# Airforce Spending Spree



## PViddy (4 Nov 2005)

I found this in the paper this morning.  All i can say is, it's about time they whipped out the wallets.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=ad21f415-504d-4e17-be7d-8dca3b0fd4d8


Armed forces begin plane, helicopter purchases
  
Stephen Thorne 
Canadian Press 


Thursday, November 03, 2005


1 | 2 | NEXT >> 
ADVERTISEMENT 

  

OTTAWA -- Canada's air force has begun a shopping spree, looking to buy heavy-lift helicopters, transport aircraft and search-rescue planes, all within about five years, a military spokesman said Thursday. 

Military planners are working late every day examining options and drafting requirements before issuing tenders for the lucrative contracts, said Capt. Jim Hutchison. 

A special priority has been placed on the helicopter purchase, where options include used American Chinooks, similar to the troop transports that Canada sold to the Netherlands in 1991 as part of federal cost-cutting. 

"It's an exciting time to be in the air force," said Hutchison. "The directorate of air requirements staff have been putting in the overtime hours like crazy in the past six months or so. 

"There's a whole lot of work to be done." 

Navy Lieut. John Nethercott said while used Chinooks are among the helicopter options under consideration, the preferred route is to buy new ones. 

Canada's last major foray into used military equipment - four British submarines obtained for about $850 million in the 1990s - proved a bust. 

They were plagued with problems and required numerous upgrades. One, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire on her maiden transatlantic voyage under Canadian command. A sailor died and the submarine now needs $20 million in repairs. 

Last week, a transformer aboard the only sub in service, HMCS Windsor, suffered a meltdown. No one was hurt and the boat continued her cruise. 

Nethercott, an air force spokesman, said the navy experience isn't a factor in the air force decision. 

"The air force will explore all options," he said. "We're looking at long-term solutions and we think that those can be gained by buying new aircraft." 

The last federal budget and April's defence policy statement outlined aviation requirements for the military, citing the need to support newly conceived expeditionary forces in far-flung regions of the world. 

The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, wasted no time forming planning groups to get the process underway last spring. 

But he said even before deliberations began that transport helicopters and replacements for the military's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which are more than 40 years old, are must-haves. 

Hutchison said the army and air force have been working closely on the requirements for a heavy-lift helicopter and are looking at four main options - Sikorsky's S-92 and H-53 and Boeing's Chinook, either new or used. 

Planners are drafting requirements, describing the conditions in which the new choppers will have to operate - hot, dusty, high altitudes - and the jobs it will have to do - move troops and equipment around war zones. 

Three years ago, Canadian fighting troops in Afghanistan had to rely on U.S. helicopters for transport and resupply. They often found themselves at or near the bottom of the Americans' priority lists.


----------



## geo (4 Nov 2005)

Somewhat more galling is the fact that with the PRTs in Kandahar, Canada may end up depending on heavy lift helicopters from the Netherlands...

Hmmm... I wonder if their cheque cleared?


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Somewhat more galling is the fact that with the PRTs in Kandahar, Canada may end up depending on heavy lift helicopters from the Netherlands...
> 
> Hmmm... I wonder if their cheque cleared?



Nope...Dutchies are up North in Balkh (Mazar-e-Sharif's province)...ISAF territory, not down in CJTF 76 - RC(S).  'hook support is US from TF Storm in KAF.

For the record, the Dutch bought an additional nine -D's after upgrading our seven C+'s, taking their number up to 16, and they're getting 5 new F-models shortly.  One of them just had a "hard landing" out here a few days ago...ripped off one or two main mounts...ooops!

