Obviously the decision to buy Chinooks is a good one as they are the ideal helicopter and as the whole issue comes from the top I applaud the man at the top for having the right stuff to make it happen. However every thing that has followed the initial decision seems to have degenerated into the usual pattern of bumbling and indecision that we have learned to expect. As I have stated previously someone has spent a lot of time laying out all of the details regarding just what this new helicopter must be capable of doing but there is no plan to verify that it will do these things. The bureaucrats who are involved in these issues are usually so far removed from reality that if they had to come out of their warm offices to go for a ride in one they would have to get someone to do their seatbelt up for them. The people in headquarters won't rock the boat over issues for fear of losing their jobs and having to find real ones and of course there's always those who see a bright second career with Boeing when this acquisition project winds down. It happened before, when we bought the CH-113 helicopters.
These people hide in some closet in headquarters until the deal is inked and after it's done we'll never see them and they will never be held responsible for their decisions.
Some combination of polotics and the personal wishes of officers to get more toys in their boxes will determine the placement of the units that are going to operate the helicopters and the result will no doubt be something that will look like a dogs breakfast. 
There is still time to get a grip on this thing and get it right but some day soon it's going to be too late and when these people make their announcements they back them up with the best logic that they can invent and there's no going back.


----------



## observor 69

Beenthere I want to note how much I appreciate your input on Air Force topics.
There are few voices that are prepared to speak on this site with your knowledge and background in this area.

Per Ardua Per Astra

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/hist/tradg_e.asp


----------



## beenthere

Thanks Baden. I have always had a particular intrest in the CH-113 and Chinook. We were both young together. I started as a tech on CH-113s in 1965 when they were new and eventually became a tech crewman and then moved on to Chinooks as a flight engineer/tech when we bought them. I did acceptance checks on a couple of Chinooks and helped bring them home. I used to know them very well as some of the original flight engineers and pilots were the only people who knew them. We had to learn from experience as the courses that were given were much less than adequate. It was a great experience with great people.


----------



## Loachman

beenthere said:
			
		

> There must be some kind of fetish for chunking things in the Tac Hel world. I've seen lots of references over the years where individual squadrons are earmarked or identified for various deployments. I've never seen the plan or heard anything about the logic but it would look like an awful lot of training and preparation goes on before individual units rotate into operational roles. Has anyone considered that deploying a composite unit with crews from all of the operational squadrons and associated components of the organization would fulfill the commitment with less impact on individual units in Canada.



It's not a fetish, but the best compromise and, yes, consideration has been given to pretty much every way imaginable.

There are reasons for and against both options.

Composite units will still take key personnel from other units, so somebody's left without a CO, somebody else with no DCO, etcetera, or else we haul them out of HQs and spend time and effort getting them recurrent/requalified. Wherever they come from, holes will be left somewhere unless we maintain a holding pool of plug-and-play bosses. Then there's the whole "team" thing - without having had the opportunity to work as one for an extended time pre-deployment, there should be no expectation that a bunch of people hastily thrown together will function adequately.

The Australians and New Zealanders provided a helicopter unit to the MFO in the Sinai prior to being replaced by us in the mid-eighties and our planners identified many organizational, currency/qualification, morale, (safety, and disciplinary problems within it as a result of that approach. A conscious decision was therefore made to deploy contingents based on established Squadrons with some augmentation as needed - less at first, but more with each subsequent roto. It worked.

That also made pre-deployment training simpler, as it was done locally. With composite units, all of the personnel would have to be grouped into one common location for it. We do not have the facilities and quarters etcetera to do that, and it would put a lot more strain on members and their families with extra time away.

During the Bosnia effort, Squadrons were given the task for one year and a lot of flexibility to deploy personnel within that time. Key people still had to do six months for obvious continuity reasons, but others could do month-long rotations. The latter was intended to increase reserve participation who could do one or more according to their circumstances, but was also an option offered to many regular members who would do six such month-long stints. It was also an attempt to avoid almost completely stripping each brigade of its helicopter support for extended periods.

Of course, we did not have the personnel shortages that we have now, and 1 Wing Squadrons are forced to be far more interoperable than they were back in the Good Old Days as we juggle crews and machines and groundcrew to support major exercises and operations. We do far more intermixing than we used to and some of the aforementioned problems would not be as significant as they would have been in earlier days.

We are using a semi-composite approach for TUAV ops. Flights are based upon a Squadron with varying augmentation (400, 438, and 444 Squadrons being much smaller than 408 and 430 Squadrons) and a sizeable contingent from 4 AD Regiment. Both the hel and AD personnel can do their individual training at home, but have to come together for the collective training (TUAV operations, maintenance, preparation), final exercise (Maple Guardian in Wainwright), and another two weeks in Pet. That represents four months away from home as it is, and considerable expense in flying groups back-and-forth and housing them. We just finished five weeks in the Ramada in Edmonton due to the lack of on-base accommodation. The remaining time (except for the two weeks in Pet) will be in Wainwright - oh, joy.

Our individual stuff (ranges, first aid, BFT, and other assorted activities) was done during a two-month period in Borden. Not bad for those of us living there, but it sucked for the out-of-towners who joined us - six months away preparing for a six-month deployment for them. Some personal inconvenience is unavoidable and is part of the job, but it needn't be made any worse for any more people than absolutely necessary.

Note that the Army does not routinely form composite units for operational deployment either.

A single Chinook Squadron in one location with a deployed element wherever would appear, to me, to be the best option to meet operational requirements.


----------



## beenthere

I spent my career split (not evenly) with the first years in the brown helicopter world which in the first years was Army and then 10 TAG and the last years in Air Transport Group. Obviously as an NCO I had nothing to do with the structure and organization of units. It is probably due to the relatively simple role that ATG or what ever it's called now plays but composite units are used for most CC-130 operations. 
I'm sure there's a standard procedure in the books but I've never seen it so I'll give my example version for a couple of deployments that we ran in Kenya and Djibouti. This is my best recollection of a three aircraft deployment. The makeup is simple and flexable. Three aircraft. Two fly with one spare.  A L Col. or Major pilot from anywhere in the the CC-130 system in charge of crews that come from any of the squadrons that operate CC-130s. Servicing and maintenance personnel are provided in numbers sufficient to operate two shifts with most personnel coming from one of the two main bases--Trenton and Winnipeg. A couple of supply techs, an admin person/officer, MO and medic and sometimes a couple of int. and mp types. Crews fly one day and have one day off. One dedicated crew runs operations . Any member of the ops crew can be pulled to fill in for a crewmember who comes down sick. 
That's the basic configuration for a deployment and it can be enlarged or modified as necessary. All crews operate by one standard as per normal. No special training required before deployment. Crews and aircraft are rotated regularly with a new crew bringing a fresh aircraft from Canada about once per month and an old crew returning an out of hours aircraft to Canada for inspection. Maintenance and servicing personnel rotate about every six weeks. Other crews rotate on scheduled CC-150 flights or commercial flights. Typical crew rotation is about one month duration 100+ flying hours. This provides a seamless operation. Nothing is firm and always subject to change but mostly everything follows the schedule. Operations like this have gone on for several months with no problems. 
I'm not suggesting that any or all of it would work for anyone else . Just providing some insight.


----------



## Loachman

A significant difference between Transport and Tac Hel is the level of involvement in the supported operation.

Tac Hel is and needs to be actively involved in it, and works more closely with its "customer".

To be effective, we have to know those with whom we work, the terrain in which we work, and the threat that we must consider and counter intimately.

This is why Canadian brigade groups have, and have had for over thirty-five years, an attached Tac Hel Squadron (notwithstanding 427 Squadron's re-alignment with CANSOFCOM).

Typical major deployments involve around eight helicopters (Bosnia) or so (nine for MFO/Sinai). Monthly rotations wouldn't cut it, as they wouldn't for an Infantry rotation either, so they are the standard six months.

Pre-deployment training is tailored for the mission. We have qualified all of our people on pistol, C7, C6, C9, shotgun, grenade, and (sim in Meaford only) M72, Carl Gustaf, and M203. We will be doing pairs fire-and-movement in Pet in June. We have all done standard and combat first aid and will be putting some on the TCCC course. This is necessary because any number of us could leave the wire for an AV recovery, convoy duty (air sentry), or deployed Ground Control Station. That level of training was not needed for the Sinai or Bosnia.

