# Chinook named as intended purchase through PWGSC Advance Contract Award Notice



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2006)

http://MERX ACAN Listings - PW-TALC-002-13708...

Other vendors have 30 days to state intent to contest the ACAN.

Cheers,
Duey

_* fixed link*_


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (5 Jul 2006)

C-17 is up too...  ;D


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

The Chinook link is ratty... here is the basic data: Highlighting is mine

Medium to Heavy Lift Helicopter (MHLH)

Trade Agreement: NONE
Tendering Procedures: All interested suppliers may submit a bid
Attachment: None
Non-Competitive Procurement Strategy: National Security
Consideration
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
Vendor Name and Address:
THE BOEING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 16858 MC P1-43
PHILADELPHIA Pennsylvania
United States
19142-0858
Nature of Requirements:
Medium to Heavy Lift Helicopters (MHLHs)

File Number: W8475-06-HL01/A

1.    An Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN)

An Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) allows departments and
agencies to post a notice, for no less than fifteen (15)
calendar days, indicating to the supplier community that it
intends to award a good, service or construction contract to a
pre-identified contractor. In this case the ACAN will be posted
for 30 calendar days. If no other supplier submits, on or before
the closing date, a detailed Statement of Capabilities that
meets the requirements set out in the ACAN, the contracting
authority may then proceed with the award. However, should a
Statement of Capabilities be found to meet the requirements set
out in the ACAN, then the contracting officer will proceed to a
full tendering process.

2.    Requirement:

The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement to
procure a minimum of sixteen (16) new MHLHs and their long-term
in-service support that covers a period of 20 years with options
to be exercised at Canada's sole discretion, to extend for the
life of the helicopters.

You are hereby notified that the Crown intends to solicit a bid
for the above requirement and negotiate a contract with The
Boeing Company, the only known source of supply capable of
meeting the high level mandatory capability requirements.

There will be a requirement to provide Canadian Industrial
Benefits equivalent to 100 percent of the contract value.
The high level mandatory capability requirements are listed
below. Suppliers, in addition to submitting a statement of
capabilities, shall be prepared to demonstrate that their
proposed aircraft meets the high level mandatory capability
requirements through a Test Flight if so requested by Canada.

HIGH LEVEL - MANDATORY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS

The helicopter must provide the capability for the safe and
effective movement of personnel and equipment in all CF
operating environments. The aircraft must meet mandatory
requirements in the following areas:

Internal Lift: Cabin space to accommodate an infantry platoon
(30 soldiers) with full combat equipment including weapons, body
armour, rucksacks, rations and communications (4,763 kg);

External Lift: Lift multiple loads, including a Light Weight
Field Howitzer and associated equipment (a minimum of 5,443 kg);

Range: Flying endurance to ensure a relevant radius of
operation (a minimum of 100 km) with either the internal or
external load described above and at the temperature and
altitude described below to effectively cover CF tactical areas
of responsibility;

Temperature and Altitude: Power and endurance to accomplish the
lift and range parameters defined above, at altitudes and
temperatures found in the most likely CF theatres of operations
(1,220 m above sea level and 35 degrees Celsius);

Certification: Aircraft must be certified to aviation
certification standards recognized by Canada by the contract
award date;

Fleet Size: Minimum fleet of 16 aircraft, sufficient to sustain
a minimum of three deployed helicopters in addition to
maintenance, test and evaluation, and training at two main
operating bases; and

Delivery: Delivery date of first aircraft to be no later than
36 months after contract award and final aircraft delivery no
later than 60 months after contract award.
3.    Trade Agreements:

The following Trade Agreements are applicable:
Trade Agreement    Yes    No
Comprehensive Land Claims Agreement (CLCA)        X
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)        X
World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement
(WTO-AGP)        X
Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)        X
Set aside under the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal
Business        X

Note: This procurement is exempt from the Agreement on Internal
Trade as the National Security Exception was invoked.

4.     Government Contract Regulations and Limited Tendering
Reason:

Research indicates that the Boeing CH-47 Chinook is the only
aircraft that meets the high level mandatory capability
requirements above. Therefore, in accordance with the Government
Contract Regulations (GCR) exception, Part 1, Section 6, (d)
only one person or firm is believe to be capable of performing
the contract.


5.    Period of contract and/or Delivery date:

It is anticipated that a Contract be awarded by July 2007.
Delivery is expected to commence no later than 36 months after
contract award.
6.     Proposed Contractor:

Name:     The Boeing Company
Address:    P.O. Box 16858 MC P1-43, Philadelphia PA, 19142-0858,
USA.

7.    Statement of Capabilities:

Suppliers who consider themselves fully qualified and available
to provide the goods/services described herein, may submit a
statement of capabilities in writing to the contact person
identified in this Notice on or before the closing date of this
Notice. The statement of capabilities must clearly demonstrate
how the supplier meets the advertised requirements.

Suppliers that have submitted a statement of capabilities will
be notified in writing of PWGSC's decision whether or not to
continue with the aforementioned procurement or to open the
requirement for competition.

8.    Closing Date for a submission of a statement of capabilities:

4 August 2006.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&State=7&id=PW-TALC-002-13708&hcode=ZWzGe9lyvc4xw%2beDiyvNYw%3d%3d...
> 
> Other vendors have 30 days to state intent to contest the ACAN.
> 
> ...



