# Canada considers purchase of used US Army Chinooks



## 404SqnAVSTeach (31 Oct 2005)

> Canada is considering buying used CH-47D Chinook helicopters from the US Army but details are still to be worked out on upgrades needed to the aircraft and a clear requirement is not yet established.
> 
> Colonel Dave Burt, Director of Air Requirements, told JDW that "we are considering a range of options" for Canada's Tactical Aviation Lift Capability project. Among the options are new Chinooks, as well as used D models. A used US Army Chinook would need to be upgraded, but "we have not really got into the details of that", said Col Burt. "What we're trying to do right now is iron out what are our requirements and we will look at all options in the context of the best long-term solution."
> 
> ...



I would prefer to see brand new Chinook.  BTW - Rumour as it here (in Greenwood) that if the Cormorant didn't have the Tail Rotor problem... The CAF would have repainted a couple of them and would be deployed in Afghanistan to support our troops.  Anybody else heard this???


----------



## Tracker 23A (31 Oct 2005)

All I can say is YUP.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (31 Oct 2005)

Yes... you agree with new Chinooks only, or
Yes... you heard the rumour with having some Cormorants in Afghanistan???


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Oct 2005)

Using open sources, the only official DND assessment, as noted in the press around the June/July timeframe, was looking at Sea Kings being deployed in Afghanistan.  

I wouldn't "think" the Cormorant would have been looked at seriously, even "if" the tail rotor hadn't had the issues it does.  I would hypothesize that there are far more issues than just repainting a yellow/red helo green...

It is an extremely demanding environment for helos over here.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Allen (1 Nov 2005)

> I would prefer to see brand new Chinook.



I think this would probably be everyone's preference. After the Chicoutimi thing, many Canadians probably look upon used military equipment as junk. This is perhaps unfair since a good rebuild program can make a piece of equipment almost as good as new. From what I understand, many of the F & G models being delivered in the U.S. are rebuilds of D's, which may in turn be rebuilds of earlier models. 

We may be able to get more bang for our buck by buying rebuilt F/G's, plus I would guess they could be delivered sooner than new-builds. Assuming the overhaul is rigorous, "used" should not be a dirty word, but unfortunately many Canadians will view it as such.

Also, they mention EH-101's are being considered !!! Do you think AugustaWestland wants anything to do with Canada after the last fiasco? Or maybe the gov't thinks an EH-101 order may pacify them & get them to drop their lawsuit.


----------



## 23007 (3 Nov 2005)

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> I would prefer to see brand new Chinook.   BTW - Rumour as it here (in Greenwood) that if the Cormorant didn't have the Tail Rotor problem... The CAF would have repainted a couple of them and would be deployed in Afghanistan to support our troops.   Anybody else heard this???



Yes I heard that rumour...and its not really a rumour, they were actually considering it as an option.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Nov 2005)

23007 said:
			
		

> Yes I heard that rumour...and its not really a rumour, they were actually considering it [Cormorant] as an option.



For all of a few seconds perhaps...SAR mafia (rightly so) said that with Labs gone, the was very little option to make a TSSU of 149 in AFG work and still provide National SAR.  There are only two things more sacrosanct in the Canadian air force than fighters, fighters, fighters....Snowbirds and SAR.

That siad, I think things will work out.  Rumint indicated it might not be a purchase but rather a loan than puts CH-47D (in limited number) on a ramp in Canada significantly sooner than coming off the line at Boeing Vertol in Philly.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Popurhedoff (14 Nov 2005)

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> I would prefer to see brand new Chinook.   BTW - Rumour as it here (in Greenwood) that if the Cormorant didn't have the Tail Rotor problem... The CAF would have repainted a couple of them and would be deployed in Afghanistan to support our troops.   Anybody else heard this???



The Cormorant is maintained by civilians...  think about it...  there are no military people associated with maintaining that fleet.  :rage:


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Nov 2005)

Popurhedoff:

Just to be clear - do you think that the current problems with the EH-101/Cormorant are associated with the maintenance contract?  I seem to recall reacding somewhere along the way that we not only civilanized the maintenance but that we scrimped on purchasing a stock of spare parts.  Or is that just a rumour?


----------



## Popurhedoff (14 Nov 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Popurhedoff:
> 
> Just to be clear - do you think that the current problems with the EH-101/Cormorant are associated with the maintenance contract?



No,  I beleive the problem stems from a design flaw.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Nov 2005)

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Popurhedoff (14 Nov 2005)

IIRC,  the lack of spare parts... that comes down to being cheap... whether us , them, and/or both.


----------



## Hunter911 (22 Nov 2005)

OK... I'm no helicopter expert, and I'm just poking around for some information. I was just wondering if the chinooks are still being produced new? Second of all, i was wondering if the chinook has an armourments? I have seen a picture of a 50 caliber mounted in the back, but that was all. Thank you.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Nov 2005)

Hunter911 said:
			
		

> OK... I'm no helicopter expert, and I'm just poking around for some information. I was just wondering if the chinooks are still being produced new? Second of all, i was wondering if the chinook has an armourments? I have seen a picture of a 50 caliber mounted in the back, but that was all. Thank you.



Yes, three models: SD, F and G.  SD is a hybrid of D and E, long-range fuel tanks for the most part, F is primarily the cargo variant replacing the D (was initially called ICH, improved cargo helicopter), and there is the G special ops variant developed from MH47Ds/Es.  The G is being built both from remanufactured Ds and Es as well as having some airframes built from scratch.

Re: Armaments - I know of four systems used on various US Chinooks: M2 .50, M60 7.62, M134 7.62 mini-gun, and most recently, the M240 (like our C6...based on the MAG 58).

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2005)

I'm pulling for the G's  and M134's


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2005)

If Santa is going to deliver, me too!


----------



## Hunter911 (23 Nov 2005)

Cool. Thanks for the information.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'm pulling for the G's   and M134's



You and me both!  ;D

Unfortunately we won't have them in time for TF 1-06...maybe some loaner D-models for TF 1-07 and final beasts for TF 2/3-08?  Here's hoping!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (5 Jan 2006)

A fleet of Chinooks is without question a requirement but they will come with a very large price tag in terms of personnel and infrastructure to support them. With the weak base of personnel to draw from there's going to be lots of growing pains that will last for some time. 
 I would suggest that it would take a few years before they would be capable of providing the kind of support that they are expected to provide.


----------



## mover1 (5 Jan 2006)

My trade is hyped and pumped, everyone hopes the Chinooks come back, not only for Operations but for the domestic side as well. Giving us the flexibility to go north again, Slinging loads, moving troops.  
The Career managers and the higher up in the trade are already whispering in the halls about loadmaster training starting up again. 

The books are all there on the shelves still and we do have some experienced people still in the forces who can and should pass their wisdom off to us. 

Getting a few loaners to start doing the training on would be useful to the CF, used aircraft could fill that role just finely, After some new models roll of the assembly line the older ones can go to training establishments as maintenance or static trainers. AETE can get one and play with it all they want. We fill a gap and everyone is happy.

