# Cost of Chinook Helicopter



## Pencil Tech (28 Jun 2006)

OK, the helicopter announcement went out today and the CBC reported it as being worth $4.7 billion - $2 billion for the aircraft and 2.7 billion for the maintenance contracts.So $2 billion for the aircraft. That works out to $125 million each, and yet I've seen the price of an individual CH-47F listed numerous times as being in the $30 to $40 million range. What gives?  ???


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (28 Jun 2006)

i think they are including spare parts, training, sims, air frame tech training etc, and do not forget the costs of just having meetings to plan the next meeting.


----------



## Pencil Tech (28 Jun 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> i think they are including spare parts, training, sims, air frame tech training etc, and do not forget the costs of just having meetings to plan the next meeting.



 ;D

Yes the all-important "meetings meetings"! Well, the way they announced it just looks like they are buying 16 helicopters for three times what they're worth but I guess I just don't get the subtleties of helicopter shopping.


----------



## toglmonster (28 Jun 2006)

Maybe the Government is thinking of buying the CH-53E. There better suited for ship-borne operations on the new JSS.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Jun 2006)

JSS can only support CH-53 on the flight deck [i.e take off and land], but can't store or maintain a CH-53. The shipboard helo for the JSS will be the Cyclone or a variant of the Cyclone.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (29 Jun 2006)

i read in the national post that  part of the cost is 2 billion dollars on the choppers and $2.7 billion for a 20-year contract to service the helicopters
that is a lot of money per year to fix and spare parts, we could buy  whole replacement birds for that  deal


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (29 Jun 2006)

Would the express delivery impact the cost at all?


----------



## pbi (29 Jun 2006)

The irony to all this is that once upon a time we had Chinooks but had to get rid of them as a cost cutting measure. I'm surprised that nobody in the media has tumbled to this yet. But then, our media and military history are often strangers...


Cheers


----------



## Jantor (29 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> The irony to all this is that once upon a time we had Chinooks but had to get rid of them as a cost cutting measure. I'm surprised that nobody in the media has tumbled to this yet. But then, our media and military history are often strangers...
> 
> 
> Cheers



I remember seeing them flying around at airshows back when I was young. Do you remember the "would the owner of the car with the license plate # XXX-XXX please move your vehicle from the end of the runway" schtick. Later in the show the vehicle would be hooked up and the Chinook would drop it somewhere on the airfield...from 200 feet! Classic. 
I don't have an on-line source for this so take it FWIW. I understand the aircraft had engines that were unique to the Canadian version, the airframe hours were high and maintaining them was becoming a problem.  I guess it came down to replace them, rebuild them or get rid of them.  :-\


----------



## Bzzliteyr (29 Jun 2006)

That happened to my car once!!! I always thought it was a schtick.. until it happened to me!!! Worse thing, I had my grandmother in the back seat when it happened!!

But seriously, I think this purchase is long overdue.  To not be able to quickly move small quantities of troops and equipment on the battlefield is a pain.  It's just too bad that we had the cabability and sold it.

I heard the Dutch are using OUR old Chinooks in Afghanistan... irony there is that they are using them to transport OUR troops!


----------



## Jantor (29 Jun 2006)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> That happened to my car once!!! I always thought it was a schtick.. until it happened to me!!! Worse thing, I had my grandmother in the back seat when it happened!!
> 
> But seriously, I think this purchase is long overdue.  To not be able to quickly move small quantities of troops and equipment on the battlefield is a pain.  It's just too bad that we had the cabability and sold it.
> 
> I heard the Dutch are using OUR old Chinooks in Afghanistan... irony there is that they are using them to transport OUR troops!



IIRC The Dutch then had Boeing rebuild them to a "zero - time" condition complete with upgrades. It's probable that only thing Canadian left were the airframes. 

I'd hoped they would have looked at the CHAPS program or the "Super D" version. I would have liked to see those helicopters in service a lot sooner.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (29 Jun 2006)

I'm so shocked with all these purchase orders going out...I've not read one bad thing from any of the news papers. Maybe people now believe we need these items!!!


----------



## DBA (29 Jun 2006)

Even the opposition line seems to be buying most of this stuff was already being worked on by them. Of course the Liberals had tons of things they said they would do but it's the actual doing they often came up short on. Like axing the GST (a bad idea but they promised to do it).


----------



## rick7475 (29 Jun 2006)

Yes, I remember flying in the back of the Chinooks in Petawawa back in '86 or so from 450 Sqn in Ottawa.

I took a drive down Royal Road at the empty spots where the hangars used to store em at Uplands. Too bad.


----------



## toglmonster (29 Jun 2006)

OK I"LL bite why couldn't the new JSS support and house CH-53E??? IF a ship has hanger space for four medium helicopters it should be able to hold two CH-53 at the least if not more. Also the JSS will be 3 meter wider then the old HMCS Preservers and you can cram 3 Sea Kings abreast in it's hanger. JSS is suppose to have LIFT ON LIFT OFF capability so why not have heavy lift helicopters on board that will be more flexable when it comes supporting other ships or troops ashore.