Personally, I would like to see us borrow some Chinook D-models while we wait for the production line to spit G-models out for us in a few years time.  That way I could get back here within a year or so and start flying TF 3-06 around here -- TF 1-06 is going to have to do without seeing my poop-eating grin in the cockpit.  :-[

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2005)

This from the Boeing "Chinook News" Site:





> Lot 1 was completed in May. Since then, our Philadelphia facility has delivered MH-47G Special Operations Heavy Assault Chinooks for the U.S. Army at a rate of two each month to meet the call for 16 aircraft by the end of the year.


 http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/chinooknews/2005-09.pdf
This from the FAS site:


> The Fatcow is a CH-47 with the Extended Range Fuel System [ERFS] II system located in the cargo bay. The configuration consists of three or four fuel tanks attached to a refueling system. The system contains 2400 gallons of JP4/8 excluding the CH-47 internal fuel load of 1050 gals. The Fatcow can set up a 1,2,3,or 4 point system using HTARS. The fuel cells must be crash-worthy and self sealing up to 50 caliber hits.
> 
> The The Improved Cargo Helicopter (ICH) is a remanufactured version of the CH-47D Chinook cargo helicopter with the new T55-GA-714A engines. The ICH program is intended to restore CH-47D airframes to their original condition and extend the aircraft's life expectancy another 20 years (total life of 60 years) until the 2025-2030 timeframe. The program will remanufacture CH-47 aircraft, reduce the aircraft's vibration, thereby reducing Operations and Support costs, and allow the aircraft to operate on the digitized battlefield by incorporating a 1553 data bus. The ICH will also acquire the capability to carry 16,000 pounds of external/internal cargo for a 50 NM combat radius at 4000 feet pressure altitude and 95 degrees fahrenheit. In addition, the following improvements will be incorporated into the aircraft:



So, which is more desirable for the CF?  Or should we be looking at more than one variant, to support JTF and JAFT tasks?


----------



## geo (4 Nov 2005)

Logic would dictate that, if most parts are compatible, we get some Fs (or by then Gs) and some specials for the JATF


----------



## Jantor (4 Nov 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Nope...Dutchies are up North in Balkh (Mazar-e-Sharif's province)...ISAF territory, not down in CJTF 76 - RC(S).   'hook support is US from TF Storm in KAF.
> 
> For the record, the Dutch bought an additional nine -D's after upgrading our seven C+'s, taking their number up to 16, and they're getting 5 new F-models shortly.   One of them just had a "hard landing" out here a few days ago...ripped off one or two main mounts...ooops!
> 
> ...




Here's some pictures of that hard landing by that Dutch Chinook

http://blog.siegnet.us/dutch/index.htm

Buz


----------



## PViddy (5 Nov 2005)

Ouch.

So would that be one of our old birds ?

PV


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Nov 2005)

Apparently, the Dutch Col I was talking to was a little guarded about the damage...I interpreted "tore rear landing gear somewhat" to mean something else than this... 

From the link above...






I can't see the regristration number so I cant tell if it was one of ours or not...I'll let you know if I get any more gen from the Dutchies over here.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2005)

Hmmm.... hard landing is right...... Whoa!..... this guy takes the prize for the understatement of the year.


Then again, any landing you can walk away from is a good one.
(might not do much for your career but.....)


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Nov 2005)

Geo, look at all the pics at the link above and folks should appreciate how intact the Chinook actually stayed.  All the systems worked as designed - break-away, self-sealing fuel tanks did exactly that.  That the rotors stayed on and didn't strike the fuselage is amazing.  These guys were fortunate...could have (and has been in the past) a lot worse.  Still working on the info side of things...anecdotally, I'd be interested to know if this was one of ours that I flew in the v.early 90's.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Jungle (5 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Then again, any landing you can walk away from is a good one.


I think that applies better to Parachuting...   
That's quite a job he did on that airframe... Duey, a quick assessment: is it possible they can repair that kind of damage ?


----------



## PViddy (5 Nov 2005)

Weld it up into a mini sub....... ;D
But seriously, that's also what i got from the pics, the fusilage and crew area are totally uncompromised.  i would be a fan of getting the chinook again, new ones though.

cheers

PV


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Nov 2005)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I think that applies better to Parachuting...
> That's quite a job he did on that airframe... Duey, a quick assessment: is it possible they can repair that kind of damage ?