Don't let "used" scare you off just because uncle Jean hummed and hawed at buying some subs and let them rot at the docks until we finally took them shouldn't leave an after taste. Yeas it can make you weary but look at some of the good examples we have.Some of our Herc's are "USED" (bad example) and have been flying for years. The dutch have been using our "USDED" Chinooks for years. Our Leopard turrets are "USED"


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jan 2006)

Mover1, I would (and may still yet) fly a US Army CH47D in a heartbeat until we get our G's off the line! 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## BillN (6 Jan 2006)

Duey,

I'll drive around Acadia Drive...pick you up, and we can both go together      

I hope they keep the LM position on the new ones at the Cpl level.  It was a great learning environment for us all, and gave our Cpl's a chance to escape the boring "rote" of the AMS's.  

I remember with much glee the look on Sgt George Wilson's face when I handed him my request to go rotary wing LM back in '83.  On the form where it asked "why do you wish to transfer?" I wrote "Because a trained monkey could do my current job".  It wasn't very popular answer with the CO, but it worked....3 weeks later I was under the tender loving care of George Leduc and a LM/UT at 450 

By the way, George was the only Loadie I know that did 4 separate tours on Chinooks, 3 at 450 and 1 at 447.  Too bad he's out now......he'll be chafing on the bit to get back on the new ones (just like me)  

Cheers,
Bill


----------



## Scott57 (6 Jan 2006)

... George Leduc and George Wilson. Know them both very well. Now, if only we can get all of our CSS troops wearing Army colours ...life would be good.


----------



## mover1 (6 Jan 2006)

Scott57 said:
			
		

> ... George Leduc and George Wilson. Know them both very well. Now, if only we can get all of our CSS troops wearing Army colours ...life would be good.



no hijacking the thread. this isn't about uniform color its about helicopters. Uniform color has nothing to do with helicopters.


----------



## Scott57 (6 Jan 2006)

Mover - had no intention of hihjacking the thread.  I'm extremely happy to see them bringing back the Chinooks. They were great ferrying us troops to the showers in northern BC. And, it was nice to see a couple of familiar names that you brought up. It's great seeing George (Leduc) on occasion in Ottawa as we joined around the same time. In fact, I've known many movers.

Uniform issue does relate to the Chinook in my books.  (Army Chinooks = Army CSS Support). It relates to our weakness as a branch (logistics/ sense of identity) and 3 x DEU's. *But you're right* - different thread and I will digress.:salute


----------



## BillN (6 Jan 2006)

Scott57 I don't agree.  When I was flying on the 'Hooks in the med-80's we had all three uniform colours on the Squadron, and nobody gave a flying fig......we just did our jobs......and I see no reason why this attitude should not be the same, when and if, we get 'Hooks again.

The colour of your uniform has nothing to do with being a good tradesman/woman, regardless of element, it's called "professionalism".

Cheers,
Bill


----------



## Scott57 (6 Jan 2006)

BillN said:
			
		

> The colour of your uniform has nothing to do with being a good tradesman/woman, regardless of element, it's called "professionalism".
> Cheers,
> Bill


Agree with *most *of what you just said i.e professionalism. However, wait till I get back to Ottawa (and when I have more time) on Sunday and I will start a thread within the CSS forum in regards to uniforms. As I said, my intent was not to hijact this thread.


----------



## Patrolman (7 Jan 2006)

I would rather see the colors of the CF flying us around in chinooks rather than the colors we see now! Those being the colors of the Americans,Dutch or the British.


----------



## Warthor (8 Jan 2006)

Chinooks can do some amazing things, ive seen pictures of Chinooks landed in water, Half a Chinook landed on a building half still in the air mounting troops. Very Practical Helo, i think it would be an exciting thing to get Chinooks.


----------



## mover1 (8 Jan 2006)

Scott57 said:
			
		

> Agree with *most *of what you just said i.e professionalism. However, wait till I get back to Ottawa (and when I have more time) on Sunday and I will start a thread within the CSS forum in regards to uniforms. As I said, my intent was not to hijact this thread.



Right on! when you start that post you can add my two cents to the whole unifor debate moving this post to you new one.I think loggies should be chamelions when it comes to DEU's, You get posted air, your issued Air DEU ,you get posted Army you wear the ARMY deu.


----------



## Franko (8 Jan 2006)

Back on topic.....

Isn't anyone actually questioning the thought process on the procument of these helos?

We got rid of our Chinooks (for reasons that were, at the time, beyond my comprehension) and now the powers that be are now in a scramble to buy someone's used choppers....

Due to the lack of forsight of the Liberal gov't at the time, we're about to comence offensive ops in A 'stan without any lift capabilities...barring us begging other contingent's helo's for our ops, which leaves a horrible taste in my mouth IMHO.

I'm just wondering...how much of a debacle is the procument process going to be and will we have them in time? 

Remember that there is a election coming up and a change of gov't MAY put this on the back burner for a time...or (as JC did) scrap the deal altogether.

Just my $0.02 worth...seeing as I'm just a tiller bar puller    

Comments?

Regards


----------



## time expired (8 Jan 2006)

ch 47s , wonderful these are the same helicopters that we sold to the dutch as it would have been too
expensive to modify them to the D standard, you can just bet this would not have happened if they had
been operated by the Army where they belong, but no the airforce was in control and fighter pilot
generals are not to interested in helicopters.
the liberals,if they run true to form they will try to get them on the cheap and we will probobly get junk and
someone will get killed, just remember the subs.


----------



## Zoomie (8 Jan 2006)

time expired said:
			
		

> you can just bet this would not have happened if they had been operated by the Army where they belong, but no the airforce was in control and fighter pilot generals are not to interested in helicopters.



Pretty bold comments - do you have any idea about Airforce-Army dynamics?  Next you'll be blaming the boys in blue for the Griffon purchase.

Welcome to army.ca - we appreciate thought and research into ones comments before spouting nonsense.


----------



## mover1 (8 Jan 2006)

time expired said:
			
		

> ch 47s , wonderful these are the same helicopters that we sold to the dutch as it would have been too
> expensive to modify them to the D standard, you can just bet this would not have happened if they had
> been operated by the Army where they belong, but no the airforce was in control and fighter pilot
> generals are not to interested in helicopters.
> ...


But they didn't belong to the army and right now we would be having a debate on weather or not to REPLACE the aging chinook. 
Selling them my have done some good. Instad of foot dragging on replacing an old piece of equipment, (think sea king, Herc, etc) We are now procuring equipment to fill a requirement.
I have my doubts on weather the Army would have kept the chinooks flying anyways I believe it would have been the first behemoth to go in the 1990's as being expensive and outdated.
 But thats just speculation
Much like your post....
For your info the Commander of 1 Can Air Div (MGen Bouchard) is a helicopter pilot. 
So please before you post do some homework.