It's also a lot harder to rotate aircraft back to Canada for major inspections.

Tac Hel is more Army than Air Force in nature and reality, Canadian politically-driven alignments notwithstanding.


----------



## beenthere

Interesting. That makes it easy to understand the training required as you're working right up and personal with the troops. Thanks for the explanation. I've got a much better perspective now.
One of the first differences that I noted when I moved to ATG was that there was a sense of management rather than leadership. I also noted that the lifestyle and accommodations were different. It took a while but I adjusted to both. ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Note that the Army does not routinely form composite units for operational deployment either.



I'm certain that many other Army types laughed a good laugh at reading that line.  Let's just say that while the goal may be to deploy units, in actual fact it isn't happening.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm certain that many other Army types laughed a good laugh at reading that line.  Let's just say that while the goal may be to deploy units, in actual fact it isn't happening.



I realize that there are few or no "pure" units, but the major units deploying are based upon a core pre-existing unit with augmentation. Units are not thrown together from a collection of individuals who've never seen each other before and fired overseas.


----------



## prom

and the line grows


Link

Boeing Awarded U.S. Army Contract for 11 New CH-47F Chinook Helicopters 
  
  
(Source: Boeing Co.; issued Feb. 27, 2008)
  
   
  

This latest order brings to 59 the number of new CH-47F Chinooks on order for the US Army. (US Army photo)ST. LOUIS --- The Boeing Company has been awarded a $280.5 million U.S. Army contract for 11 new CH-47F Chinook helicopters, increasing the number of new Chinooks on contract to 59. Aircraft deliveries under this award will begin in 2011.  

"This new contract award represents a long-term commitment to supporting our warfighters," said Ken Eland, Boeing CH-47F program director. "Our commitment is to continue the high level of quality and performance we established in 2007."  

Since Boeing unveiled the aircraft at its Ridley Township, Pa., production facility in June 2006, the new Chinook has successfully completed all evaluations, including airworthiness, functional and operational testing at Fort Campbell, Ky. Units also have completed more than 1,000 flight hours, including Joint Readiness Training Center training and a wide range of night-vision-goggle training exercises that simulated air assault, combat resupply and transport operations.  

The CH-47F helicopter features a newly designed, modernized airframe, a Rockwell Collins Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit and a BAE Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS).  

The CAAS cockpit greatly improves aircrew situational awareness, while DAFCS provides dramatically improved flight control capabilities through features such as "hover hold," "altitude hold" and "beep down" that improve performance and safety in brownout situations as well as the entire flight envelope.  

Advanced avionics also incorporate improved situational awareness for flight crews with an advanced digital map display and a data transfer system that allows storing of preflight and mission data. Improved survivability features include Common Missile Warning and Improved Countermeasure Dispenser Systems. The entire suite of improved cockpit capabilities will apply to other H-47 models.  

Powered by two 4,868-horsepower Honeywell engines, the new CH-47F can reach speeds greater than 175 mph and transport more than 21,000 pounds. The CH-47F, with the Robertson Aviation Extended Range Fuel System, has a mission radius of more than 400 nautical miles.


----------



## beenthere

We would probably do better in the long run by getting a small fleet of D models--the 6 or whatever that are being negotiated for at the present and to wait out procurement of the 16 new aircraft until we get some experience.


----------



## beenthere

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080304/Afghanistan_helicopters_080304/20080304?hub=Canada The next press release will probably be that it's a go for the Chinooks. In order to make this 6 pack work someone is going to have to organize a concerted effort to establish a safe, efficient no frills operation to deliver troops and material.


----------



## geo

Obtaining helicopters such as the Chinmook is just the very beginning of the struggle.
Filling out all the crew & maintenance positions is going to be the kicker... Our own Chinook crews have moved on to other things over the last decade.....gotta start from scratch.... The prospects are not encouraging.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> Obtaining helicopters such as the Chinmook is just the very beginning of the struggle.
> Filling out all the crew & maintenance positions is going to be the kicker... Our own Chinook crews have moved on to other things over the last decade.....gotta start from scratch.... The prospects are not encouraging.



I suspect the Griffons will get parked and the crews retrained.


----------



## GAP

In regards to the Griffons....is there still not an armed escort necessary?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GAP said:
			
		

> In regards to the Griffons....is there still not an armed escort necessary?



I seem to remember that people here were saying the Griffion would not be able to keep up to the Chinooks?


----------



## Loachman

As I have said before, "Escort" is not the best term.

"Escorts" do not necessarily have to fly in the same formation, nor do the Chinooks have to fly at Vne even if they are capable for a given mission. 

Transit is done above effective small arms range. The vulnerable periods are take-off/climb and descent/landing. "Escorts" can depart early to arrive at the LZ in advance of the lift hels, which gives time to recce the LZ prior to arrival of the big fat prime targets Chinooks. This is similar to how pathfinding was conducted in the Kiowa days.

As for crewing/maintaining, there is obviously going to be a training period required and pers will have to come from within the Tac Hel community so some accommodation will be necessary. How that will be done is mere speculation at this point.


----------



## beenthere

I don't know much about the threat environment over there but I would think that an armed escort wouldn't be necessary. Getting messed up in bad weather and running into mountains would probably be a bigger threat. It's a threat that is self generated and really hard to defend yourself from. One thing that enhances this kind of threat is having people crewed up together for too long. They develop neat little techniques and soon start to get a feeling that they are unique. Pretty soon they become invincible. Some people call it teamwork but it's dangerous.
 Not having enough technical knowledge of the aircraft is a very real threat. Finding yourself sitting in the boondocks with a snag that you can't fix because you don't know how the thing works provides an invitation for anyone who doesn't like you to come over and take some shots at a stationary target. All of the sophisticated defense systems aren't worth a nickel if you're sitting on a rockpile in a helicopter that won't move because someone doesn't know what all of the little gizmos do and how to make them work when they fail.


----------



## Bograt

Loachman said:
			
		

> As for crewing/maintaining, there is obviously going to be a training period required and pers will have to come from within the Tac Hel community so some accommodation will be necessary. How that will be done is mere speculation at this point.



.... or pipes.


----------



## Sf2

Pipes don't become aircraft captains overnight....but nice try


----------



## beenthere

As for the escort idea. If the Chinook was flying a resupply mission it would be landing in close proximity to a FOB which is already secure to the degree that troops can operate there and the flight would originate at a similarly secure base so an escort would hardly be necessary. Having another helicopter airborne while the mission is in progress for crew recovery in the event that it had to land en route because something went wrong would be more appropriate. 
I'm more tech. than tactical and I may be wrong on this but I  think that keeping the mission simple would be better than having a whole cluster of aircraft trying to stay coordinated.


----------



## tomahawk6

Some of this information woud fall under OPSEC. How a Chinook would operate in Afghanistan just doesnt need to be discussed. Just my .02 .


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Some of this information woud fall under OPSEC. How a Chinook would operate in Afghanistan just doesnt need to be discussed. Just my .02 .



Yup, on the edge, T6.  Let's not go further with tactics of any force element, folks.  We wouldn't talk about how LAVs fight the ground...same applies for aviation, or other force elements.

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Kirkhill

And WRT LAV/Chinook comparisons......I hope I never see the headline announcing the loss of 44 troops in the back of a Chinook and the subsequent inquiry discussing how these things were supposed to reduce casualties.


----------



## tomahawk6

Exactly my concern Kirkhill. Aviation is great but bad things happen in flight just as they do on the ground. Our worst days have occured when a big chopper went down whether it was shoot down or some kind of mechanical error. Having Chinooks will enhance the battlefield logisitics capabilities of the CF but dont get Chinooks to avoid IED's. The IED issue will solve itself with aggressive ground combat operations to find and take out bomb factories and arms caches.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The latest news is that Canada has rejected the offer of six Blackhawk's as an interim measure until the Chinook's arrive. More can be found here:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=4a3b9b51-287f-48ca-bc58-28adcea27d56&k=4430


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Wouldn't replacing the Griffions with Blackhawks be a possibility? More often than not we will be working with the US, seems we might benefit from part commonality and training?