Duey didn't you fly one of those things once???
Didn't they have the nick name...."the flying pig?" 
Why is that??? and would you fly em again????
Saw some of the guys in Pet on ex in 91 in the field...I think it was their last ex....they flew in from Ottawa to help us (ha ha). They were pretty choked about losing their birds. :rage:


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Duey didn't you fly one of those things once???
> Didn't they have the nick name...."the flying pig?"
> Why is that??? and would you fly em again????
> Saw some of the guys in Pet on ex in 91 in the field...I think it was their last ex....they flew in from Ottawa to help us (ha ha). They were pretty choked about losing their birds. :rage:



In Hoc, yup...it was more an inside joke name to those of us that flew her...almost 10,000 shp kicking butt in a machine that was surprisingly agile when you needed it to be (for something that can weigh more than a fully loaded LAV racing around at 275+ km/h).

p.s. That was me up in Pet in '91...I loved working with the SSF!  

RAF HC.2 Chinook at Biggin Hill airshow - good demo of cap
F Coy, 131st Avn Regt (good tunage, worksafe, nothing seen to warrant youtube login...)
CH-47D tactical landing - OIF (brown-out landing conditions on short final, good stick!)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (6 Jul 2006)

Aviators often refer to their aircraft in less than endearing terms to show fondness for them. It's just one of those little quirks practised by people who have learned that their aircraft can sometimes become through no great fault of their own a bit stubborn and hesitant to take to the air just at the time that they are expected to perform at their best. Apart from the Pig Boat Chinook my favourite member of the swine family has been the Herkey Pig. 
However the crew members of these hogs don't like people who without a good working knowledge of the swine of the skies using animal references when speaking of their riveted friends and have been known to treat passengers who use such references to a demonstration of the effects of flying fast and low in the most turbulent air with the air conditioning system cranked up to produce more heat than anyone had ever thought was possible.  > ;D :nana:


----------



## HollywoodHitman (6 Jul 2006)

Anyone have the c-17 link?


----------



## beenthere (6 Jul 2006)

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/video/Ground_Resonance_Rear_View.mpg
Now this hooker is being a real pig.


----------



## geo (6 Jul 2006)

Any contender would have to participate in a fly off demonstration of capabilities.
At this time, I believe that the Russians would be the only suppliers of Helos that can carry a rifle platoon of 30 with kit & body armour.... but I see that they only intend to ink the deal  some 12 months from now..........

5)  Period of contract and/or Delivery date:

It is anticipated that a Contract be awarded by July 2007.
Delivery is expected to commence no later than 36 months after
contract award.


----------



## kj_gully (6 Jul 2006)

How about painting Cormorants green and giving Chinooks to SAR?  ;D. The EH 101 meets the spec, marginally, I believe.  http://www.agustawestland.com/products01_02.asp?id_product=7&id=7


----------



## geo (6 Jul 2006)

not for 30 troops it doesn't

Regardles of what the brochure says. 
If it really did.... why would the Brits still be flying the Chinook?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Jul 2006)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Anyone have the c-17 link?



http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&State=7&id=PW-%24SSC-004-13706&hcode=lZi0smL%2fmio4eGxwwqDpfg%3d%3d


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Jul 2006)

i really hope we get the chinooks and don't give them up until like 2030 or something


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2006)

In the C-17 bid

4.     Government Contract Regulations and Limited Tendering
Reason:

Research indicates that the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III is the
only aircraft that meets the technical mandatory requirements
above. Therefore, in accordance with the Government Contract
Regulations (GCR) exception, Part 1, Section 6, (d) only one
person or firm is believed to be capable of performing the
contract.

5.    Period of contract and/or Delivery date:

It is anticipated that a Contract will be awarded by March 2007.
Delivery is expected to commence no later than 18 months after
contract award.

6.     Proposed Contractor:

Name:     The Boeing Company


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Jul 2006)

Duey,

The sun is really beginning to shine on you and your unnatural, intermeshing main rotor blade brethren   

The sooner Chinooks on the ramp, the better.

What is the 1 Wing skinny- rerole a Griffon Sqn or stand up new ones?

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jul 2006)

SKT, haven't heard...the decision is pretty high level...I'll likely be flying a black helo inserting "the wind" before it's sorted out..dang, now I have to refresh myself on the 146 AOIs before the 147A...  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> SKT, haven't heard...the decision is pretty high level...I'll likely be flying a black helo inserting "the wind" before it's sorted out..dang, now I have to refresh myself on the 146 AOIs before the 147A...
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



Wouldn't they reactivate the old squadrons?


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jul 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Wouldn't they reactivate the old squadrons?



In Hoc, not necessarily.  I have heard some discussion about "compsite" squadrons, i.e. operating more than one type of aircraft.  The biggest problem with entirely new squadrons is the PY "overhead" (HQs, etc... of a separate sqn) associated with an additional organization.  Notwithstanding increases to pers levels, things are still tight at the PY coal face...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> In Hoc, not necessarily.  I have heard some discussion about "compsite" squadrons, i.e. operating more than one type of aircraft.  The biggest problem with entirely new squadrons is the PY "overhead" (HQs, etc... of a separate sqn) associated with an additional organization.  Notwithstanding increases to pers levels, things are still tight at the PY coal face...
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



Ah seen...but didn't they have them all co-located centrally...thus Ottawa so they could save money on maintenance etc. That way they could serve Valcartier and Petawawa?
I mean if they put some in Pet and some in Val and some in Edmonton they are going to have to seriously build some hanger space.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jul 2006)

Ottawa's Hangar Lines are all gone.