----------



## beenthere (8 Jan 2006)

The Chinooks were sacrificed because they were very expensive to operate and maintain as I recall. At least that was the official line at the time. It may very well have been the proper thing to do taking into consideration that the small number of aircraft didn't provide  effective support. Eight aircraft was just about enough to eat up lots of money and less than half as many as would be needed to provide minimum support for any operational role.

Any idea of the army operating aircraft has long gone from the realm of possibilities and the reality is that they were being operated for the army as are other aircraft. That is a logical use of resources and will probably never change. 

As for the new or used issue. It makes no difference which category they fall into so long as they meet the required specifications. The US Army is the major operator of Chinooks and they have been recycling their fleet since they first started using them. Many people fail to realize that an aircraft is essentially the sum of it's parts and that in many cases the only thing that's original is the serial number.

Of course everything can and will change as the political game plays out and just about anything can happen to the present plan. Even at the best I would not expect to see Chinooks supporting operations for a few years as there are virtually no resources to support them.


----------



## h3tacco (8 Jan 2006)

It is my understanding that one of the driving reasons for getting rid of the chinooks and the kiowas and hueys was that the army didn't like paying for three types of aircraft. Much like the Sea King and the Navy, the army pays for most of the YFR for Tac Hel. The army wanted to have a single type to reduce the cost it had to pay for flying.  I could be wrong but  I am sure Duey would know the answer.


----------



## Sf2 (8 Jan 2006)

> the army pays for most of the YFR for Tac Hel.



I don't think that is true.  1 Wing, then 1 CAD flips the bill.  20% of our flying is in direct support of the army - the rest is training/maintaining currency.  I don't think the army would pay for something they use 20% of the time.  Not to mention some 1 Wing assests have nothing to do with the army.


----------



## beenthere (8 Jan 2006)

Surely they would have to pay for the cost of making them available for their use and training/proficiency is a part of that.


----------



## Sf2 (8 Jan 2006)

When we do a mission for the army, a certain code is entered into the "Mission Management Application".  At that point, you're probably right, a portion of the bill is flipped by the Army.  But as I said, that's about 20% of the time.  The rest is pilot training and proficiency.


----------



## BillN (8 Jan 2006)

Just a correction here.  We didn't have 8 Chinooks, we only had 7.  450 Sqn in Ottawa had four, and 447 in Edmonton had three.   We had a total of nine, but we lost 001 and then 002 in flying accidents.

As for the question about who paid for what, I don't know.  But, I can tell you that this,  we did as much "work" for the air force as we did for the army, and I'm not just talking about boring holes through the sky building up flying hours.

Cheers,
Bill
Chinook LM 
'83 - '87


----------



## h3tacco (8 Jan 2006)

Roger that Short Final. I thought it was higher than 20%. I also thought the Navy payed for more of Sea King YFR  but whatever the number the number is  I would imagine it would be similar to the Tac Hel community. Though someone did tell me once that the Army wanted to pay less and wanted a single helo solution vice the three helo solution we had with the chinooks. I am not saying this was the only reason we got rid of them but was contributing factor. Unless I am totally out to lunch and that was never a factor at all.


----------



## Sf2 (8 Jan 2006)

what I said is based on my limited scope as a line pilot.  I'm sure an OpsO or someone would have a lot more knowledge about who pays for what.....

All I know is that my log book is padded with SME's (standard maneuvers and emergs) and IF trips.  Sure there are lifted unit missions, but the ratio is about 4 or 5 : 1


----------



## Zoomie (8 Jan 2006)

YFR and who pays for what is something that the bean-counters in the 'Peg and elsewhere have to deal with.

In the SAR community - our training and local missions are footed out of our Squadron's budget.  As soon as we are tasked by RCC to provide a SAR service, they foot the bill.  I can only imagine that the same exists for the tac-hel units.  Like SF mentioned, it is the code that we enter into the MMA that determines who paid for X number of hours.  The army likes to be able to field its diesel sucking LAV fleet and provide live ammo for the boys - add in a couple of hours of CH-146 time, and you are quickly scraping the proverbial bottom of the money barrel.  I imagine that the army could have alot more helo-play if only they paid for it - I am sure SF and the other lads/ladies at 427 SOA would be more than happy to go and play in the weeds.


----------



## beenthere (8 Jan 2006)

In the "big world" CC-130 use is for the most part decided on a year or more in advance where reps from the user world put foreword a plan of their activities that are planned for the next year or whatever period of time that they use for planing purposes. 
The various users have x number of hours of use allocated as per a budget for training,operational and other requirements and they plan accordingly.
At least that's the plan or the way it was done in the past. That allows the air transport planners to coordinate aircraft activities,maintenance requirements and other things that affect availability of aircraft.
This has nothing to do with the thread but it's kind of neat info.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2006)

beenthere said:
			
		

> In the "big world" CC-130 use is for the most part decided on a year or more in advance where reps from the user world put foreword a plan of their activities that are planned for the next year or whatever period of time that they use for planing purposes.
> The various users have x number of hours of use allocated as per a budget for training,operational and other requirements and they plan accordingly.
> At least that's the plan or the way it was done in the past. That allows the air transport planners to coordinate aircraft activities,maintenance requirements and other things that affect availability of aircraft.
> This has nothing to do with the thread but it's kind of neat info.



The CP-140 comunity works along the same lines as was recently explained to me.  The navy gets a certain share of our YFR ( MPAT and fleet esercises) and the rest goes to us for crew training and our own exercises at home at abroad.  Wait until the army gets the bill for having a CP-140 overhead....4000 lbs of fuel an hour isn't cheap !!


----------



## beenthere (8 Jan 2006)

Not to mention all of the peanut butter.


----------



## beenthere (8 Jan 2006)

Obviously Chinooks would be better suited in the air transport world with the other heavy transports.They would be a considerable burden to whatever the army support is known as.- 1 Wing?  Is that what the plan calls for or has that been decided?


----------



## T Man (8 Jan 2006)

YFR who pays for it -
The Air Force pays for all of the YFR. - See YFR Thread that I will start in case your interested.

Ex-1 Wing Hq Business Planner/ Ops Management


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jan 2006)

h3tacco said:
			
		

> It is my understanding that one of the driving reasons for getting rid of the chinooks and the kiowas and hueys was that the army didn't like paying for three types of aircraft. Much like the Sea King and the Navy, the army pays for most of the YFR for Tac Hel. The army wanted to have a single type to reduce the cost it had to pay for flying.  I could be wrong but  I am sure Duey would know the answer.



H3, army stopped paying for YFR in 92....I managed TH YFR for 3 years (99-2002) and we were responsive to Army requirements, but when it came down to the Army standing up for itself and pushing to have more YFR compared to other AF activities, they were stragnely absent from joint discussions...worrying more about MGS, MMEV and other things...don't blame them necessarily, but also don't have much time for self-pitious "we never get enough support from TH", etc...it rings a bit hollow...