----------



## Jammer

Lotsa Sea Stallions sitting in storage in Arizona...


----------



## OldSolduer

Replacing Griffons with BlackHawks.....perish the thought! 
Politics is why we have the Griffon and why we will retain it.
Am I being too honest?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Replacing Griffons with BlackHawks.....perish the thought!
> Politics is why we have the Griffon and why we will retain it.
> Am I being too honest?



brutally so.......


----------



## Jammer

The Aussies are taking delivery of NH-90s....


----------



## Fraz

Funny thing nobody has made mention lately of any possible orders of the Bombardier ARH as an escort for Chinooks, as opposed to the 'souped up' Griffons in 1 Wing.  The US Army has already placed all the orders, the line is running, would we not be able to place a piggy back order?  As an aside, with the sales of the Super Cobras to the Turks, any chance of refubished Cobras or Super Cobra gunships from the USMC/ US warstock.  That being considered the lack of $, more than likely prohibits us from getting little or any Apaches.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier

I believe the government is thinking long term in not acquiring cobras/apaches or any other type of attach helicopter, as once the Afghan mission is over what are we to do with them - train? Plus the public would never allow us peacekeepers have anything as aggressive and threatening as attack helicopters - oh no sir not us!  

Can anyone else detect the sarcasm?


----------



## Fraz

Hence the bombardier ARH, it can be used for ISTAR  and command as well as escort and light attack


----------



## danchapps

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> Plus the public would never allow us peacekeepers have anything as aggressive and threatening as attack helicopters - oh no sir not us!



What if we had the nice folks in the paint shop paint them up like fluffy bunny rabbits, think the beatnik hippy bunch would let us get them then?


----------



## je suis prest

Fraz said:
			
		

> Hence the bombardier ARH, it can be used for ISTAR  and command as well as escort and light attack


 Do you mean the Bell ARH-70?  If so, it seems unlikely that project will be able to deliver any aircraft within the time frames required by the Afghan mission.  I understand the prototypes are still undergoing test flights.


----------



## Fraz

Well, if the ARH-70 isn't operational yet, is not the airframe based upon the kiowa? or just continue the upgrades/mods to the griffons and do the trials and eval for the ARH doctrine, actually serve as the interim utility/recce/light attack/ escort helo.


----------



## MarkOttawa

ARH-70 based on civilian 407 is Bell, not Bombardier:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/comanches-child-the-arh70-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-updated-02421/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/arh-70.htm
http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_arh70.php

I think it will be built in Texas (commercial 407 built in Quebec):
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=249aab9e-2e6e-43e6-92f0-279a5c557d78

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

For further discussion on the ARH please refer here:    Canadian Attack Helicopters  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46687.0.html

You may also wish to review these threads:



> Attack helicopters:
> 
> why isn't canada spend some of tht money to buy some apaches -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46506.0.html
> The Apache Longbow -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37789.0.html
> Attack Helicopters -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1159.0.html
> What do you think about this?? (HIND) -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47439.0.html


----------



## Great white Hype

Buying used Chinooks from US
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-mackay-hooked-1.htm

Trading CL-604 Challengers for Mi-17's, before giving them to ANA
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-czech-helicopters-1.htm


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Re: CASR's take on the Chinook purchase.

They are entitled to their opinion, but that's not the way I heard it went down.

BTW- the strength of an argument is usually in inverse proportion to the amount of personal attacks contained within the argument.  But, whatever- I'm sure that a prof at SFU knows way more about the aircraft business than than the Air Staff does... :


----------



## Great white Hype

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Re: CASR's take on the Chinook purchase.
> 
> They are entitled to their opinion, but that's not the way I heard it went down.
> 
> BTW- the strength of an argument is usually in inverse proportion to the amount of personal attacks contained within the argument.  But, whatever- I'm sure that a prof at SFU knows way more about the aircraft business than than the Air Staff does... :



appropos SFU- agreed
The Mi-17 deal looks hasty to say the least..


----------



## aesop081

from the CASR article about the 6 CH-47Ds



> undeployable air force



I dont spend a whole lot of time at home. Thats rather odd for an undeployable organization. The CH-124 comunity is turning at full tilt deploying with the Navy. The CC-150s and CC-130s are burning through aircraft and crews at a high rate supporting the Afghan mission. The TUAV task is taking a huge toll on 1 Wing operations and soon will consume another 2 air force wing's personel. The CH-146 will soon join ops in Afghanistan. We have Air Force ATC folks deployed on several operations overseas ( TF El-Gorath and TFA come to mind).

Yeah...undeployable......

 :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well it is from CASR after all....


----------



## Good2Golf

meh.....personal/group opinion, incredibly far removed from reality, thinly veiled as purported professional journalistic material.  

I didn't think that "group" _ad hominem_ attacks were a mark of professional journalism?  ??? 


G2G


----------



## KevinB

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well it is from CASR after all....



Too true -- and unfortunately people think they are in their lane  :

maybe I should start commenting on neurosurgery -- and CASR can quote me..


----------



## FoverF

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The CH-146 will soon join ops in Iraq.


 :-X shhh... Its supposed to be a surprise ;D

But seriously, if we get 6 Chinooks "for now", and the government sees that the CF can get the job done with 6... Why are they going to want to buy more than 6? Or even trade-in the ones we get initially? 

Honestly, when I first heard the idea, the first thing that came into my mind was that the CF is very likely to get stuck with the number of airframes in the initial delivery (even if they do eventually get traded-in for new-production models). 

I know it's speculation, but what do people here think are the odds that Canada really will see a fleet 16+ new-build Chinooks (that belong to us)? Is this something we should be holding our breaths for?


----------



## beenthere

Holding your breath isn't a very good idea.  We used to have 8 Chinooks and they were just enough to prove that we needed a minimum of 16 in order to have a sustainable but rather small fleet to provide training, support domestic operations, and support a small deployed force. 6 Sounds like a contingency plan for a limited scope and duration to cover the short term until 16 with specific to Canadian requirement models can be produced.


----------



## Kirkhill

Isn't there a parallel with the Leos?

The Army parlayed a short term crisis into both a short term solution and a longer term commitment.  

The Germans and Dutch are operating upgraded 2A4s as 2A6s.

The Yanks are (or will be) operating upgraded CH-47Ds as Fs.


----------



## geo

Well, we committed to 4 C17s and have taken delivery of 2 aussie units - which we will return the favour - from 1st two from our four unit order... 
We got a few M777s from the US Marines (so new that we were the 1st country to field them in combat) and have another bunch on order.
After seriously contemplating getting rid of all our Tanks - we've turned around, borrowed 20 Leo2s for immediate needs and are committed to 100 more.

I see no reason to doubt that we'll go through with the order for Chinooks & Hercs - as billed as planned AS REQUIRED


----------



## geo

Funny thing that, when we came out of Korea and through the 60s the Canadian Military was a fairly well equipped force that was able to "close with and kill the ennemy".

Between 1968 and 2001 we were the "Military " that everyone liked and that was more of a UN Constabulary.  Being that UN Peacekeeper that everyone liked, we didn't need all that nasty equipment a serious military needs to  "close with and kill the ennemy".

Well, we're back to being a Military force (working on it at least).  Our politicians more or less understand that the peacekeeper mystique was just that..... a mystique.  The best constabulary / peacekeeping force is one that, IF REQUIRED, can  "close with and kill the ennemy".

Lest we forget!


----------



## beenthere

The Chinook has been around for over 40 years and will still be around 50 years from now. The same airframes that served in Vietnam have been recycled through the Boeing plant numerous times and upgraded from A to B to C to D models and lots of new airframes have joined the fleet as it expanded. For the most part the only thing that has remained the same is the look.  It's the same fuselage design with tandem 3 bladed rotors and externally mounted engines. The fuselage has beefed up structural members because it used to be just a very weak aluminum box that developed wrinkles on the outside and cracks on the inside. The rotor heads and blades have changed over the years because the original design was far from perfect. Over the years the engines have been replaced with more powerful ones but they're still housed in external pods like the old ones were.