----------



## beenthere (6 Jul 2006)

If they spread them out all over the country they won't provide much service to anyone. If there are 16 to begin with any less than 8 per location would be ineffective. Unless there was one Sqn. with  maybe 11 and it also served as the OTU and maintenance facility and the Sqn. with 5 was strictly operational without the training and maintenance burden. If anyone thinks that locating them with an already established light helicopter sqn. would be beneficial they can't be aware of the vast difference between providing support for the little sports models and the 18 wheelers. There is no commonality between the Griffon's and Chinooks and technical folks would never learn the Chinook and Griffon well enough to to be employed on both at the same time without causing more problems than they fix because of inexperience.
Also even in a newly established Sqn. with nothing but Chinooks the learning process is going to be long and slow so the availability rate of aircraft will be very low for a considerable time. It will take years to create the experience level necessary for operators and maintainers to make the operation viable.


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2006)

Would it be feasible for a service group (size ukn??) to OJT'd the an American outfit for a suitable period of time to gain initial experience?


----------



## beenthere (7 Jul 2006)

Other factors. Support equipment such as work stands,hydraulic test equipment , ground power units,  electronic test equipment ,engine test & run up facilities, and all of the other support equipment are expensive and require trained and qualified personnel to operate and maintain them. It's all sophisticated and has to be maintained to the same level as the aircraft themselves. On a location like Pettawawa the light helicopters have a small number of support items and the Sqn. looks after their own items. On an air base which has a fleet of support equipment there is a facility that is dedicated to servicing and maintaining the support equipment. The staff are all aircraft maintenance technicians and have to become qualified on maintenance procedures. Faulty test equipment can damage or destroy aircraft. The Chinook is a hydraulic pig which requires hydraulic test stands for many maintenance procedures and with 8 Chinooks it would not be unrealistic to require 5 test stands considering that out of the 5 only 4 would be serviceable at any given time.
Spare parts are consumed at unbelievable levels by teams of inexperienced technicians who resort to changing most of the components in a system in a poorly directed effort to fix something that they don't understand. If the spares are located half way across the country they will not be available for todays efforts so they will take parts off other aircraft resulting in two aircraft being out of service rather than one. If they suspect that a component is unserviceable it will be sent to a contractor for a $20,000 checkup and will be out of the system for months resulting in shortages. 
New, large, hard to manoeuvre aircraft have a way of finding themselves being turned into tree cutters or end up landing on tree stumps,rocks and fire hydrants which punch huge holes in the undersides and require weeks of work by several machinists and metal technicians to replace the broken ribs and skin. I would guess that all of  the Sqns. that operate Griffons would not have enough metal techs among them to do one serious repair job on a Chinook. Every air base has a metals and refinishing shop dedicated to this kind of work. To equip such a shop is probably almost as expensive as buying a Chinook and requires about 50 highly trained people who do metalworking, machinist work, painting, aircraft welding, composites repair and all of the other material fabrication and repair specialities required to support a fleet of aircraft.
Another specialty is non destructive testing (NDT)which involves non invasive techniques to discover cracks in airframe components. The bigger and higher stressed aircraft and in particular heavy helicopters no matter how well designed and built they may be are susceptible to developing cracks in highly stressed areas and in areas subject to vibration and virtually every aircraft has to have periodic X-Rays or other tests to discover new cracks and to monitor the growth of old ones. I don't know the present location of NDT facilities but I suspect that most or all of them are located on air bases where they do regular inspections and respond immediately if something that looks suspicious shows up during regular flight line operational inspections. They make off base calls but if you're located in Petawawa or Valcartier you may wait for a couple of days to have that suspicious looking blotch on a transmission mount checked out.
My opinion is that the Chinook is a large and sophisticated  aircraft in comparison to the Griffon and that it requires a lot more of everything in the way of support and that it would be at a great disadvantage if it were located in an environment without the necessary support facilities.
My opinion is based on several years of experience of first maintaining CH-113A helicopters and later flying on them as a Flight Engineer and on their replacement the CH-147 Chinook as a Flight Engineer and lastly on CC-130s. 
Obtaining the aircraft is only one first step. They will require a lot of care and feeding over their lifetime which I suspect will span many decades and where they operate from will have a huge impact on the service that they will provide. If they are based where they can get the support that they demand they will serve accordingly.


----------



## beenthere (7 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Would it be feasible for a service group (size ukn??) to OJT'd the an American outfit for a suitable period of time to gain initial experience?


Something like that was done when we bought our first Chinooks and not much of value resulted. A crew and a group of technicians from Edmonton spent some time in Alaska with a Chinook unit and came back having learned little of any value. From what I recall their operation is considerably different or at least it was at that time and their aircraft weren't flown very much and if one was unserviceable the time between a technical problem occurring and when they decided to fix it was so long that it was hard to follow up on what they did to rectify a problem. 
Things may have changed since then but that would only be speculation. I was on a crew that accepted one of our Chinooks from New Cumberland Army Depot in Pennsylvania and encountered a rather different attitude than what we are used to. If the aircraft isn't serviceable for the flight that was planned for today it could be a couple of days before anything is done to fix it. We just got back into our rental cars and toured the state. Eventually we'd get a call at the hotel advising us that the aircraft would be ready for another try in a day or two. Any attempts to learn how they rectified problems were met with indifference and the people who we signed the aircraft out from didn't even know the people who do the maintenance.
The organization seemed just like a whole army of its own and everyone just worked on orders and didn't know what happened outside of their own little component.