All fleets YFR (essentially AvPOL) are entirely paid out of CC3 (air force) Level 1 O&M funding lines that are pushed down to L2 (1 CAD) then to L3's (Wings) and units.  The only items that are paid outside of CC3 funding line is so-called "National Procurement" support, or things the ADM(Mat)/DGAEPM world procures to mechanically support the fleets.  

The interesting deal will be 427 SOAS YFR, since that unit will be falling under OPCOM of CANSOFCOM on 1 Feb, whereas all other squadrons are under 1 CAD.  I don't think it's insurmountable at all...simple inter-CC transfer, but not saying that some ban counters might not try to make things diffucult... 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## T Man (8 Jan 2006)

Ah buddy saved me the trouble.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jan 2006)

time expired said:
			
		

> ch 47s , wonderful these are the same helicopters that we sold to the dutch as it would have been too
> expensive to modify them to the D standard, you can just bet this would not have happened if they had
> been operated by the Army where they belong, but no the airforce was in control and fighter pilot
> generals are not to interested in helicopters.
> ...



Actually, time expired, it was absolutely the opposite to what you bet!

The decision not to allocate the $400M required to upgrade CH147002-CH147009 from C+ to D-models was entirely *FMC's* decision, LGen Foster in particular.  I saw the Comd FMC letter sent to Comd AIRCOM in 1989, from when I worked in Plans, Doctrine & Requirements in HQ 10 TAG in 1996/1997.  CC2 (LF) funded aviation procurement from unification until 1992, AIRCOM (from 1975 to 1992) shared AvPOL costs with FMC.  After 1992, CC3 (capability component 3 - NDQH-speak for the Air Force) paid for all Tac Avn O&M costs and ADM(Mat) paid for WSSP (wpn syss sp plans) and National Procurement (parts/contracts with OEMs, etc...) 

Having discussed some issues with the CDS while he was visiting us here in Afghanistan prior to Christmas, I think you would be surprized to hear that the current PM is actually a proponent and quite a strong one at that of integral aviation support to deployed forces.  He is also apparently quite a supporter of SOF, as CANSOF had built a solid amount of respect within coalition forces and their representative governments at home...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jan 2006)

T Man said:
			
		

> Ah buddy saved me the trouble.



T Man, luckily we escaped the Vortex!  I don't think Troika #3 is going to be so lucky...Comd is hammering his feet to the floor! LOL

Cheers, bud!
Duey

p.s.  apology to mods and thread readers for my rather rude three posts in a row with entirely different subjects...poor form, I know.  Just coming up with different things to say....that and giddy from listing to Chinooks going "wokka-wokka" overhead while I was down visiting Khandahar for the last few days.  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## mover1 (8 Jan 2006)

You guys are saying dirty words
Its 1 Can Air Div not 1 CAD. Remeber the million dollar name change affects us all.

NFA  does it stand for Non-forecasted airlift or no F#@king airplanes. :blotto:


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jan 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> You guys are saying dirty words
> Its 1 Can Air Div not 1 CAD. Remeber the million dollar name change affects us all.
> 
> NFA  does it stand for Non-forecasted airlift or no F#@king airplanes. :blotto:



Mover1, perhaps the Air Div's name will become a moot point in a bit...CFACC has been bandied about (CF Air Component Command)...at least CFACC is shorter than 1 Cdn Air Div (I think, vice 1 Can Air Div)...although still not as efficient as CAD..luckily you and I don't work in the "Directorate of Air Personel Management Services - D Air PM...oh, nevermind   )

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## mover1 (8 Jan 2006)

CFACC Canadian Forces Air Component Command, WOW, Does that ever sound weak. It doesn't inspire me much. MY wife has a component that she uses when I am not around its blue too.


I just wish we could start calling things like we see them. Whatever happened to the RCAF.There is still RCR, RCA, But no RCN or RCAF at least in official circles anyways

 I work at an AMS (Air Mov Sect) which is not to be confused with an AMS (Air Maintenece Squadron.)
Not to be a CAD mind you I would like to have my old job back a B Porn O but thats a different story.

Now back to the MAP and YAP.


----------



## h3tacco (8 Jan 2006)

Ok my bad on the whole YFR thing! ;D 

I thought it worked differently  :blotto:


----------



## Sf2 (8 Jan 2006)

Phew, I knew there were some YFR experts in here.

Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Zoomie (8 Jan 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> The interesting deal will be 427 SOAS YFR, since that unit will be falling under OPCOM of CANSOFCOM on 1 Feb, whereas all other squadrons are under 1 CAD.



Thanks for the update on the whole YFR dealio, Duey.  To tell you the truth, that dirty acronym really never comes up here in La-La land, we never come close.

However, I am pretty sure that when we launch operationally we are also outside the CoC of 1 CAD - the National SAR Secretariat chain involves Squadron to Minister level communications.


----------



## beenthere (8 Jan 2006)

Duey. I had you misplaced. I'd thought that you were on the banks of the Rideau untill you gave your position away.
Within the obvious limitations can you describe a typical US Sqn/Company in terms of equipment, personell,maintenance capability etc. in a way that would provide a comparison with a Cdn. Squadron.
Also what resources outside of the unit are available. Is there a unit that provides phase type maintenance or is that all done in house?


----------



## Rescue Randy (8 Jan 2006)

This is a bit of a tangent that is not really related to buying used Chinooks, but perhaps I can add some clarity to the command and control discussion. Operational control is exercised for SAR through the applicable Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC), who reports to the Regional Commander.  In Comox,  the SAR mission comes under the operational control of the Comd MARPAC.  So, Zoomie, you are partially correct, you are outside the chain of 1 CAD when on an operational SAR mission. 
The SAR Secretariat is a totally different animal, not dealing with operational control of missions.  You may wish to follow this link to find out what it does with your tax money.

 http://www.nss.gc.ca/site/whoWeAre/index_e.asp


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jan 2006)

beenthere said:
			
		

> Duey. I had you misplaced. I'd thought that you were on the banks of the Rideau untill you gave your position away.
> Within the obvious limitations can you describe a typical US Sqn/Company in terms of equipment, personell,maintenance capability etc. in a way that would provide a comparison with a Cdn. Squadron.
> Also what resources outside of the unit are available. Is there a unit that provides phase type maintenance or is that all done in house?



Beenthere, a US Army medium lift Aviation Battalion has three ops Coys and a Maint Coy, looking after 42-48 CH47's.  Accordingly, a standard MTH Company (like a flight in a Cdn Sqn) is a 14 to 16 CH-47D/F equipped unit....so about twice the airframes per similar unit size as a Canadian squadron's flight.  Maintenance if different to the degree that first line servicing is by a dedicated crew per aircraft...that's there machine to fix, so the servicing crew supervisor has 16 crew chiefs and 16 crews.  Maintenance is done by a separate maint coy.  Interestingly a US Avn Maint Coy S4 Maint is often a pilot officer assigned for overall responsibility for conducting second line maintenance action.  There are not necessarily SAMEO/AERE officer equivalents per se in Army Aviation at the company level.  It is a different model to see it in action, especially for those familiar with a SAMEO and SAMS and AMO, ASO and Maint and Servicing NCOs.  It works but overall, US Army uses more aircraft to conduct the same number of tasks a Canadian unit would use.  I can hunt down more information when I get back from AFG if you're interested.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (17 Jan 2006)

Is there a plan in the works for ramping up new squadrons to operate the Chinooks? From our previous experience with heavy lift helicopters there must be a history of the lessons learned.