----------



## OldSolduer

I have a question. Being an infatry type with a keen interest in airmobile ops, is the use of carbon fibre and compoiste materials being incorporated into the Chinook and other choppers?
I really beleive in technology helping a soldier do his/her job.


----------



## beenthere

http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2008/04/01/222555/new-chinook-models-extend-heavylift-helicopters-life.html  Here ya go. Everything you ever want to know about Chinooks. Building, rebuilding, upgrades and even upgrading rebuilds. 8)


----------



## FoverF

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I have a question. Being an infatry type with a keen interest in airmobile ops, is the use of carbon fibre and compoiste materials being incorporated into the Chinook and other choppers?
> I really beleive in technology helping a soldier do his/her job.



Well, I know the rotor blades on Chinooks are mostly composite, but other than that, I think that most of the airframe is still aluminum. I'm sure (hoping) someone will correct me if I'm wrong here. 

Helicopters tend to be built like a very thin-walled egg, with extremely thin sheet metal, and not a whole lot of excess structural strength. Because the structures are already designed to be so light, replacing them with carbon fibre doesn't really get you the benefit it would in other applications. There are also new aluminum alloys coming out all the time, that allow the improvement of conventional metal structures, without having to change your entire production process.

But as in all fields of aviation, every new chopper model coming off the line has more composites than the chopper that preceded it.


----------



## beenthere

Is duct tape a composite?  I've seen a lot of it used. ;D


----------



## geo

beenthere said:
			
		

> Is duct tape a composite?  I've seen a lot of it used. ;D



It only becomes a composite once you get 2 or 3 layers thick >


----------



## Spencer100

I think the NH-90 uses a fair amount of composite material in it.   Also the "new" chinooks use some.


----------



## Sub_Guy

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlHnUE9Q5hfUQFZlApGdESkRKwfQ
Ottawa asks Boeing for proposal for 16 new Chinook helicopters
21 hours ago

OTTAWA — The federal government issued a request for proposals Monday to Boeing for 16 military helicopters.

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier says the helicopters are meant to re-equip the Canadian Forces over the longer term - not to fill Canada's immediate need for helicopters in Afghanistan.

But Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the helicopter purchase is all about getting them into the war-ravaged country as quickly as possible.

A blue-ribbon panel led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley concluded helicopters were a requirement for extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

The Conservative government announced in June 2006 it was going to buy 16 heavy-lift helicopters and within weeks said Boeing was the company best-suited to meet the requirements.

The government says it expects to award the helicopter contract this fall.


----------



## geo

Oy vey!!!  They announce the need and identify the sole possible supplier to fill the need in June 2006 and it takes pert near 24 months to issue a request for proposal from same said supplier..... AMAAZING!!!


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_ (see *Update* for some interesting stuff from _Flight International_ on "design changes"):

 "CH-47 Chinook - Government one step closer to re-equipping Canadian Forces"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/04/ch-47-chinook-government-one-step.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like the aircraft for Afstan will be 
CH-47Ds under CHAPS program ($20 million each cost):
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-chinook1.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/on-the-verge-canadas-47b-program-for-mediumheavy-transport-helicopters-02390/

Afghanistan choppers to cost "a couple of hundred million dollars," sources
http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n040989A



> Despite weeks of frantic activity and negotiation, Canada's Defence Department can only guess how much it will cost to fulfil the Manley report conditions that extend Canada's Afghan mission until 2011.
> 
> Defence sources say it is expected to cost "a couple of hundred million dollars" to supply six Canadian-owned battlefield helicopters to troops in Kandahar in a project that is over and above the Conservative government's promised $4.7 billion purchase of 16 CH-47 Chinooks.
> 
> A firm price tag has yet to be calculated because National Defence is waiting for the Pentagon to deliver a formal letter of offer in a government-to-government purchase, a defence source familiar with the file told The Canadian Press.
> 
> The helicopters destined for Kandahar will be [used but refurbished] "standard U.S. Army configuration" - or the 'D' model of the Chinook, which cost between $15 and $20 million per aircraft.
> 
> When logistics, spare parts and training are included, defence insiders conceded that the department currently has "no idea" how much obtaining the helicopters will cost...
> 
> Government officials had hinted the money would come out of the Tories' existing helicopter program, but that is not the case.
> 
> "This is in the Support to Afghanistan (budget) and not part of the (medium-lift helicopter) project," said the source, who spoke on the condition of not being named...
> 
> The planned purchase of heavy-lift helicopters was announced by the Conservatives almost two years and they very quickly identified Boeing's CH-47 Chinook as the aircraft they wanted.
> 
> There was mounting frustration within the Defence Department because the project has been stalled.
> 
> The air force has asked for the latest variant of the aircraft - the 'F' model - but also requested modifications in the aircraft that have pushed the delivery date off until the 2011-12 time frame...
> 
> The offer of six CH-47-D Chinooks, carved out of an order originally slated for the U.S. Army, was made verbally by Washington shortly before the independent panel made helicopter transport a condition for Canada remaining in Afghanistan.
> 
> *Canadian pilots are already training on the Chinooks at Fort Ruker, Alabama, the U.S. Army's main aviation school. The aircraft mechanics are expected to be trained through Boeing.
> 
> "The plan is: We will deploy with four to six in February* [emphasis added]," said the source...



At that price the aircraft will clearly be bought through Boeing’s CHAPS (Cargo Helicopter Alternate Procurement Strategy) program. Will we then end up with 22 Chinooks in all? Not if there is an...



> ...ultimate ‘rebuild’ of the CF’s CHAPS ’D models into ’Fs. [from first link above]



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Silly question really but, with all these new airframes coming on line.... CC117s and CH47s on order/delivered now and the CC130Js to be ordered shortly.... how are we doing with Mechanics, Aircrew & Pilots at this time?

Would seem to me that the new capacity is taking away trained personel from the aircraft we already have .... so how are we doing?
seems to me we're stealing from Peter to pay Paul


----------



## dapaterson

Exactly Geo.  New kit is fine - but without more people to operate it, what do we drop?  Or do we reduce the Army's growth to give the Air Force more pilots and maintainers...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Still rather have the new kit sitting in the hangers and in box waiting for people to get trained up, instead of having a bunch of highly trained people pretending to carry out inspections on pretend equipment. I spent to long on the gunline yelling "boom, rumble,rumble" 

With aircraft, worse comes to worse, we can get 80% or so of the work down by contract, although I would rather see the Air Force have more of it's own techs.


----------



## Zoomie

WRT manning.

CAS directive has made the following the AF's priority when it comes to which flying positions get filled first:

1) Training - need instructors to pump out more pilots

2) SAR - National Directive to be 100% manned

3) Operations 

Our flying brethren at 436 Sqn are flying their collective tails off over "there".  Due to high operational task loads and min manning - a number of the trained experienced crews are bailing for the airliners.  No worries though - we don't have a manning shortage.


----------



## Spencer100

Good News...with the economy going into the crapper and fuel prices going up...the private sector airlines are not going to be hiring in near future.  Three or four carriers have stopped flying in the last month.  ATA, Oasis, Skybus.   Although Canadian carriers are doing better it maybe a matter of time before they are going to be in trouble again.   An economic downturn maybe a good thing for manning numbers.  If I was an AF mechanic or pilot I would be thinking twice about the private sector*.  

* exemption flying oil company execs.   ;D


----------



## beenthere

Zoomie said:
			
		

> WRT manning.
> 
> CAS directive has made the following the AF's priority when it comes to which flying positions get filled first:
> 
> 1) Training - need instructors to pump out more pilots
> 
> 2) SAR - National Directive to be 100% manned
> 
> 3) Operations
> 
> Our flying brethren at 436 Sqn are flying their collective tails off over "there".  Due to high operational task loads and min manning - a number of the trained experienced crews are bailing for the airliners.  No worries though - we don't have a manning shortage.