Yes, without question...the going joke in the helo world is that so long as they have the aircraft data plate, they can "rebuild" anything.  This one looks bad, is bad, but can be repaired.  It will probably take about 2 months at Boing Vertol in Philadelphia to get this one running again.  Looks like about $3-5M of damage...mostly the formers and stringers in the aft fuselage and I suspect there will be damage in the fwd and aft pylons as well...the aft pylon where it is connected onto the upper stringers of the rear fuselage is a place where stress and strain will result in noticable damage.

After that, send it out for a four-wheel alignment and she's good to go!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2005)

from what I could see on the Boeing site and some US Mil sites, most Chinooks made, excluding those lost in combat are pretty much still up in the air & flying.
Testament to some good design features.


----------



## PMars (13 Nov 2005)

The Chinook is now being proposed for the USAF CSAR competition which is for around 144 units. They have removed the speed requirement from CSAR but Boeing is planning to do a general clean up to get a few more knots out of the machine. That would bring it up to, what, HH-47K variant? They are also doing some work on the rear pylon and rotors so that the aircraft could be loaded into C-5 and maybe even C-17 for transport into theatre.

Gen. Hillier has the right idea to get our order in ASAP or we may be so far back in the line that the 'Hook may not be a viable option. What would be a good idea would be to get a few used machines so that we could get a running start of training, etc. This is an approach the RNZAF used for their Sea Sprites. They got a few used USN machines to do training on and then used the older machines for parts when their new birds arrived. We could do something similar or even retain the used machines in an OTU (with a sim of course) after our new ones arrive.


----------



## Gobsmacked (13 Nov 2005)

PMars said:
			
		

> 1. The Chinook. . . Boeing is . . . also doing some work on the rear pylon and rotors so that the aircraft could be loaded into C-5 and maybe even C-17 for transport into theatre.
> 2. What would be a good idea would be to get a few used machines so that we could get a running start of training, etc. This is an approach the RNZAF used for their Sea Sprites. They got a few used USN machines to do training on
> 3. and then used the older machines for parts when their new birds arrived. We could do something similar or even retain the used machines in an OTU (with a sim of course) after our new ones arrive.



PMars, I've broken your statement into points to reply.
As a fellow Albertan (myself I'm from Edmontonchuk), I would hope you would know better.

1. FYI - There are numerous Pulblicly Available sources (try web search or read some pubs like 'Air International, Air Forces Monthly or Flight International' to name a few), as well as the USAF News page or monthly AF online magazine, that have noted that: 
USAF has been lifting CH-47s for years.     2 per C-5 and 1 per C-17.

2. IMHO - I AGREE - BUT on LOAN BASIS ONLY FOR INITIAL TRG UNTILL CH-47F DELIVERY, lets the pilots/maintainers get back up to speed.

3. As for OTU - I'll leave this comment up to the AF types to debunk - due to different logistical tail and requirement to have both CH-47D and CH-47F pilots qualified. I think the training system is already stressed enough as is.  It is also the 'exact' same argument being made by the CAF for Arcturus disposal (although a mini-AIMP as I've argued for, various places, would minimize differences - but unfortunately it seems likely too late already   :'(  with one already consigned to maintenance trg)..

As for parts, I'm betting that the CH-47F is almost a Like New aircraft other than Airframe commonalities - although even this is simplified for both parts manufacture/maintenance with the F.
_"The new version of the Chinook features a modern 'glass cockpit' avionics suite, in which computer displays replace the more traditional 'steam gauges' seen on traditional control panels. 
Col William T. Crosby, project manager Cargo Helicopter, said . . . many of the new airframes interior formers and load bearing members are machined in one piece, much stronger than those used in the original airframes, which were built of numerous pieces riveted together.  Crosby said the changes amount to a 50 to 60 percent reduction in part numbers for some components.