From my own experience the limited number of aircraft that we had on the two squadrons was a major problem and they would have been more effective had they been all concentrated in one unit. I realize the need for geographic distribution but it was obvious that the limited number of aircraft available at a given time on either squadron was an ongoing problem. When there were only four aircraft on a squadron it was often that none were available at a given time or if they were available there were no back ups.
It always worked better when the two squadrons were working together as there were more aircraft in the pool. 

From that experience it would indicate that eight or more aircraft on one squadron would probably be the minimum number to provide effective support. I'm not into all of the theory of operations, doctrine and so on but it's obvious that in order to provide effective support there has to be a large degree of flexibility.
The ideal way to operate is to be able to have more equipment than the operation calls for.That also removes the pressure factor and makes people less likely to accept aircraft that have questionable serviceability. That also applies to the maintainers in that they don't get pressured into overextending work hours and making critical judgements that are beyond their capabilities.

Another factor regarding Chinooks is that some of the operational mishaps that are bound to happen require a huge number of maintenance hours and a lot of personnel. The squadrons require enough personnel to be able to cover the contingency of recovery and repair while still operating the other aircraft.

Although I personally considered the AFMS units to be large and overpopulated they provided the support that was needed for more than a few recovery and repair operations that would have been very hard to do using squadron resources.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jan 2006)

Beenthere, good question.  Having seen the 4/3 split of 450 and 447, I think that economies of effort and sustainment of deployed operations that can be realized through consolidation in a particular location would far outweight the additional cost of having to transit around domestically.  So, I figure the whole lift fleet will go into a single location..perhaps one that already had a transport flavour?  There are only a few locations out there that fit the bill, especially considering some organizations that would have to be supported on a relatively regular basis...   Oh, I don't think the AFMS idea is so far fetched...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (17 Jan 2006)

Sounds good. My opinion is that the next worse situation to not having the heavy lift capability is to have it and then not have it concentrated.
 I started out with 1THP in Rivers Man. when all of the CH-113As were in Rivers. They were initially split between 1THP and another unit (OTU). Then in 1966 the helicopters were divided between 1THP which moved to St. Hubert and a detachment of 1THP in Namao. Even then the effect was to create two squadrons neither of which had enough aircraft to provide effective support and the only times that they were effective were on large exercises when they were combined.When the numbers of aircraft were reduced because of losses it got even worse and aircraft had to be loaned out to one Sqn. or the other in order to support operations.
I have no problems with the AFMS concept. However when it was first established in Ottawa they had so many people that they were an air force of their own. At that time there was a surplus of technical trades people because of base closures and reductions in Europe. There were lots of people but they were very shy on helicopter experience as most of them had been on fighter units.


----------



## 3rd Herd (29 Jan 2006)

Found on another forum. I figured Duey and some of the others here would enjoy. A slightly used US helicopter for sale, deep sea salvage required.
http://www.hemetcigarclub.com/hold/HowNotToLandHelicopter.wmv


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2006)

Wouldn't that just ruin your day!


----------



## Armymatters (29 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Found on another forum. I figured Duey and some of the others here would enjoy. A slightly used US helicopter for sale, deep sea salvage required.
> http://www.hemetcigarclub.com/hold/HowNotToLandHelicopter.wmv



Looks like a CH-46 Sea Knight... those helos have been kicking around the US Navy and Marine Corps for about 40 years, and are the same as our CH-113's.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Found on another forum. I figured Duey and some of the others here would enjoy. A slightly used US helicopter for sale, deep sea salvage required.
> http://www.hemetcigarclub.com/hold/HowNotToLandHelicopter.wmv



The video is a prominent feature as part of air force HPMA training.



			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> Looks like a CH-46 Sea Knight... those helos have been kicking around the US Navy and Marine Corps for about 40 years, and are the same as our CH-113's.



It is in fact a CH-46.  The mishap was not related to the aircraft's age but was rather atributed to crew error ( hence why it is part of our HPMA trg)


----------



## Armymatters (29 Jan 2006)

I have been told we are also looking into CH-53 Super Stallion's as well... apparantly Sikorsky is developing a newer variant of the Super Stallion for the Marine Corps with more engine power...


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2006)

I'd like to hear more on the CH 53 proposal.  I would think that they may be a better aircraft than the CH 47.  Both are in service with a lot of Armies.  The CH 53 looked like a more robust chopper to me, but as I am not in the Air Force, nor as qualified as some on this forum are, to make much more that than these type of unqualified statements.


----------



## Armymatters (29 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I'd like to hear more on the CH 53 proposal.  I would think that they may be a better aircraft than the CH 47.  Both are in service with a lot of Armies.  The CH 53 looked like a more robust chopper to me, but as I am not in the Air Force, nor as qualified as some on this forum are, to make much more that than these type of unqualified statements.



I have been onboard a CH-53, and it is a big chopper and can in theory do more (USMC CH-53E's carry 55 troops or 14,515kg on the hoist, while the CH-47D's can carry 30 troops or 12700kg on the hoist), as USMC CH-53's can sling a LAV-25 (not the Stryker, as the Stryker is too heavy), but the CH-53's really shine at sea level, not in the hot and high conditions of say, Afghanistan. Sikorsky is working on a more powerful and bigger variant (I dug out some more data) as the CH-53X, and instead of the 3 General Electric T64-GE-416 turboshaft's that produce 4,380 shp each, they are planning to fit 3 Royce Royce AE 1107C's that produce around 6,000 shp, which is the same engine as the V-22 Osprey, and shares the same engine core of the Rolls-Royce Allison AE2100 engine (fitted to the C-130J). The key advantage to the CH-53 is the fact the helo was designed for shipborne operation, complete with folding tail and main rotor (the CH-47 I believe doesn't and requires that the blades be removed), and can in theory lift more.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2006)

Well, the CH 53's of the Bundeswehr/HEER always impressed me.  They can carry two or three  Weasels inside and one slung.


----------



## Armymatters (30 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, the CH 53's of the Bundeswehr/HEER always impressed me.  They can carry two or three  Weasels inside and one slung.



The German CH-53's are of the earlier, 2 engine models. Imagine what the CH-53X's can do with the more powerful engines... probally be able to sling a LAV III?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jan 2006)

Yup, that's a CH46E Sea Knight, a.k.a "Phrog"...IIRC, about 6-7 marines died/drowned in that accident.