Yup. It wasn't all that long ago that downsizing was all the buzz. I don't know if contracting maintenance for SAR helicopters was a part of downsizing but it helped to drain the pool of techs with helicopter experience and at the same time wiped out another field where techs can gain experience on helicopters. 
When I heard the extent of the manning cut on 436 and the cut in taskings which is  where the new people gain experience I couldn't believe it. It actually looked like a situation that would result in the operation becoming becoming unsustainable.  New crewmembers get their best training and experience from high tempo operations and nothing can duplicate it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From the CDS at the Commons foreign affairs committee:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/10/hillier.html


> ...
> Dewar[NDP MP] also pressed the general on the projected cost of supplying helicopters to transport soldiers in Kandahar, one of the key conditions laid out in the Manley report to extend Canada's Afghan mission until 2011.
> 
> Ottawa had threatened to withdraw its 2,500 soldiers from the Afghan mission unless NATO came up with 1,000 reinforcements and the Canadian Defence Department was able to acquire helicopters and unmanned spy planes.
> 
> The Canadian Press quoted sources inside the department as saying it is expected to cost "a couple of hundred million dollars" to supply six Canadian-owned battlefield helicopters to troops in Kandahar.
> 
> That comes over and above the Conservative government's promised $4.7-billion purchase of 16 CH-47 Chinooks.
> 
> Hillier replied that he could not define the cost of the helicopter contracts before the contracts are negotiated.
> 
> "I don't have the numbers," he said...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

When you get down to it, the 6 CH47Ds will cost what they will cost..... If we are at war, budgets go pert much out the window & we start running up IOUs


----------



## FoverF

Nothing more expensive than losing a war.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It will cost us what it cost us.  Maybe, if we had not have short-sightedly sold the capability in the 90s in the first place, it would be cheaper and quicker.  But who am I to argue defence policy with the NDP....


----------



## geo

SeakingTacco
If you look at most NATO countries, they have all, at one time or another operated in a short sighted manner.
Look at the 100 Leo2s we've picked up from the Dutch (who yes did purchase our CH47s).
The Dutch are also trying to sell off some of the Pz2000 SPs they haven't even taken delivery of.... go figure.
The UK is being criticized almost every day for shortchanging their troops will all sorts of gear... go figure.

Thankfuly, under the current 9and last?) CDS, we appear to have begun getting our $h!t together .... but we still have a ways to go.


----------



## beenthere

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2338662820080423 The latest.


----------



## OldSolduer

I suppose the line up to get a ride on those Chinooks extends from Winnipeg to Edmonton!
Question, looking to the future. Will a Chinook or two be available to train some PRes soldiers on how to get in it, out and ride in it? 
I know that it will take some time.


----------



## beenthere

They're sort of lean on spare engines. Two for Six helicopters. 
OldSolduer: It's easy to build a simulator for PRes passengers. Just take a sea container and build bench seats on either side. If you want to really enhance the simulation cut some round window holes, pour hydraulic fluid on the floor, mount it on truck springs and install a stereo system with some really big speakers. The guys who are waiting for their turn for a ride can bounce the container on it's springs and play heavy metal music at full volume on the stereo system. It'll be just like the real thing. ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

A real blast, March 22, from Dianne  DeMille, editor, _Canadian  American  Strategic  Review_  ( CASR ):

Our  defence  minister,  Peter  Mackay,  slinks  home with  some  'tails'  between  his  legs
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-mackay-hooked-1.htm



> According  to a  report in  _Jane's Defence Weekly_, the Canadian government  has agreed  to buy  six used Chinooks – 'D models' –  from the US Army. The six  ex-US Army  helicopters in question were selected  by the vendor. This is a little like walking into a used car lot and asking the salesman to pick out six  'previously-owned'  vehicles  for your fleet.
> 
> In effect, our Minister of  National  Defence has managed to negotiate an inferior deal for the same model of  used CH-47Ds available through the US Army’s CHAPS program ( the Cargo Helicopter Alternate Procurement Strategy). Instead, we are dealing with the US Government.
> 
> The US Army is not in a position to provide support services of any kind for this purchase – no training, no maintenance personnel, and,  most importantly,  no parts supply line. Canada will have to, once again,  prevail upon our closest allies – the Netherlands, Australia, and the UK  –  to help us out with anything that they can spare from their own over-stretched supply lines and spare parts intended for their small fleets of Chinooks in Southern Afghanistan. [1]
> 
> All the money in the defence cookie jar has been spent on aircraft with 'No Political Sizzle'
> 
> Why was Canada  left in this humiliating position?  Because  Prime Minister  Stephen Harper gave in to the vanity of  Air Staff planners and spent our nation's surplus on the aircraft that they  wanted  most  –  there is simply no time  –   and certainly no money  –   left  to  buy  the transport  helicopters  which are an  immediate  military  necessity  in  Southern  Afghanistan...
> 
> What is it about powerful  politicians and  their  inability to  'Just Say No'  to the petulant foot stamping and  haughty, turned-up noses of  Air Staff ? The Air Force is certainly not going to lease Russian Mil helicopters for the sake of our soldiers on the ground.  Oh no, that would be beneath them – especially with alluring new-aircraft scents wafting through the air. Our NATO allies operate or lease Mi-17s  – even the United States –  even the CIA.  What is the problem?..
> 
> ...Do  Air Staff  planners show any indication of actually wanting  to buy helicopters?  Fixed-wing aircraft get bought, but the 25-year project  to replace _Sea Kings_ still hasn't borne fruit. And,  despite constant complaints about CH-146 _Griffons_ as military helicopters, there's been no moves to 'liquidate' these assets on a healthy civilian market for this type. Do helicopters simply get in the way of 'real' aircraft?..
> 
> What Air Staff  wants,  Air Staff  gets  –  And even frugal,  neo-con Prime Ministers submit
> 
> The Air Force got their C-17 _Globemaster III_  ACAN first.  Then they got the C-130J _Hercules_. What if  Air  Staff has just lost interest in the new CH-47F _Chinook_? What if  they believe that it would be better to put the purchase 'on the back burner' until their grumpy Prime Minister  is once again 'in the vein' to spend billions of dollars on aircraft for our _undeployable_ Air Force?
> 
> When are the elected officials of this country going to wake up and see that Air Staff planners have never,  will never, put the interests of  this country before their own vanity?  Bureaucrats in uniform awaiting plummy industry jobs need to be brought sharply to heel.  They've sworn their lives to their  Sovereign  –  that collective  'sovereign'  is,  in fact,  the citizens of  Canada.



I wonder if Ms  DeMille realizes that CAS Angus Watt is a helicopter pilot:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/orgdocs/CAS_bio_e.asp

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## beenthere

Who are these people?


----------



## geo

SFU.... should be STFU... Shut the Fu Up.

The 6 previously owned CH47s are just that, previously owned & would have been returned to Boeing for upgrades, the way all Chinooks go... So they're "used".... that is all that is available AND nothing new is available before ... beyond 2011


----------



## Zoomie

SFU is being made to look quite the fool by continuing to sponsor CASR: DND 101.

I just submitted a letter of complaint to the President of SFU's Office - anyone else equally fed up with the tripe coming out of Ms. DeMille and her cohorts should do the same.


----------



## newfin

I know a lot of you on this site are not happy with CASR but I sure do not want to see it shut down.  Yes, they can be opinionated at times  AND they might draw incorrect conclusions from what others might think.  However, that site is a great source of info on the Canadian Armed Forces.  There is not another site I have seen that comes anywhere as close as they do for being comprehensive.  And on top of all that they do offer their opinions and solutons to problems concerning the CAF and Canada's security.  It's hard to find anything in the media that does not contain errors or inaccuracies of some sort.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CH-47Ds are a Foreign Military Sale; here's the text of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's notification to Congress. 
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.36167296.1209039165.Xf3Z338AAAEAAEMMDpsAAAAY&manuel_call_prod=93592&manuel_call_mod=release&modele=jdc_inter

I find the following interesting:



> The Government of Canada has requested a possible sale of...Quality Assurance Team support, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support...
> 
> Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Canada and *in the theater of operations for an unspecified amount of time* [emphasis added]...



So that's part of the way we'll deal with maintenance while Canadian Air Force ground crew are trained.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MedCorps

Mark hit on a good point.   When you read the US FMS (Foreign Military Sale) Notice it shows some interesting things... 