----------



## DocBacon (7 Jul 2006)

For some unknown reason, military (yes, that includes Canada's) aircraft maintainers seem to require more time to maintain an aircraft than their civvy counterparts.  I cite the current fleet of SeaPigs, doomed to extinction in the military fleet due to obsolescence while their civvy brethren chug along with many more airframe hours and pulling heavier and more frequent loads (logging).

My point is that perhaps a different approach to maintenance, utilizing more non-milspec techs, could improve dispatch rates and steepen the learning curve for the CF crews.

After all, those ex-CF Tandem-pig crews went somewhere.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jul 2006)

DocBacon said:
			
		

> For some unknown reason, military (yes, that includes Canada's) aircraft maintainers seem to require more time to maintain an aircraft than their civvy counterparts.  I cite the current fleet of SeaPigs, doomed to extinction in the military fleet due to obsolescence while their civvy brethren chug along with many more airframe hours and pulling heavier and more frequent loads (logging).
> 
> My point is that perhaps a different approach to maintenance, utilizing more non-milspec techs, could improve dispatch rates and steepen the learning curve for the CF crews.
> 
> After all, those ex-CF Tandem-pig crews went somewhere.



Military flying and civy flying are 2 very different beast.  In the case of the sea kings and your logging choppers, consider that flying from a ship over the north atlantic at low altitude and i shitty weather will have more of a deteriorating effect on an aircraft than lifting logs all day.  For example, an Aurora may only have 21 000 hours but i guaratee most of that is done at 300 feet over a sea state 6 being bounced around like exploding popcorn......find me a civie plane that takes a beating like that and see how long it lasts.


----------



## DocBacon (7 Jul 2006)

Actually, I do understand the difference between military and civvy flight ops, as well as the difference between rotary and fixed wing flying machines.  As well, I have (dated) experience with nap-of-the-earth flying in 10Tag's old aircraft and with maintaining medium-lift heli's in civvy ops.

Maintenance is not magic: the old S61's logging the big sticks off the coastal ranges are working harder that the SeaPigs ever have, for longer hours, and with higher dispatch rates.  They fly in the same salt-laden air (often staging off barges) and pull max loads up and down the mountains in all but the worst weather.  Only when landing do the 'Pigs have it worst: nobody beartraps a 61 to the deck.

Again: my point is that there is a pool of expertise out there if the CF doesn't insist that the tool on the end of the wrench is green (or blue, whatever).  If the maintenance crew and maintenance practices are not changed the results won't either.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jul 2006)

DocBacon said:
			
		

> if the CF doesn't insist that the tool on the end of the wrench is green (or blue, whatever).  .



The maintainers are green because the machines are not always flying here in the relative safety of the Canadian landmass.  The CH-149 is maintained by civlian contractor because its a national SAR bird and doesnt deploy anywhere.  If the Chinooks are going to the Ghan...we dont need civy techs out there fixing our machines.


----------



## beenthere (7 Jul 2006)

I know one guy who spent a year in Iraq on contract maintaining US Chinooks and many who worked on contract maintaining Saudi Hercs. I was there for a while as well but not on the maintenance side. They have lots of contractors flying their aircraft.
The military actually go out of their way inventing more maintenance rather than streamlining it. There used to be a ratio of something like one maintenance officer (AERE?) for every aircraft engine in the Cdn. Forces. They dwell mostly in closets in Ottawa working on new schemes to make themselves invaluable and irreplaceable.
It takes years of "studies" to change the frequency of maintenance functions and by the time they start to streamline the functions they start all over again on reviewing the new plan that they hatched because they are now dealing with aircraft that are getting older and need more frequent maintenance functions. 
Technicians who maintain the aircraft spend several years becoming competent on one particular aircraft type and just when they really get to know the aircraft they get posted to a new base with different aircraft and they start the learning process all over again.
The only thing that is consistent is change.


----------



## GAP (7 Jul 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The maintainers are green because the machines are not always flying here in the relative safety of the Canadian landmass.  The CH-149 is maintained by civilian contractor because its a national SAR bird and doesn't deploy anywhere.  If the Chinooks are going to the Ghan...we don't need civy techs out there fixing our machines.



Is there not US or other chinook maintainers in Kandahar, whether clvi or forces? I should think that a deal could be worked out re: facilities, work, shared duties, etc.  What I have read above kinda sounds right (probably because it is), but it is within the purview of the upper-uppers to either make a deal or setup a dedicated team, give them the resources (if that is the equivalent of a Chinook, so be it) and then demand the type of service you require. 

my 2 cents


----------



## beenthere (7 Jul 2006)

A deployment is a long way down the road at this time. 16 Aircraft  require about 40 crews depending on manning levels and they have to be trained to an operational status which means a lot more than simply being able to fly the aircraft. I would suggest that the whole process will take years considering that in the initial stages aircraft availability will be at the low end as there are no technicians with any experience on Chinooks and there will be lots of downtime for maintenance. 
I don't know how many aircraft would be required to provide support for our contingent but I would speculate that 7 would be a reasonable number considering that from that number it would be possible to have 4 available for use most of the time. Just speculation of course as I have no knowledge of the nature of our operations and they will no doubt be different in the future.


----------



## geo (7 Jul 2006)

Oh well... if we don't have em for this mission......
There'll always be the next one


----------



## h3tacco (7 Jul 2006)

Start thread jack...