There is no doubt that an H53 can lift a lot, especially 3-engined CH-53E's, but they generally tend to like the thick air at sea-level for the tail-rotor's effectiveness.  There's a reason folks are no longer using the H-53 over here...CH47 is THE machine where extended ranges, high altitudes, mountainous regions and warmer weather is concerned.

Friends I know on MH-53's note that high alt mountainous stuff must be done with care...53 is quite sensitive to wind direction when hovering...Chinook could care less about that because of tandem configuration.

The H53 would be a decent machine perhaps for the Standing Contingency Task Force based of ships, but I don't think it would be the preferred solution to operations such as in Afghanistan.  I'd actually take an EH-101 Mk4 before I flew an H53 over here.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2006)

One example of the H 53s shortcomings may be the failed Operation in Iran to rescue the American Embassy Staff.  Dust and other conditions contributed to their problems.  (They were shipborne and not prepped for Desert and Sand conditions)


----------



## Armymatters (30 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> One example of the H 53s shortcomings may be the failed Operation in Iran to rescue the American Embassy Staff.  Dust and other conditions contributed to their problems.  (They were shipborne and not prepped for Desert and Sand conditions)



And on top of that, the plan was way too complex, with too many things that could fail. To add insult to injury, there was a massive problem of tri-service coordination, which the Americans later resolved by creating USSOCOM.

The main issue was the birds that they used. The Navy didn't have space on their carriers for the regular spec-ops helos, and was adamant about the issue, refusing to budge, which forced the planners to use the RH-53 Sea Stallion minesweeper helicopters instead, which were completely unsuitable.


----------



## beenthere (30 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Found on another forum. I figured Duey and some of the others here would enjoy. A slightly used US helicopter for sale, deep sea salvage required.
> http://www.hemetcigarclub.com/hold/HowNotToLandHelicopter.wmv


I believe that accident took place off the coast of California. Several fatalities-crew plus some Navy special ops personnel returning to the ship after an exercise. A very good example of how quickly things can go wrong.


----------



## baboon6 (30 Jan 2006)

The RAF operates Chinooks off Royal Navy carriers fairly regularly eg. flown into Afghanistan and Iraq that way, including air assault in Iraq 2003. I don't know if their aircraft have any modifications.


----------



## beenthere (13 Apr 2006)

So what's the present status on the Chinooks?


----------



## Jantor (13 Apr 2006)

Hi,

There is a speculative presentation on the CASR site that's new for April.

Other than that, I haven't heard a peep ???

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/index.htm


----------



## ringo (13 Apr 2006)

I believe the RAF has 6 or 8 Chinook's which have been grounded since purchase because of US refusal to provide proper software for cockpick? IIRC US Army looked at procuring these helo's from UK but found them in poor condition.
A new version of Ch-53E IE the "K" model is on drawing board for USMC.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2006)

ringo:

I hadn't heard about the US Army issue but this from Wikipedia does square with what I remember from discussions in the press over the last few years.



> Ordered at the same time as the HC.2As, 8 Chinook HC.3s were to enter service as dedicated Special Forces helicopters. These were to be effectively low-cost variants of the US Army's SF Chinook, the MH-47G. The upgrade would include improved range, night vision sensors and navigation capability. The eight aircraft were to cost £259 million and the forecast In-Service Date (ISD) was November 1998 (defined as delivery of the first six aircraft). As work proceeded, it became evident that displays for the weather radar and other systems anticipated for an avionics upgrade programme (put to contract in 1997) would not fit inside the existing cockpit.
> 
> One potential solution was to adopt a fully digital cockpit, as used by Chinooks purchased by the Royal Netherlands Air Force. However, this was not affordable within the funding available for the HC3 programme, and a hybrid solution was adopted, incorporating elements of the existing analogue cockpit and the new digital systems and displays. In March 1998 the new ISD was set at January 2002.
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Chinook

Edit: From what I can gather the software problem is an entirely "Made In Britain" issue.


----------



## Centurian1985 (13 Apr 2006)

I havent heard anything yet from old timers like me who used to do heli-ops with chinooks (pilots, loadees, or temporary flight guests i.e. infantry):

Ref their use, they were great for moving a large group of people from one place to another over rough terrain (as can be testified to by our boys 'over there'). However I see a few drawbacks to the acquisition...

1) its been a long time since we had them; the AF will have to round up old pilots or borrow trainers from our allies to get a Chinook pilot program going.

2) they're nasty for attracting ground fire (because they're big!), not as responsive or manoueverable once hovering (unless piloted by Americans who are amazingly deft in piloting those babies), and as far as I know we have no Canadian-approved tactics for operations in 'hot areas'.

Any AF / Chinook experts out there who can let our boys know what problems to expect once in use?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Apr 2006)

The rotary winged types that have spoken about us possibly getting chinooks don't see it as a big deal according to the other threads on this subject.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2006)

Ex-Dragoon:

Perhaps Centurian1985 would like to check out some of Duey's posts - as our resident Chinook SME


----------



## Armymatters (13 Apr 2006)

Jantor said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> There is a speculative presentation on the CASR site that's new for April.
> 
> ...



They just posted that FYI. I just read it, and it appears to be about some sort of multi-way trade between the US Army, Boeing, Canada, and Chile to get ex. US Army Chinooks that needs to be refurbished, but the US Army has no money to refurbish them, so Boeing buys them, they give them to us in exchange for some CH-146 Griffons, which would be sold to Chile, as they need a Huey replacement.


----------



## Centurian1985 (13 Apr 2006)

Thanks for the tip ref Duey, that answered my question!


----------



## geo (13 Apr 2006)

Chinooks that need to be refurbished
anyone... does this sound like Upholders that need refurbishing?

If the US, that needs & operates it's fleet of Chinooks isn't interested in / can't afford to refurbish....... isn't this sending out a subliminal message?


----------



## Armymatters (13 Apr 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Chinooks that need to be refurbished
> anyone... does this sound like Upholders that need refurbishing?
> 
> If the US, that needs & operates it's fleet of Chinooks isn't interested in / can't afford to refurbish....... isn't this sending out a subliminal message?



According to the article, Chinooks sold under the US Army program will be fully refurbished by Boeing IDS. So we are in effect getting fully refurbished Chinooks from Boeing.

Edit: And the reasoning is simple according to CASR: The US Army will take the money and use it for brand spanking new CH-47F's.


----------



## Jantor (13 Apr 2006)

I think the proposal on the CASR site might be related to this;

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/04/Navigation/181/205818/FIDAE+2006+Show+report+Surplus+Chinooks+may+fly+south.html

Is the procurement hierarchy capable of doing a deal to get those "big honking helicopters" anytime soon?


----------



## beenthere (14 Apr 2006)

Buying them would be the easy part. Housing, maintenance and all of the other requirements for a sizable fleet would present a considerable challenge. They require a lot of maintenance and support. 
I don't know how much consideration has been given to the support that a fleet of Chinooks would require but it would certainly be a major effort considering the present size of the military.