1) The FMS notice does not seem to be related to the CHAPS program that is mentioned in this thread. It covers six used US CH-47D's with two extra Allied Signal T55 turbine engines and some in-service support. The CHAPS program (as I understand it) is looking at CH-47F++ models and would not arrive into the hands of Canada for years.  This FMS Notice makes delivery of the six CH-47D's possible very, very quickly (like by September of this year).

2) The FMS notice has 30 pairs of NVG's (AN/AVS-6(V)1 or AN/ANS-7(V)1) as part of the potential sale.  This provides some options with respect to potential project cost containment as the AN/AVS-6(V)1 is lass expensive then the AN/ANS-7(V)1.  It is also my understanding (based on reading only) that the AN/AVS-6(V)1 is a substandard piece of kit due to 'halo effect'.  We can only hope that the project office will not cheap out and go with the better option.  In fact it would have been nice to see the FMS only have  one of the two sets of NVG on it.  

3) The FMS notice has four (but not six) M240H spade-grip machine guns included. One would guess that with 6 choppers you would buy six machine guns.  So... one could speculate only four are going into combat and two will be used for training, we have two extra C6's laying around that we can use without buying US ones, the role of two of the CH47D's will not require machine gun armament, or that they might be fitted with the M134D miniguns that are the subject of other threads and a recent MERX notice.   

Some food for thought... not a chopper guy, just have some interest in the topic personally and professionally.  Look forward to the expert's thoughts. 

Cheers Mark for finding the FMS Notice. 

MC


----------



## Sf2

AVS-6 is the google
ANS-7 is the HUD

So there isn't any choice in the matter which goggle is to be used.


----------



## beenthere

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CH-47Ds are a Foreign Military Sale; here's the text of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's notification to Congress.
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.36167296.1209039165.Xf3Z338AAAEAAEMMDpsAAAAY&manuel_call_prod=93592&manuel_call_mod=release&modele=jdc_inter
> 
> I find the following interesting:
> 
> So that's part of the way we'll deal with maintenance while Canadian Air Force ground crew are trained.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


The notification is interesting but brief. Now if someone could fatten the story up with some details we'd all be able to do some speculation.


----------



## geo

Heh...
Heard that our pilots, mechs and aircrew are doing flight training & / or refresher training in vairous countries who currently use the CH47Ds - intent being that we will take delivery of the 6 slightly used Chinooks in XXXXXX for immediate use over there.


----------



## GnrJetTech

Loachman said:
			
		

> If it was that simple, this wouldn't be an issue.



It is that simple...think of it like buying a car. Not everyone requires all the bells and whistles so they order a 'personalized' version of the model that fits their requirements and lifestyle. 
You may not want a/c, and a sunroof in Yellowknife or studded tires in southern Ontario.

This is the same thing Canada has done for years depending on the operational requirement and the future outlook of operations for that piece of kit.
Their insight to the future sucks sometimes, but I think their intentions are genuine.

short example. CF-18 vs. F-18 (something I am more familiar with)- In the U.S the Dual F-18 rear seat is occupied by a 'Tactical Officer' therefore the rear seat cockpit encompasses way more options and 
controlability than a CF-18, which we use in a training capacity where the rear seat is set up more like a student monitoring station.

Why spend the extra money on equiptment and options we don't need? Why should we? 

Lets 'Canadianize' it for our lifestyle and particular operational requirements. It takes a little longer but these are the options WE asked for.

JMHO


----------



## MedCorps

By the sounds of things we are going to do both. 

Pick up a few used CH-47D's from the USA on a short notice buy and the procure CH-47F (complete with Canadian mods) as part of the CHAP program.  The CHAP program will take some time before delivery can occur. 

Cheers, 

MC


----------



## aesop081

GnrJetTech said:
			
		

> short example. CF-18 vs. F-18 (something I am more familiar with)- In the U.S the Dual F-18 rear seat is occupied by a 'Tactical Officer' therefore the rear seat cockpit encompasses way more options and
> controlability than a CF-18, which we use in a training capacity where the rear seat is set up more like a student monitoring station.



Well......not quite

F/A-18B is a trainer just like our 2-seat CF-18s

The F/A-18D rear seat is for a tactical officer same as the F/A-18F


----------



## GnrJetTech

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well......not quite
> 
> F/A-18B is a trainer just like our 2-seat CF-18s
> 
> The F/A-18D rear seat is for a tactical officer same as the F/A-18F



You get the idea... :


----------



## GAP

Deal to buy Chinooks has gone ahead, says senator
$375 million: Canadian pilots are training at U.S. base in Afghanistan
Ethan Baron, The Province Published: Sunday, May 11, 2008
Article Link

A helicopter purchase for Canadian Forces in Afghanistan -- until now kept under wraps -- has gone ahead, said Senate defence committee chair Colin Kenny.

Six massive Chinook transport helicopters are on the ground in Afghanistan, and Canadian pilots are at a U.S. air force base training to fly them, Kenny said.

"Our sources tell us that we've got six American Chinooks that are going to be signed over to us," Kenny said.

Last month, the Defence Department acknowledged it was in discussions with the U.S. to obtain the Chinook heavy-lift helicopters for Afghanistan, but provided no further information.

Details of the purchase were revealed by a U.S. government defence agency, including a potential price of $375 million US for the aircraft, equipment, technical support and training.

Kenny, who spent five days in Afghanistan last month, said he believes the six Chinooks there now are the result of that deal.

"The Americans have brought them in," Kenny said. "[They're] going to be signed over to us."
More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This government is stunning, tanks, C17's and now 6 Chinooks, all in less time than it took for the Liberals to decide on which coffeemaker we should buy.  ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I now await CASR's pithy retort.

I used to enjoy their work, but recently Diane & Stephen's hate-on for the Conservative Party has made their work second-rate at best as you now have to read around their political leanings to try to glean any actual content.


Matthew.   :


----------



## slowmode

Its great to see our current government taking a leading role in defend Canada and its interests abroad. You be protected if you have a tin pot military. THe conservative government is doing an amazing job currently on issueing the Canadian Military what it needs to be fully operational.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I now await CASR's pithy retort.
> 
> I used to enjoy their work, but recently Diane & Stephen's hate-on for the Conservative Party has made their work second-rate at best as you now have to read around their political leanings to try to glean any actual content.
> 
> 
> Matthew.   :



As an SFU alumni, it pains me to say this, but I've _never_ found anything CASR has to say useful.  Their data is sometimes flawed and their incessant cheerleading on behalf of Skylink and Russian equipment is grating.  They're the worst of the "bright ideas" gang, as their hare-brained proposal to use leased private aircraft to conduct combat operations certainly illustrates.


----------



## geo

While I would love to credit the current gov't with all that equipment coming in, I believe the CDS is probably the one who has empowered us more than anything else.  The buck stops here & he's holding his people accountable.


----------



## Edward Campbell

geo said:
			
		

> While I would love to credit the current gov't with all that equipment coming in, I believe the CDS is probably the one who has empowered us more than anything else.  The buck stops here & he's holding his people accountable.



I disagree, Geo. The buck doesn't go anywhere near the CDS, much less stop at is desk. In these cases the government-of-the-day has moved both money and _political capital_ into necessary defence procurements, just as, during the *"Decade of Darkness"*,™ the government-of-*that*-day decided not to invest either in equally necessary defence procurements.

The money is only part of the _problem_, making the decisions quickly and then making the _*system*_ ‘work’ quickly costs _political capital_ - something the Conservatives do not have in endless supply.

In these cases I give our government full marks for good policy and political courage.


----------



## geo

"decade(s) of Darkness".... brought to you by both the Liberal & Conservative parties of canada.....
(musn't forget Brian)


----------



## Fraz

Let us just hope that events don't return to feast or famine patterns that seem to follow a brief renaissance of political investment in the CF.  Pressure has to be maintained to ensure that we continue to receive new kit and enough to actually have a war stock and kit out the units we have.  Interesting that the PAO's haven't mentioned anything reference the quick  (not quite) delivery and movement of events with the 6 birds in country already.


----------



## geo

War stock?... would say that all players in Afghanistan are "come as you are" and really - we're running all our gear into the ground.  If you read about the Brits, it ain't pretty - imagine they're looking at us in envy - what's happened to this world?