Doc Bacon your asseration that S-61 logging helos work harder and are maintained better CF CH-124 is completely unfounded. Civy logging S-61s do not fly in all sorts of weather they fly in VMC weather. Heli-loggin is a VFR evolution I would be greating impressed if someone could conduct those sorts of of evolutions IFR.  The environment they work in is harsh but is not anything near as harsh a what a shipborne helo operates. Heli-logging, even when  basing off a barge in the coastal environment, does not eqaute to the same salt -water environment. CH-124s spend hours every flight low-level and hovering over salt water. Heli-logging is for the most part an overland operation even if they are dropping logs into coastal rivers or seas. Likewise a the harsh environment does not stop for a CH-124 after landing. The aircraft is folded up a stored inside the ship, which continues to move. As the ship moves the CH-124 is constantly strained against its lashings. Ask any of the other Sea King folks what this is like when the rolls get greater than 25 degrees. Furthermore a Heli-logging S-61 is no where near as complex as a CH-124. The S-61 does not have any of the following Radar, sonar, doppler, TACNAV, 1960s UHF and HF radio, ARM't system, Directioning finding  I doubt they have a coupler (though could be wrong), folding head and tail, retractable gear etc While Heli-logging S-61s may have more hours on their airframes they are almost all newer built and the basic equipment they do have is much more modern. While at sea it is not unsual for Sea Kings to fly 12hrs a day and generally when they do break major delays in repair are almost always caused by waiting for replacement parts. When is the last time a Heli-logging S-61 had to wait for a part from litterally around the world to arrive and not to an international airport but to a ship a 100 miles out at sea.  While I am sure Heli-logging techinicians work in difficult conditions I find it hard to believe they work harder, longer, or smarter or in more difficult conditions than CH-124 techs. If you do not believe me then spend a week in 10m seas on a CPF trying to maintain the mighty Sea  Pig.

End thread Jack...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jul 2006)

h3tacco has neatly summed up everything that I was going to say...

end-thread jack.


Chinooks!  Cool....


----------



## childs56 (7 Jul 2006)

You can equate a large majority of Heli logging to what a Tac Hel unit would be subjected to. Lots of work low to the ground in dusty environments. The maintenance for the most part is done either at land based stations located in the bush, on barges in the water or at airports. The latter in carried out very little. 
If the choppers are dumping their loads into the water then they are usually subjected to spray and that. They need to be fairly close to dump the logs, so as to not have them drive into the floor. 
Last time I checked a lot of the companies were running the living day lights out of their choppers. They started them at first light and ran them until  just 1 hour before dark Unless they broke down before hand. This included hot refuels and hot seats. (Not sure they may have stopped that due to DOT).  
Most Heli logging choppers are routinely subjected to max gross loads and high stress from dropping logs.  Although heli logging takes place in VFR conditions only and under light wind conditions. As most know when travelling in the mountains that wind shear can and will be very severe. What conditions at the top of the mountain maybe different then what is at the bottom. 

As for parts and that. Well honestly if we wanted to up grade our Sea Kings and or the Labs we could have. Then most of the parts would have been only a short distance away and new. 
In reality we should be operating in a Carrier convoy that has daily flights into and out of the land based world. This would solve most of the problems associated with parts supply and the difficulties of transporting them long distances at sea.   

I think both Worlds Civie and Military have their points on being hard on their A/C. Whom is harder or better at maintaining them is something to be left up in the air. Both worlds have different standards of what is acceptable or not in their Air Worthiness plans. Fortunately on the civie side things seem to be more black and white in regards to this. Although there are some out their whom buck the system for the most part Civie aviation have more rules to follow and it is harder to circumvent those. 
As opposed to the Military although they maintain air worthiness and adhere to strict maintenance practices, if at any time a problem or a fix is deemed an essential asset then ( what is essential is up to the Local Commander)  they have the authority to waive certain practices with in their guide lines. Not the same as civie side.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Jul 2006)

So if we're going to have 7 in theatre and 9 or so back here it may be in the CFs interest to base them in Trenton where they can be transported (in our C17s?) out to where they are needed. we already have hanger facilities there and we used to maintain the Labs out of there.
Perhaps they will have to deploy to Wainwright when the Task Groups go there to train for the missions etc.
we would be close to where we can get tech support for the Sqn from the industry and we have the capability to expand Trenton's manpower and infrastructure...and we don't have to reinvent the wheel too much...i.e. building new hanger facilities etc.


----------



## geo (7 Jul 2006)

Hangar space is the least of our problems.
After disposing of our expertise in maintaining the beasts, we have to reinvent the wheel and write up new manuals.  This is gonna take time and money, lots of money........
and if the Mfg says the new ones are half as expensive to maintain as the earlier versions.... they've found other ways of making it expensive 

IMHO


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Jul 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Hangar space is the least of our problems.
> After disposing of our expertise in maintaining the beasts, we have to reinvent the wheel and write up new manuals.  This is gonna take time and money, lots of money........
> and if the Mfg says the new ones are half as expensive to maintain as the earlier versions.... they've found other ways of making it expensive
> 
> IMHO



Yeah gotcha....and of course if we do ahead with a BHS we'll probably fly some of them off the ship thus need to either base some in Shearwater or at least be able to have a facility to do preps for them to go on ship after coming from an Air Base somewhere else.


----------



## big bad john (7 Jul 2006)

I thought that this tidbit might be of interest from todays Army Times Early Bird Report:

Boeing May Win $7.3B Contract To Deliver Aircraft 
(Miami Herald, July 6, 2006)
Boeing may win a $7.3 billion order for military aircraft from Canada's government because it may be the only supplier that can meet the country's requirements. The company won an interim notice to supply Canada's military with CH-47 Chinook helicopters and C-17 Globemaster transports. Boeing is the only company that can deliver the aircraft as ordered "in a timely manner," Canada's Public Works Department said in a statement.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Jul 2006)

Any one remember these bad boys??