----------



## geo (14 Apr 2006)

reading the papers this morning - article in it quotes MND as telling the CDS that he should not hold his breath to get immediate response to his request for CH47s

at present, if we wanted to fly and maintain CH47s out of KAF we'd need to borrow Pilots & Mechanics + tons of tools & parts from the US or the UK. Owning em is easy, flying & maintaining em is another kettle of fish altogether.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Apr 2006)

Well, there are still 17 of us CH147-trained pilots in the CF and some of us could form a portion of a CH147A pilot cadre.  We would also want experienced tactical aviators and new pilots to fly any new machine as well -- demographics are important.  I believe the CDS' discussions were in providing an interim heavy lift solution to deployed operations until such time as the TALC project determined what airframe best fulfils the heavy-lift requirements of the CF.  Of course, loan of a particular aircraft might be seen (and not without foundation) as a statement by the government that this was the aircraft that would be finally selected for TALC.  Part of the slow down in action on this particular issue would appear to be political sensitivities between getting an operational capability in theatre as quickly as possible and not being seen to prejudge an ongoing procurement process (i.e. TALC project; assessing op requirements and selecting an appropriate aircraft.)   

Unfortunately, as we (Gov't) continue to dither on, we get pushed back further and further on manufacturers' wait lists as a potential, but slow-to-commit customer.  Alas, to think that folks thought that Paul Martin was "Mr. Dithers".  I am not at all heartened by the Minister's inferral to the CDS that he'll have a long time to wait for heavy lift helicopters.  On the other had, so long as we still get lifted by US, UK and soon to be NL Chinooks in the Southern provinces of AFG, there is no impetus for government to get on with things.  I foresee a tour or two flying Griffons in AFG for me before I think a heavy lift helicopter will even be selected, let alone procured... *sigh*

As noted earlier, other challenges would include maintenance and support.   I still think, however, the major issue right now is dealing with political sensitivities in procuring a helicopter -- luckily many folks...dare I say a generations have experience with this kind of thing!   ;D   I might very well be retired and BillN and I will get together out here by Normal Rogers Airport and have a drink or too (maybe even a round of golf at the Landings.)

Cheers,
Duey

p.s. the CASR bit about dividing 24 Chinooks equally between 403, 408, 427 and 430 shows a lack of understanding of the issue of basing and force generation/employment activities.  I think you'd see a squadron stand up in Trenton, for instance, to support the entire heavy lifter fleet and operate centrally before you see a fleet piece -mealed across the country.  It sounds expensive, but from a resources (human, materiel) point of view, it would be MUCH cheaper to travel around the country from tack to task from a single base of operations than to operate four separate sqns/detachments of mixed fleets at the line units and training squadron.


----------



## HItorMiss (14 Apr 2006)

I must wonder (way outside my lane that's why it's more of a question) how many Heavy lift Helo's they would earmark for SOAS?

If your lifting a several DA teams with maybe an assaulter team, your going to need dedicated SF pilots, on a heavy lift frame to do it. (yes I am aware that DHTC has pilots now)


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Apr 2006)

HoM, a lot of that would depend on the CONOP of the operators.  Without getting into a less than appropriate examination of particular options, it would not be unreasonable to imagine some cases where a larger aircraft might be suited to a particular action, and others where a number of smaller airframes might provide a more appropriate or tailored mode of mobility.  How that would be implemented at squadron(s) level is anyone's guess right now.  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## HItorMiss (14 Apr 2006)

Thanks Duey

Yet one more question that fall's into the perview of someone way above my pay grade LOL

I will state though from my experience with covert insertion on training with Recce, that the CH146 is fine for a 4 man det but even then with all the excess weight in our rucks I know were pushing. If you are going to use more then det size elements I think were going to need more then just the 146 to accomplish any mission with a viability of no detection


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Apr 2006)

HoM, yes...that's probably a fair statement that the Griffon would do well with det size elements.  Covert or distributed insertions would be fairly well matched with the Griffon's capabilities.  Large unit/mass pers moves is something a heavier aircraft would be biased towards, capability-wise.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## mdh (15 Apr 2006)

> Well, there are still 17 of us CH147-trained pilots in the CF and some of us could form a portion of a CH147A pilot cadre.  We would also want experienced tactical aviators and new pilots to fly any new machine as well -- demographics are important.



Duey

How difficult would it be to transition to a new avionics suite which would, presumably, be part of the refurbished Chinooks? I was talking with some Sea King guys a while ago and they mentioned that flying the Cyclones will be a huge technological leap. Or might it in fact be easier to fly with all the computerized help? 

cheers, mdh


----------



## Armymatters (15 Apr 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> Duey
> 
> How difficult would it be to transition to a new avionics suite which would, presumably, be part of the refurbished Chinooks? I was talking with some Sea King guys a while ago and they mentioned that flying the Cyclones will be a huge technological leap. Or might it in fact be easier to fly with all the computerized help?
> 
> cheers, mdh



I remember an answer for this, and it applies from commercial aviation. One American airline, Southwest Airlines, due to the structure of its fleet (single airplane type: Boeing 737), has it's newer airplanes that are fitted with a glass cockpit programmed so that regular steam gauges show up on the CRT displays in the locations where the old steam gauges are. It was too difficult and expensive to train their pilots so that they were familarized with the new fully glass cockpits, so they contacted Boeing to have the software adjusted. If the pilot was already familar with the regular glass cockpit displays, the pilot can flip a switch to switch it back to the regular display. Perhaps the same can be done for any future Chinooks in CF service where older pilots already familar with the older Chinook version that was in service.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Apr 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> Duey
> 
> How difficult would it be to transition to a new avionics suite which would, presumably, be part of the refurbished Chinooks? I was talking with some Sea King guys a while ago and they mentioned that flying the Cyclones will be a huge technological leap. Or might it in fact be easier to fly with all the computerized help?
> 
> cheers, mdh



MDH, not a problem at all.  Learning the "visible front end" of any avionics managements system (AMS) would be readily absorbed by any CF pilot during the initial conversion training to type.  The worst case are those of us flying Griffon with the AMS' cockpit display unit (CDU) down on the pedestal between the two seats -- best case, experience on other aircraft like the training variant of the Griffon in Portage (a.k.a. Bell 412CF) and the Cormorant have glass cockpits.  

In the end, though, what is most important is an understanding of what any instrumentation and avionics systems are representing and the pilot being able to form that information into a sound "air picture" and operate his or her machine accordingly. 