----------



## emmiee

Mods please move if this article does not belong here. From CBS News Website: www.cbs3.com Emma

May 13, 2008 7:25 pm US/Eastern  This PageBoeing Shuts Down Production Line At Pa. Plant


| Print Boeing Shuts Down Production Line At Pa. Plant
FBI Monitoring 'Incident' At Ridley Township Plant
RIDLEY TOWNSHIP, Pa. (CBS 3) ― The FBI has confirmed that it is monitoring an incident at the Boeing helicopter plant in Ridley Township, Delaware County.

Sources said the Chinook helicopter production line was shut down at about 11 a.m. on Tuesday and that some employees were sent home.

Boeing officials said they discovered "irregularities" in two of the aircrafts that were being assembled at the plant. The nature of the irregularities was not immediately known.

Boeing officials said they notified its own security personnel as well as federal agencies about the discovery.

Officials from the FBI told CBS 3 that it has been made aware of an incident at the Boeing plant and that they are monitoring the incident.

Stay with CBS 3 and cbs3.com for more on this developing story as it become available.


----------



## geo

Eggads!?!?!  Fifth columnists?


----------



## MarkOttawa

"F" as in fixed-wing fanatics?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

Cut cables on 2 C-47's among other things.Glad Boeing caught it and I hope those responsible get fired and if its intentional then they should be prosecuted.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/1154/v-print/story/183254.html



> Boeing shuts down Chinook production line at Pa. plant
> By KIMBERLY HEFLING
> WASHINGTON Workers at Boeing's suburban Philadelphia helicopter plant reported to work Wednesday even as Army criminal investigators and others looked into possible irregularities discovered in two military helicopters made at the plant.
> 
> The company shut down the CH-47 Chinook helicopter line at the Boeing Rotorcraft Systems plant in Ridley Township, Pa., on Tuesday, but it disclosed few specifics about why. The line had not fully resumed operations as of Wednesday morning, the company said.
> 
> U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, a Democrat whose district includes the plant, said he was told during a briefing that wires that appeared to be broken or severed were found in one helicopter and a suspicious washer was found in a second.
> 
> Sestak said the assessment was preliminary and he expected the findings of a more thorough review would be available on Wednesday. He praised Boeing's handling of the situation, and said it was much too early to speculate on what happened.
> 
> All aircraft on the premises were being inspected and no additional irregularities had been found, Jack Satterfield, a company spokesman, said Wednesday.
> 
> Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesman Christopher Grey confirmed the agency was involved in the investigation, but said he could not comment on it.
> 
> Satterfield said the shutdown was isolated to one line at the plant and did not affect operational aircraft. He said the company was working with the Defense Contract Management Agency, which oversees military suppliers.
> 
> The Chinook is known as the Army's workhorse aircraft. It is used to transport troops and supplies.
> 
> Boeing is currently producing new Chinooks for the Army, as well as updating older models.
> 
> Messages left Tuesday and Wednesday with the Defense Contract Management Agency were not returned.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I disagree, Geo. The buck doesn't go anywhere near the CDS, much less stop at is desk. In these cases the government-of-the-day has moved both money and _political capital_ into necessary defence procurements, just as, during the *"Decade of Darkness"*,™ the government-of-*that*-day decided not to invest either in equally necessary defence procurements.
> 
> The money is only part of the _problem_, making the decisions quickly and then making the _*system*_ ‘work’ quickly costs _political capital_ - something the Conservatives do not have in endless supply.
> 
> In these cases I give our government full marks for good policy and political courage.



I agree. It is the Government that controls the buck not the CDS. He has the ideas and a good team....let's not kid ourselves that the man does all this singled handedly. Getting this stuff quickly has been a real challenge to a bloated bureaucratic system that loves to take it's time and thus "make work" for years in order to justify their existence.
I've been posted to NDHQ since Jan and haven't been totally lobotomized yet...my observation is that most of what goes on in Ottawa is somewhat akin to mating elephants...there's a lot of roaring and screaming but not a hell of a lot of production!


----------



## dapaterson

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> ...my observation is that most of what goes on in Ottawa is somewhat akin to mating elephants...there's a lot of roaring and screaming but not a hell of a lot of production!



My preferred description of NDHQ:



> NDHQ is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea — massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.


----------



## beenthere

Ref Chinooks. There isn't much roaring or screaming going on these days. Not even a whisper.  :-X


----------



## geo

We're "supposed" to be receiving 6 used Chinooks in theatre sometime this year - that will cut down on the pressing need.... I guess


----------



## Good2Golf

...or perhaps folks could actually trust for a moment that there are, in fact, people trying to make things work and that capabilities might very well be put in place in a reasonably short time frame once the requisite approvals are granted by Government.

It would be interesting to see if anybody does a little juxtaposition between all the doomsayers out there currently bemoaning the lack of any apparent support and those who may actually be relatively appreciative of the capabilities that may currently be in the works.  

Apparently, the sky is falling right up until the moment when people realize that the sky is not actually falling.   :-\

G2G


----------



## geo

G2G - Aye!


----------



## Kirkhill

G2G - you just described the life of the project manager, in all industries. ;D


----------



## Fraz

Update: 
Canada to send Chinooks, unmanned planes to Afghanistan
  
Melanie Lee 
Reuters 
SINGAPORE -- Canada will move helicopters and unmanned aircraft to Afghanistan to increase surveillance of roads, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said on Saturday, as the Taliban stepped up attacks in spite of a large NATO force in the country.

Canadian troops are based in the southern province of Kandahar and have seen some of the highest casualties as 55,000 foreign troops led by NATO and the United States battle the Taliban-led insurgency.

MacKay told Reuters on the sidelines of a security conference that six to 10 medium-heavy lift helicopters, such as Chinooks, and some unmanned aircraft would be delivered to Afghanistan by February 2009.

"Hopefully we are going to have some of that equipment arrive late summer, early fall and our intention is to have all that equipment in place by February 2009."

MacKay said the unmanned aircraft would be used to patrol roads used by Canada and her allies. Canada would also move staff to Afghanistan to man the equipment.

Eighty Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, and its mission in Afghanistan is due to end in February 2009. But the government has agreed to remain until 2011 if another NATO country agrees to supply the added troops.

"There is no intention before July of 2011 for us to remove troops," MacKay said.

He also said that he did not think a change of government in the United States would affect Canada's Afghan involvement.

"I believe we are on a very strong path for the future, regardless of who occupies the White House."

(Editing by Jan Dahinten and Valerie Lee)


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

How many Chinooks to Afstan soon?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-many-chinooks-to-afstan-soon.html



> The MND:
> 
> '...
> MacKay told Reuters on the sidelines of a security conference that six to 10 [emphasis added] medium-heavy lift helicopters, such as Chinooks, and some unmanned aircraft would be delivered to Afghanistan by February 2009.
> 
> "Hopefully we are going to have some of that equipment arrive late summer, early fall and our intention is to have all that equipment in place by February 2009."..'
> 
> Yet the US Foreign Military Sale notice speaks only of six aircraft (see Update at preceding link).
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/04/ch-47d-purchase-closer.html
> Hmm.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

well... it could be that 6 are bought and paid for.... and the remainder are borrowed, loaned or made available through other means.... the simple fact that 6 are on the books is HUGE !!!  anything more is just icing on the cake.

WRT the UAVs.... who knows.  Do we get Israeli UAVs ??? time will tell.


----------



## Good2Golf

Who knows?  There may be a number of capabilities addressed within the Minister's statement; time will tell.  The fact that the US Gov't, through DoD DSCA, specifically mentioned six Chinooks is good enough in my books that they're talking about six Chinooks (CH-47Ds, IIRC).


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> .... The fact that the US Gov't, through DoD DSCA, specifically mentioned six Chinooks is good enough in my books that they're talking about six Chinooks (CH-47Ds, IIRC).


G2G - is that golf buggy of yours leaping a little higher recently?


----------



## beenthere

I suspect that he's grinnin from ear to ear. ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> G2G - is that golf buggy of yours leaping a little higher recently?