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Jul 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Any one remember these bad boys??



i just love the motto "By Air to Battle"....and what about this one?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Jul 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> i just love the motto "By Air to Battle"....and what about this one?



Their motto was translated "Always Ready".....this is the squadron we need on the BHS....With the Navy motto of "Ready Aye Ready" and 447 motto "Always Ready" it's a match made in heaven  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Jul 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Any one remember these bad boys??



Yup!

Pics from one of my last op missions -- up to Goose Bay in '91 to drop off targets to the South PTA and supplies to various locations around the area.

By Air to Battle!

Duey


----------



## Scoobs (8 Jul 2006)

beenthere,

we, i.e. AEREs, actually don't dwell in Ottawa dreaming up new schemes to make us invaluable or irreplaceable, although this gave me a good laugh.  Perhaps one bad experience with one AERE has spoiled your opinion of us all?

---------------------------------------

The main reason why the Griffon is hard to maintain is due to the maintenance package that the CF selected when we purchased the aircraft, not due to the techs.  Simply put, the a/c is overmaintained.  Average hours on Griffon in Pet was around 200 to 250 hrs per YEAR!  So, when it came time for the 600 hr/12 month inspection, we were bringing a/c down not because of it being unserviceable or reaching the hour limit, but due to calendar time.  There are reasons why some components are to be replaced due to time, but don't kid yourself, Bell Helicopters makes their money by providing spare parts.  There are alternative maintenance packages that can be followed and that will meet airworthiness requirements, but we rely too heavily on Bell to make decisions for us in regards to what actually belongs on a 600 hr.  Do you think that Bell will want to limit their cashflow?  What it will take is for some hardnose at DAEPM to tell Bell that the maintenance package needs to be redone or we take on the responsibility ourselves, vice relying on Bell for everything (such as NSRs, mods, etc.)

ASD or Alternative Service Delivery, is nice on paper, but in reality has problems.  It is good for static locs where no bullets are wizzing by.  Let me ask you this, is your civy tech going to pick up a rifle and do guard duty?  Is he going to defend the base as it is attacked?  I think we all know the answer to this one.

Reality is that the CF and 1 Wing has very good techs that are more than capable of churning out a/c.  However, don't tie one hand behind our backs by signing some stupid maintenance package that looks good on paper, but in reality doesn't work.

---------------------------------

I was recently in Kingston and visited a certain HQ.  No decisions had been made, but one option included having a Sqn that was actually much larger, in terms of personnel, than a current Tac Hel Sqn.  I didn't catch the rest of the info in regards to whether or not an existing Sqn would be re-roled or a new one stood up.  I'm pretty sure that all options are on the table, including mixing Griffons and Chinooks at a Sqn(s), or phasing out the Griffon completely at the "Chinook" Sqn(s).


----------



## childs56 (8 Jul 2006)

If they are going to base the new Chinooks out of any base I would say Wainwright. it is the manouver base for the CF. Some will argue this point, but most of the future training and work up for the Army is to be carried out there. 
Although it would be nice to have a complement on every Army base that isnt practicle with the amount we are buying. 
16 helicopters, 4 in Wainwright, 6 over seas and the remainder as back ups. 
Wainwright with it's close proximity to the mountains, coast line, praries and the desert conditions in the interior of BC would afford the best solution for training not only the Aircrews but also the troops riding in the back of them. 
With four large airports all with in a few hours flying, Calgary, Edmonton International/ City center, The Garrison in Edmonton, and then Cold lake. Not to mention that Wainwright also has a large airstrip that maybe transformed one day to a paved one if not already. This coupled to the proximity to Suffiled and I think we have a winner for the most strategic place to be for military operations. 

Although Trenton would be nice, they are far away from the manouver training center, The only benifit I can see is the transport fleet is their. For the most part I would  think that any Chinooks bought and sent over seas would be aboard ship. Not sure if the heavy lift A/C can hold a Chopper of that size inside it's cargo bay.

One thing I would like to see though would be for the major training centers to gain A/C including Helo's and even a couple of Hercs to their training compliment. This way the center can be in charge of and responsible for their own assests.


----------



## Scoobs (8 Jul 2006)

CTD,

it wouldn't be possible in terms of expertise, money, etc. to have each major training base have control of their own assets.  They may be farmed out to them via different command relationships, but the overall control would most likely still rest with the unit that was flying the a/c.

Before the loc is picked of where to put the new big-honking-helo, the Army will need to tell the AF what they expect us to do with them.  Then a decision can be reached as to where to place the new helos.  Since 1 Wing usually is the primary supporter for the Army for rotary wing, you can bet that they will be involved in these discussions.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Jul 2006)

Cool pics Duey! What a great machine eh? what do you think of the argument that they should be based in Wainwright?
I wonder if we have the infrastructure there. I mean we can build stuff for the military machines but what about families? Are there enough properties at hand to start posting large numbers of folks out there in addition to the CMTC folks?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2006)

The Wainwright that you may have known is no more.  Well....it has changed a lot.  There is a lot of money being pumped into it.  New facilities, new PMQs, new Quarters, all for the New Training Center.  It will take over many of the things taught or done in Gagetown, freeing up Gagetown to conduct increased training in its main areas of concern.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Wainwright that you may have known is no more.  Well....it has changed a lot.  There is a lot of money being pumped into it.  New facilities, new PMQs, new Quarters, all for the New Training Center.  It will take over many of the things taught or done in Gagetown, freeing up Gagetown to conduct increased training in its main areas of concern.