The new Chinook is also easier to prepare for loading onto a large cargo aircraft, Sgt. 1st Class Gary Newton said.  The new Chinook is also easier to prepare for loading onto a large cargo aircraft, Newton said.   'Our time to load on, say, a C-5 Galaxy has been cut in about half,' he said. 'It also decreases the time for unloading at the other end.' "_


This also leads me to another important point ballyhooded about in other threads - *the 'much touted' C-130J vs C-130E/H Commonality - THIS SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.*
   :fifty:
This is a fallacy which LMC in their Kanata Ont office - that I'm betting is in the riding of a Liberal Cabinet Minister? - is happy to keep floating about.    >
Even the AF noted, when the FSA program was actually still running before Political Cancellation, that the _'Only Reason the C-130J was being considered was due to Extreme Political Pressure as it was Not Suitalble to the FSA requirement for Outsize/Oversize Strategic airlift'_ - which is what Canada needs to get its troops/equipment anywhere (always overseas).    :argument:

As noted by Senior USAF Officers, including a former Commander of AMC, _"*the C-130J is basically a 70% - 80%* _(two similar quotes)_ *New airplane*"_.  This has also been acknowledged in CAF reports that are available by ATI.  Other than basic airframe parts, the main up-front cost savings available from the C-130J - vs A400M or C-17 or BC-17X - is that the same hangers can be utilized without modification or new construction being required.   :tsktsk:


----------



## aesop081 (13 Nov 2005)

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> (although a mini-AIMP as I've argued for,



If you had any concept of the fiasco that the CP-140 AIMP currently is, you would not be advocating anything similar.


----------



## Gobsmacked (13 Nov 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> If you had any concept of the fiasco that the CP-140 AIMP currently is, you would not be advocating anything similar.



I never said I agreed with the long-drawn-out AIMP process or the cut-back to just 16 AIMP'd Aurora, from 18 Aurora and 3 Arcturus.  Nor the limited availability of airframes during the AIMP.  Let alone the law suits, etc.   :-\

So, as you are in the business:
ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE OK WITH JUST 16 AURORA?
ARE YOU ADVOCATING WE SIGN ON TO THE OH-SO-WELL-MANAGED MRA4  PROGRAM IN THE UK?
OR DO WE SUDDENLY HAVE $$$Billions TO SIGN ONTO THE US LRPA FOR NEW PRODUCTION BOEING JETS?

OR DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION THAT FITS WITHIN DND's CONSTRAINED BACK-LOADED BUDGET???


----------



## aesop081 (13 Nov 2005)

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE OK WITH JUST 16 AURORA?



No iam not ok with that.   The original 18 were too few to begin with.   The loss of the Arcturus will result in more airframe hours on the Auroras and less availability as we will have to rely on the Auroras for PPF/LPPF.[/quote]



> ARE YOU ADVOCATING WE SIGN ON TO THE OH-SO-WELL-MANAGED MRA4   PROGRAM IN THE UK?



I'm well aware of whats going on with the Nimrod MR4.   Lots to do with missmanagent and political interferance.



> OR DO WE SUDDENLY HAVE $$$Billions TO SIGN ONTO THE US LRPA FOR NEW PRODUCTION BOEING JETS?



The MMA is a realistic project to bring MPA/ASW into the 21st century. The problem with the Aurora was its uniqueness.   While other users of the P-3C series have benefited from US upgrades, we did not as we were the sole operators of the CP-140.   I'm certain that purchassing the MMA in conjuntion with the US is one of our best options.   As the US feilds and upgrades the MMA, we would benefit in the long-term from using the same aircraft and systems.   Simple fact, IMHO, is that MP aircraft are of vital importance to Canada's security and should not have been payed ip service.   The US will be buying large numbers of the new MMA, economies of scale......




> OR DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION THAT FITS WITHIN DND's CONSTRAINED BACK-LOADED BUDGET???