----------



## Inch (29 Jun 2006)

toglmonster said:
			
		

> OK I"LL bite why couldn't the new JSS support and house CH-53E??? IF a ship has hanger space for four medium helicopters it should be able to hold two CH-53 at the least if not more. Also the JSS will be 3 meter wider then the old HMCS Preservers and you can cram 3 Sea Kings abreast in it's hanger. JSS is suppose to have LIFT ON LIFT OFF capability so why not have heavy lift helicopters on board that will be more flexable when it comes supporting other ships or troops ashore.



A Cyclone will only weigh 28,000 lbs, max all up weight on a 53 is 70,000 lbs. Just a bit heavier, ie deck must support the weight. The 53 is also 30 ft longer with the rotors turning than the Cyclone will be = much bigger flight deck required.  Not to mention the rotor wash, fairly useless if you're trying to HIFR, hoist or sling with men under the helo, they'd get blown right overboard. The Sea King is bad enough and the Cyclone rotor wash will be considerably more than the Sea King.

There are far more factors that go into the equation than folded size of the helo and whether or not they'll fit in the hangar.


----------



## toglmonster (29 Jun 2006)

Point taken, thank you. However would still like to see a helicopter that could serve bot the army and navy. ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jun 2006)

Personally I think it makes more sense to embark the Cyclone on the JSS and any other helicopter we may get should be embarked on the BHS (should we ever get it). Face it, 95% of the missions the JSS will undertake will involve fleet replenishment.


----------



## Inch (30 Jun 2006)

toglmonster said:
			
		

> Point taken, thank you. However would still like to see a helicopter that could serve bot the army and navy. ;D



Cyclone can carry up to 22 troops if outfitted as troop carrier or sling 10,000 lbs on the hook. While only about 1/3 - 1/2 of what the Chinook or 53 can do, it's a pretty good improvement over what the Griffon can do. Cyclone gets my vote.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jun 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> Cyclone can carry up 22 troops if outfitted as troop carrier or sling 10,000 lbs on the hook. While only about 1/3 - 1/2 of what the Chinook or 53 can do, it's a pretty good improvement over what the Griffon can do. Cyclone gets my vote.



And if one of the JSS escort ships need a Cyclone to replace an a/c down for whatever reason it can easily be switched out.


----------



## Inch (30 Jun 2006)

Navymatters said:
			
		

> And if one of the JSS escort ships need a Cyclone to replace an a/c down for whatever reason it can easily be switched out.



True, depending on the unserviceability. If it's unflyable, you're certainly not going to be doing crane operations while underway, you'd have to wait until the next port. Also means more spare parts for the Cyclones since you won't have to share helo stores with any other helo type.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jun 2006)

LOL well we did do that with Pre and Cha.


----------



## darmil (30 Jun 2006)

I've flown in American Chinooks. I just can't wait  to fly in a Chinook with a Canadian sticker on it. ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jul 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> Cyclone can carry up to 22 troops if outfitted as troop carrier or sling 10,000 lbs on the hook. While only about 1/3 - 1/2 of what the Chinook or 53 can do, it's a pretty good improvement over what the Griffon can do. Cyclone gets my vote.



Hey Inch- a "Cyclone" as a troop carrier? How long to convert from one mission kit to the other, or are you referring to a variant of the Cyclone?


----------



## Inch (4 Jul 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Hey Inch- a "Cyclone" as a troop carrier? How long to convert from one mission kit to the other, or are you referring to a variant of the Cyclone?



All equipment is supposed to be roll on and roll off, so a couple hours and you're ready to go from hunting subs to transporting crunchies. Or so I'm led to believe.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jul 2006)

Ahh... thanks.

Whiskey


----------



## Korus (4 Jul 2006)

> The irony to all this is that once upon a time we had Chinooks but had to get rid of them as a cost cutting measure. I'm surprised that nobody in the media has tumbled to this yet. But then, our media and military history are often strangers...



I'll have to dig through my pictures and see if I have any pictures of the Dutch Chinooks in Kandahar............


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2006)

To get a better idea of how the pricing works out, take the sticker price of your car and add the cost of fuel, oil, windshield washer fluid, tires, floormats, maintenance and repair, insurance, annual licensing, driveway resurfacing, garage door replacement, speeding tickets, washing and waxing, rust prevention, child seats, and stereo upgrades over a twenty-year period. You'd probably be rather surprised at how that all adds up.

For the helicopter, there's also a simulator, initial aircrew and groundcrew training, publications (including translation into unique Canadian French - the initial CH146 pubs were translated in Belgium which didn't cut it but what did Bell know about French?), work stands, tools, towbars, and a bunch of other stuff. Bigger hangars and more/bigger bowsers for refuelling will also be needed, but whether that is included in the budget or not I've no idea. We bought one hundred CH146 for $1 billion, at a unit cost of about $6 million each, with the rest being taken up with the other associated costs.

As for the media and the Dutch angle, I've seen several articles about that. They're aware.

Ours were C+ models, incorporating several features that were later included on the D model but still with C model engines, rotors, electrics, and hydraulics. Operating costs had risen over time as the US Army rebuilt all of their CH47s as D models and parts became scarce. Conversion to D model standard would have cut operating costs in half.

While they were not noted for reliability in their later years I had five to play with for Ex On Guard 90 (Milcon in Pet) and they worked out very well. All five showed up as promised for kick-off, and I don't think that they dropped below 80% serviceability/availability for the rest of the two-week ex despite a pretty heavy workload.


----------