Hope this doesn't swerve too far off topic, but is LFWA being moved inlight of the primacy of the CMTC in Wainwright?


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It will take over many of the things taught or done in Gagetown, freeing up Gagetown to conduct increased training in its main areas of concern.


Actually, Gagetown will continue with all training it has done except for the Adv TOW course.  All field oriented individual training for officers, as well as individual training for all NCOs and WOs (less PLQ) and some basic trades training will continue to occur in Gagetown.  Wainwright will be the "collective training" fun-zone that will host higher-than-company level training.


Just wanted to clear up any myths.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jul 2006)

Still close enough on track to the initial effort in the thread starter's mind, Infanteer...  

I think you'll see LFWA, and don't forget it has much of the JTF-W command and control functionality as well, stay in Edmonton.  Folks shouldn't confuse an operational training facility with other strategic siting issues.

For aviation, we will be involved in many of the training evolutions that will occur at CMTC, but much as you will never see LdSH or 1 or 3VP or 1 CER move to Wainright, so will you not see 408 (+ whatever org?) move lock stock and barrel to Wainright.  There are other things that aviation related to the "Canada First" aspect than uniquely service to the Army.  That said, don't forget, Buxton DZ is not in Wainright...you guys will be able to do lots of IT/unit trg very near to you home lines.

In Hoc, yup she was fun to fly, that's for sure...for those who haven't flown it, guys will be quite surprized at its capability, especially including manoeuvrability!  Re: Wainright, I think the Western MOB for Chinook is pretty much a question of will 408 provide 146/147A capability as a composite unit, or will there be another unit (447?) stood up to assume the heavy lift role.  Frankly, we need clear direction from higher before we start situating an estimate about bed down options for the fleet.

Where do I see aviation heading, to be honest, there is so much uncertainty about structure specifics that it would be verging towards irresponsible for me to even publicly hazard a guess.  I think this is truly a case of "time will tell"!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (8 Jul 2006)

Duey:That photo of the inside of the hooker brought it all back. All I had to do was break open my old jar of rags that are soaked with jet fuel, oil and hydraulic fluid to add the wonderful smell and I was reborn.


----------



## childs56 (8 Jul 2006)

I have flown in RAF Chinooks and man it was the ride of my life. That Helo gained alot of respect.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> I think you'll see LFWA, and don't forget it has much of the JTF-W command and control functionality as well, stay in Edmonton.  Folks shouldn't confuse an operational training facility with other strategic siting issues.



Merde, there I go mixing up my acronyms again.  Let me try this again.

Hope this doesn't swerve too far off topic, but is *WATC* being moved inlight of the primacy of the CMTC in Wainwright?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Jul 2006)

Were would you move it too, Suffield?


----------



## Gunner (8 Jul 2006)

No discussions to move LFWA TC from Wx. Having said that, it is a relatively minor unit now that the base functions have been split out of her...but Quagmire is correct, where would you move it to?  Dundurn or Shilo?  Suffield isnt' an option.


----------



## beenthere (8 Jul 2006)

Hopefully the location of the new aircraft will be determined using wisdom rather than the winner of a contest over who's toy box they go to. Between federal politics and military politics there's more than enough potential to locate them where they're wanted rather than where they should be and that could have a considerable effect on their effectiveness.
They will certainly require considerable support--probably a lot more than most people realize and since it's been some time since we last operated them probably no one recalls how much of the support came from the bases where they were located. 
As I posted earlier there are many specialities that have to come from established air bases as the units that operate and maintain the aircraft are limited and have to rely on larger than squadron establishments for support.
In past operations there was always a base with support and one of the downsides of the squadrons was an attempt to operate in isolation from the base and try to be self reliant. Fortunately most of the self support proved to be inadequate and the squadrons eventually became more integrated into the structure of the bases with positive results. In a couple of instances it was the base that isolated itself from the squadron but that was just petty politics which also changed with time.
Looking at the big picture the aircraft can deploy to whatever training area that is being used for exercises and the only infrastructure they require is a paved helepad and a hangar.That certainly wouldn't be much in terms of construction and maintenance.


----------



## childs56 (8 Jul 2006)

Well the Airforce is full of politics at all levels. So hopefully they can sway their politicle parties with in and let the best and most employable place receive the Helo's and employ them up to and beyond their abilities,


----------



## civmick (14 Jul 2006)

Could do what the Dutch did with Apache - they got leased 64As to work up on while waiting for the 64D deliveries.  RAF types on PPRuNe recently compared it favourably to the RAF's own "get Westlands to build them and see what happens".

Does the US or Boeing have any stored Chinooks that could be "borrowed"?


----------



## beenthere (14 Jul 2006)

I would suspect that any Chinooks that are in storage are rather tired older models that are earmarked for upgrading to current requirements. 
With the vast difference between what we are getting and older models they wouldn't make good trainers at any rate.We're getting something that's quite sophisticated when compared with the older ones so operating them is a whole new game.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Aug 2006)

Pretty good site on the various models of the Chinook, including the G model.  
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/model_comparison/comparison.html


Surfing around the web pages contained at the link, it seems that Iran is operating at least 45 Chinooks in their army, and about 14 in their air force. In addition, they may have taken delivery of about 14 more from Agusta built under license around 1987. These were apparently built to replace a similar number built for the Shah's air force in the late 70's, but delivered to Egypt in light of the arms embargo in the early 1980's.  Iranian special forces separate and apart from the regular military seem to be operating these aircraft as well. Iran has completely reverse engineered the Chinook, and has access to a good supply of domestically produced spare parts. They have also added local modifications to improve performance and/or adapt to local conditions. 

it would be interesting to know how far they have progressed with reverse engineering the Cobra, and what improvements and adaptations they have made to it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2006)

Both of which I thought I saw in scenes of their war games footage.