Better solution ?   One must simply take a look at what the RNZAF was able to acheive with the P-3K2.   
Even if we had simply designed a complete update package for the CP-140, with fully intergrated systems, and send aircraft for complete upgrade.   Instead we decided to phase it in over 20 years, resulting in a fleet which will be smaller than when its started, in a constant stae of flux and in more demand than ever before.

Of course the best solution would have been to upgrade the aircraft over the course of the last 20 years instead of trying to do everything all at once.   Of course now we are faced with the fact that not oly the missin systems are obsolete but the airframe will soon require major work to keep it flying until...what was it......2025 ?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Nov 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> No iam not ok with that.   The original 18 were too few to begin with.   The loss of the Arcturus will result in more airframe hours on the Auroras and less availability as we will have to rely on the Auroras for PPF/LPPF.
> 
> I'm well aware of whats going on with the Nimrod MR4.   Lots to do with missmanagent and political interferance.
> 
> ...


Just as a side note, I believe the Japanese are reducing their P-3 fleet dramatically and we could pick up airframes there if there is a desire to do so....



Matthew.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Nov 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just as a side note, I believe the Japanese are reducing their P-3 fleet dramatically and we could pick up airframes there if there is a desire to do so....
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew.



You might want to re-think that one for a second....

Their aircraft are of the P-3C incarnation.  The AIMP, however missguided, was planned around the CP-140....a completely different beast  !!  If we were to pick up used P-3Cs from the JMSDF we would have to undergo a different process to bring them into line with post-AIMP CP-140s.  This would be both complex and costly and, IMHO, prohibitive.  Even if you were to completely gut out the Jap P-3Cs, you have a serious nightmare on you hands.  Post-AIMP CP-140s will have a mix of old systems and new ones.  Like i said before, the underlying flaw in the CP-140 design is that it is unique. We cannot simply apply AIMP to any other aircraft but our own. We would end up with two very different variants, adding to our current maintenance issues and creating new training issues ( trust me i have enought stuff to know as it is without adding another fleet to my plate).


----------



## Gobsmacked (25 Nov 2005)

Many thanx Aesop81,  i figured if i nudged hard enough I'd get a good response.  :cheers:

But, we both know that - barring a miracle or a Conservative Majority, with the Fiberals in power their constant promises have often come to naught - MMA is but a pipe dream in the CF's fiscally constrained environment.

BTW, you do remember that the NZ P-3K upgrade is resulting in a Surface Surveillance Only aircraft - ASW capabilities removed or non-functional due to ancient technology.


----------



## beenthere (30 Dec 2005)

Regarding the hooker that did a hard landing. Absolutely amazing that the drive system remained intact. Had it done otherwise the helicopter would have beaten itself to bits. 
My opinion in regards to rebuilding is no. 
As for the structural integrity of Chinooks: Unless there has been something changed from when we had them in the past they aren't so good but the overall helicopter is great. It is without a doubt the best choice for a transport and our only possible mistake would be to by too few of them. They do have a tendency to crash and the procurement numbers should reflect that issue. There's only one thing worse than not having any of them and that's the embarrassment of only having a few.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2005)

Beenthere, quite right!  Amazing the rotor dynamics survived as they did!  Interestingly, things have changed since we operated our CH147s.  Fuselage formers on F and G models are now machined from monolithic pieces, not rivited together from several pieces into a single former.  The result is upward of 40% increase in stiffness and flexure modulus as well as increased load limit performance.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (30 Dec 2005)

That's good. When I flew on them I could watch the huck rivets at the fuselage splices spinning in their holes and the side windows on the port side blew out in flight.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2005)

beenthere said:
			
		

> That's good. When I flew on them I could watch the huck rivets at the fuselage splices spinning in their holes and the side windows on the port side blew out in flight.



Yup...24,000 lbs on the hook would make the lower skin look like a drum head and the upper fuselage look like Joan Rivers' a$$!  ;D

Cheers
Duey


----------



## beenthere (30 Dec 2005)

It's a fact. The windows blew out regularily-until we made better ones.


----------