Kirkhill, I wish I had a buggy in real life.  I played whack-frick the week before last and ended up being rather sore...must be old age! I'd play the Duke's "being chased by Roscoe" music and drive like a mad man around the fairway.  Well either that, or sit at home listening to recordings of a 'Hook start up on the P, then kick in close to 10,000 horsies!  Woo hoo! ;D

G2G


----------



## beenthere

G2G. You could build a sim if you have a good sound system.  Move your washing machine into the living room, put a couple of cinder blocks in it, select spin dry and crank  "er up. 
I would love to experience all of the sounds and smells of a hook again. This retirement thing isn't all that it's made up to be.  :boring:


----------



## observor 69

Ya I noticed that.


----------



## Good2Golf

beenthere said:
			
		

> G2G. You could build a sim if you have a good sound system.  Move your washing machine into the living room, put a couple of cinder blocks in it, select spin dry and crank  "er up.
> I would love to experience all of the sounds and smells of a hook again. This retirement thing isn't all that it's made up to be.  :boring:



BT, I'll get one of the guys to send you a package with some  'P'-exhaust-in-a-bag!  

I still have clear memories of the smell of the beastie and the sound the flight hydraulics make after the P comes up to speed and the flight hydraulic release solenoid closes, and the rotors do their little 'hop'.  ;D

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

My wife still doesn't get why, on a bright, clear blue-sky day at 20 below I can still get this silly grin all over my face if I start sucking diesel exhaust.......Memories. :'( ;D


----------



## beenthere

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> BT, I'll get one of the guys to send you a package with some  'P'-exhaust-in-a-bag!
> 
> I still have clear memories of the smell of the beastie and the sound the flight hydraulics make after the P comes up to speed and the flight hydraulic release solenoid closes, and the rotors do their little 'hop'.  ;D
> 
> Cheers
> G2G


The rotors doing their little hop is a rotorerection. I've still got my rag that's soaked with a mixture of jet fuel, oil and hydraulic fluid. Works for me. >


----------



## observor 69

Clear sky, early morning hours, stable air, a lingering look at the sky and memories. sigh


----------



## beenthere

I've been doing some reading on a quasi technical site about Chinooks and indeed they have changed the look of many components since my time on Hooks. Hopefully under all of the grey paint on the transmission cases  which used to be yellow there are some really good and much improved gears, bearings, pumps etc.

I noted the real cool chip detector panel which is a bonus. That panel started off as a very simple box with 5 switches to interupt the circuit from one transmission chip detector at a time in order to isolate the chip detector which had found a chip. The original engineering diagram was drawn on a Craven M cigarette  package at the Jr. Ranks Club in Uplands (CFB Ottawa S) one night when the 450 Sqn flight engineers were on a Molson X fueled brainstorming session. I took it to work the next day and one of the 450 Sqn electricians declared that it was too simple so he added a few diodes into the mix and we drew up a reasonable diagram and raised the pertinent paperwork for a modification. We sent it off to the people at NDHQ and the idea was far too simplistic for the "engineers" in the head shed to approve. They wanted to make the thing into an engineering marvel that only highly trained and completely inexperienced university graduates could design. When I left the squadron two years later they were still working on it. 

In the meantime every time the one and only chip light in the cockpit came on the procedure was to land as quickly as possible and start taking individual detectors and debris screens out to identify the culprit that had turned the light on. This was usually done someplace out in the wilderness in a snowstorm at -20.  
If we would have been able to use the initial design each aircraft could have been modified in about two working hours and involved nothing more than 5 switches  and a small aluminum plate to mount them on.

It's best to never let these engineering people get any more involved than is absolutely necessary. Keep them as far away from the Chinook program as possible. They'll try to invent all kinds of projects and studies that only serve to keep their empire growing and once they infest a program they multiply like rats and you can never get rid of them.


----------



## chinook003

I hope that they have done something to stop the oil and hydrulic fluid from pouring out on the ground. We spent most of our time filling systems, when I worked on them. And they had so many cracks in the structure that it looked like spides lived there.


----------



## GAP

chinook003 said:
			
		

> I hope that they have done something to stop the oil and hydrulic fluid from pouring out on the ground. We spent most of our time filling systems, when I worked on them. And they had so many cracks in the structure that it looked like spides lived there.



Uhhh.....are these the same ones the Norwegians are running around in?


----------



## Good2Golf

GAP said:
			
		

> Uhhh.....are these the same ones the Norwegians are running around in?



Nope, the Dutch.


----------



## beenthere

chinook003 said:
			
		

> I hope that they have done something to stop the oil and hydraulic fluid from pouring out on the ground. We spent most of our time filling systems, when I worked on them. And they had so many cracks in the structure that it looked like spides lived there.


 That's the in flight fluids monitoring system. If there's oil or hydraulic fluid coming out it means that the system isn't empty. You know there's a problem when it stops coming out.


----------



## chinook003

If I remember correctly as long as the levels didnot drop out of the sight glass on a 2.5 hour flight it was still serviceable, but sticky.


----------



## chinook003

I hope that someone saved some of the training aids that I made from the remains of 002 after she crashed and burned up north. It would be nice to know that they stayed in Canada in memory of the crew.


----------



## GAP

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Nope, the Dutch.



my bad


----------



## JackD

i found this http://www.chinookdr.com/    "Chinook Helicopter Training"  and thought it'd be of interest for those following this thread


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A show had a segment on the Chinook F series showing the testing and the cockpit, looks nice and the pilot was glowing about the aircraft. They mentioned that the newer design had significantly fewer parts.


----------



## beenthere

JackD said:
			
		

> i found this http://www.chinookdr.com/    "Chinook Helicopter Training"  and thought it'd be of interest for those following this thread


I just went through the fuel system. It's very good. Just what's necessary without overloading of information. Of course there are lots of numbers included but I just skipped through most of them as the valueable ones always sink in with actual experience.  Why am I talking about actual experience?  I'm retired. Oh well. I can always dream.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From the _Globe and Mail_ today:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080805.wprocurement05/BNStory/National/home



> ...the planned signing of the contract for the new helicopters has fallen months behind.
> 
> Documents released by the Department of National Defence show the government is struggling to fit the helicopter in its "prescribed" acquisition budget of $2-billion, stating the cost has jumped to $2.3-billion. The documents show that inflation costs, caused by the "slippage" in the signing of the contract, have already cost the government $80-million.
> 
> A briefing note from last September laid out two major sets of options for National Defence:
> 
> Adopt the status quo, meaning the government would agree to "absorb the overrun cost."
> 
> Or, change the equipment that Ottawa gets installed in the helicopters.
> 
> A DND spokeswoman refused to offer details on the plans to purchase the Chinook, stating it could only do so once the contract is signed.
> 
> "As the government is currently in negotiations with the company for the acquisition of the CH-47 model F Chinook, we are unable to provide the particular information requested," Krista Hannivan said...



But that "slippage" is probably misleading not relevant to the current situation: a post at _The Torch_:

CH-47Fs: Does the _Globe and Mail_ have a story?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/ch-47fs-does-globe-and-mail-have-story.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Not exactly in "fall of 2008" (lots of background at link)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/04/ch-47-chinook-government-one-step.html
but fairly close if things work out. From a Google translation (note the "Canadianization")...
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ledevoir.com%2F2008%2F12%2F15%2F223441.html&sl=fr&tl=en



> *Ottawa to sign the contract to purchase 16 Chinook helicopters*
> _The proposed acquisition of aircraft rescue will be submitted to cabinet in January_
> 
> The contract for the purchase of 16 helicopters Chinook military transport should be signed by the federal government early next year. Negotiations between Ottawa and the multinational Boeing just enter their final phase and all details should be settled before Christmas...
> 
> ...Ottawa will spend more than other countries for its new Chinook since asked Boeing to build a helicopter more versatile, able to travel to combat zones, to fly in extreme conditions and make the rescue [combat search and rescue?].
> 
> For example, the Canadian Forces want a tank twice as big. Several defense equipment would be added, including a missile sensor systems and response. A more powerful battery would be installed on the helicopter, as well as sophisticated weather radars. Stabilizers flight would be added as a device to be used to easily climb on board the survivors of a disaster...



...of this story in _Le Devoir_.
http://www.ledevoir.com/2008/12/15/223441.html

Mark 
Ottawa


----------