----------



## bison33 (22 Aug 2006)

The lastest...as far as 408 goes anyways.....2 Hgr can hold chinooks (folks have been in checking the place out for this) and plan A is for 408 to get up to 8 of these badboys while giving up a few of the griffons...but this will change 6,000 more times before hand, so in the end, who knows? But one thing I do know......JMO here, 428 Sqn should be stood up as a chinook Sqn, it has the baddest heraldic crest
http://www.rcaf.com/squadrons/400series/428squadron.php
I know, not a reason to stand up a Sqn but having a frigging goose on the crest is makes me think I'm an employee of Ducks Unlimited.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Aug 2006)

Very nice, but perhaps should be reserved for the AH were going to get.  Yes wishful thinking.


----------



## bison33 (22 Aug 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Very nice, but perhaps should be reserved for the AH were going to get.  Yes wishful thinking.


I hear ya there Quag........once we have the chinooks, someone is thinking (most likely some young drivers) that we should convert some of the griffons to gunships for escorting the chinooks........near pee'd myself when I heard that...but ya know, I could see our folks looking at this possibility, we have plenty of these birds and it's the Canadian way, modify something it was never designed for.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Aug 2006)

> we have plenty of these birds and it's the Canadian way, modify something it was never designed for.





> In 1986 Bell produced the 412 Attack Helicopter (AH) based on the Bell 412SP. It is armed with a nose-mounted Lucas Aerospace under-nose turret fitted with a 0.50 calibre machine-gun. The gun is slaved into a helmet-mounted sight produced by Sperry and can fire up to 875 rounds of ammunition. The 412AH has a maximum speed of 220kph and can also be armed with air-to-ground rockets.





> Military 412: Announced by Bell June 1986; fitted with Lucas Aerospace chin turret and Honeywell Head Tracker helmet sight similar to that in AH-1S; turret carries 875 rounds, weighs 188kg and can be removed in under 30 minutes; firing arcs ±110° in azimuth, +15° and -45° in elevation; other armament includes twin dual FN Herstal 7.62mm gun pods, single FN Herstal 12.7mm pod, pods of seven or nineteen 70mm rockets, M240E1 pintle-mounted door guns, FN Herstal four-round 70mm rocket launcher and a 12.7mm gun or two Giat M621 20mm cannon pods.



http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/bell_412-r.html

The original "gunships" were Huey UH-1s equipped with weapons.  The AH-1s followed on from there.
The ARH recently bought by the US to replace the Kiowa is a commercial 407 modified and armed.
If the 407 is a suitable candidate as a Recce and Fire Support platform and the USMC is still flying armed UH-1s in addition to their AH-1s (sometimes in the same flight) then why wouldn't a modified and armed 412, which has twice the lift capability of the 407 be a possibility?


----------



## bison33 (22 Aug 2006)

Bad choice of words on my part...should have said "modify it then toss on other stuff making it near useless"

Granted, the 412 *IF* only modified as a gunship, would probably be a great platform. That means no mission kits (ie, no flir, searchlight, hoist, external tanks). But for a second do you think Canada would modify 412's with say, a chin mounted turret gun and perhaps some crv's would only carry the same? Hahahahahaha.....I'm doubtful. It would have other crap on it to the point of being near it's max up weight before fuel is tossed on board.  Maybe I'm a cynic but after many years in this outfit, I'll believe things when I see it. 
The 412 is a decent VIP transport helo, nothing more. It is a hoot to fly around in but if we had gunships, we'd find a way to multi task them to the point of being near usless also.  Ahh....why bother, we'd never mod some for a gunship role anyways


----------



## GAP (22 Aug 2006)

Has not this gunships for Canada issue been thoroughly covered in a couple of other threads, ad nauseam?


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2006)

Ayup


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Aug 2006)

Affirm


----------



## PMars (7 Sep 2006)

[quote ]

In Hoc, yup she was fun to fly, that's for sure...for those who haven't flown it, guys will be quite surprized at its capability, especially including manoeuvrability!  Re: Wainright, I think the Western MOB for Chinook is pretty much a question of will 408 provide 146/147A capability as a composite unit, or will there be another unit (447?) stood up to assume the heavy lift role.  Frankly, we need clear direction from higher before we start situating an estimate about bed down options for the fleet.

Where do I see aviation heading, to be honest, there is so much uncertainty about structure specifics that it would be verging towards irresponsible for me to even publicly hazard a guess.  I think this is truly a case of "time will tell"!

Duey [/quote]

Duey, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought 408 was already a composite with Griffs and Sperwers. That makes it a composite utility helo and recce sqn.  Would adding 'Hooks and heavy lift to such a sqn complicate things?

As to final composition, I reckon six out to Afghanistan (assuming they arrive in time) and the balance in Canada in reserve and doing training. The crews would rotate but not necessarily the aircraft until they became due to for major depot inspection. I do not think all of them will be out west as the SOS (sp?)will need to train on them/with them.

As to delivery, the MOD did talk of speaking to allies to see if some could be spared for early delivery. Maybe CHAPS machines?


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Sep 2006)

PMars would be right, wouldn't he?  Isn't the CU-161 Sperwer on 408's charge, or is it just that they're supporting detachments in AFG?


----------