I suspect that the Sea King was a different story for a different reason, at leasty partially.  The Sea King is the only CF aircraft that has its cockpit instrumentation arrange in a circular, or "clock" format (vice all the other cockpits with what we call an "instrument T")-- a very old, albeit function configuration.  The instrument scan is notably different for a Sea King pilot flying in the clouds; they literally scan around the "clock" to ensure proper flight attitude and aircraft performance is maintained...the rest of us refer from the artificial horizon (principal attitude reference at center, top of the "T") 'out and back' to other instruments.  In the end, though, I can't see this being as big a deal as some of the SK guys made it out to be...I think they might have been referring more to the entire issue of stepping out of the late '50's into the 21st Century...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Apr 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I remember an answer for this, and it applies from commercial aviation. One American airline, Southwest Airlines, due to the structure of its fleet (single airplane type: Boeing 737), has it's newer airplanes that are fitted with a glass cockpit programmed so that regular steam gauges show up on the CRT displays in the locations where the old steam gauges are. It was too difficult and expensive to train their pilots so that they were familarized with the new fully glass cockpits, so they contacted Boeing to have the software adjusted. If the pilot was already familar with the regular glass cockpit displays, the pilot can flip a switch to switch it back to the regular display. Perhaps the same can be done for any future Chinooks in CF service where older pilots already familar with the older Chinook version that was in service.



I don't know, switching back and forth like that seems to be an unnecessary expense.....Maybe one of real flying types that know about this kind of stuff would care to comment.


----------



## Armymatters (15 Apr 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I don't know, switching back and forth like that seems to be an unnecessary expense.....Maybe one of real flying types that know about this kind of stuff would care to comment.



Actually, an example can be shown here:

The older versions of the Boeing 737 (except the very early models), namely the 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500 have this type of cockpit, with both analog and digital displays:





The newest versions, the 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900 have a fully digital cockpit, like this:




When Boeing was developing the newest versions of the 737, Southwest Airlines, as a major customer of Boeing specifically requested the cockpit layout be similar to their earlier model 737's, for crew commonality. Boeing, not wanting to upset their biggest customer, did this.

I don't have any good pictures to show you, except the ones I grabbed off the internet. But it illustrates the point.

Edit: The information that I used for this can be found from this thread here: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1863278/4/

The people on that forum better explained it than I did.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Apr 2006)

armymatters,

It  is very comon for "glass cockpits" to have their instrument presentation in similar fashion to analog displays.  This is no great developemnt by the folks at Boeing. 

 :


----------



## beenthere (15 Apr 2006)

Duey. To scatter them all over the country with the Tac Hel Sqns would be the worst possible scenario. The people at the top of the hill have to be convinced that they would end up with one awful mess if this were ever implemented. I could easily envision many days when none of the Sqns would be able to put one hook in the sky.  Right from day one training and standards would suffer as training would take forever with only four birds on location and each unit would drift away from standards. 
Maintenance would suffer as smaller units would have fewer people to share experience and with the low experience levels there will be a need for knowledge upgrading for technicians as new techniques develop.
One large unit could incorporate a training and knowledge development facility into it's operation to allow more pertinent training.
I could probably write a book on the advantages of having the entire operation in one house. I was in Rivers when the whole CH-113A operation was together and I was in Edmonton, St.Hubert and Ottawa and experienced the difficulties of the divided operation.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Apr 2006)

Armymatters: This mimicking of steam-driven gauges on a multi-function display is getting outdated rather quickly.  It is the least of a pilot's concerns when transitioning to a new aircraft (sub)type.  As I noted earlier, it is the understanding of the underlying systems and their interaction that must be understood by the pilot. 

Sounds to me like some operators are thinking that there is more to different instrument layout than there really is.  Of course Boeing (Raytheon/Collins/Marconi...makes of avionics suites) will program them however the operator wants, it's relatively easy and it gets Boeing and the sub-contractors more money.  Do they need it?  Not so sure.  A friend of mine is dual qualified on Airbus 330's and 340's...while the cockpit layout is similar, it is not identical, however; the underlying systems are similar enough that FAA/TC/JAA certifies both types as pilotable by a 330/340 dual type-qualified pilot.  There are probably more substantial system differences between a 737-200 and a 737-900 than in what layout the gauges are presented to the aircrew.

Beenthere:  I agree fully.  Distributed didn't work as well with 447/450 as I think single unit could have.  FWIW, I think that those at the top of the hill currently foresee a single unit with all the assets.  As I noted earlier, O&M and TD to travel will be minor compared to sunk cost increases with multiple units of a 15-20 machine fleet.  Had a chat with past CO's of 1 THP and 450 at the 1 Wing Air Force mess dinner recently and I think you and I and they are all singing from the same sheet -- I think some of those in 101 see it the same way, thankfully!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (16 Apr 2006)

Hopefully the single unit concept will prevail. However I can see the Tac Hel units lobbying (my terminology) to have them dispersed. There is an unfortunate tendency for people to paint unrealistic pictures to achieve personal aims rather than consider what is realistic and best for the common cause.
It would look all too nice on paper to have four units that could provide both light and heavy lift capabilities from the same source/Sqn.  However the reality would be far different than the paper plan and it would take a lot of effort to undo the resultant mess and rearrange them into a single unit.
Using the concept of establishing one new unit could result in setting up the ideal Chinook operation where every function pertaining to them is under one roof. The benefits of that sort of operation would be easy to realize. 
A detached operation in an overseas location could be established with minimal disruption as it could be equipped and manned from a single source and rotation of personnel and equipment would be seamless.
Put it on a transport base such as Trenton and resupply of spares,MRPs,and personnel rotation would be as quick as the next flight out.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Apr 2006)

Just curious:

If you concentrate all the heavy lift helicopters at Trenton for ease of maintenance and flight crew co-ordination how exactly will they interact and train with the troops they are to support?  Or will you concentrate the light/heliborne forces and the M177s at Trenton as well?

I am being facetious but surely this debate is eternal?  Fleet managers/maintenance types/stores clerks all want to keep their toys in one location all nice and shiny.  Meanwhile the folks that rely on those services (sorry, capabilities  ) want them on hand to train with and to use when they are needed.

I can see the RAF in the UK getting away with one Helibase for the country, they never have to shift farther than Toronto to Montreal. How about the light battalions at Valcartier and Edmonton (or Bagotville, Goose Bay and Comoz if you accept the Conservative platform or even Gagetown)?

It seems like (as in every other endeavour) there would have to be a "saw-offf" somewhere and everybody puts a little water in their wine.

PS on the other hand supporting 2 and 5 brigade out of Trenton with Chinooks while 1 Brigade at Comox and whoever might supply the Forlorn Hope at Goose Bay with Navy Cyclones  might be an option I suppose.  Or do you brigade the light troops with the Heavy Lift at Trenton as well?

As I said: just curious.

Cheers.


----------



## beenthere (17 Apr 2006)

It's 0420 and I had just completed a reply which took me almost an hour to type. I was reviewing it and just about ready to post it and my cat jumped up on the keyboard and more than half of it went--POOF-Gone forever. I then goofed and all of the rest of it disappeared. :crybaby: ;D :'( 
Another time.   I'll be back.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2006)

beenthere:

You have my sympathies and condolences.  The void is the recipient of all of my best stuff. ;D


----------



## beenthere (18 Apr 2006)

So,it went to the void. I've often wondered where things went.
As for the eternal debate here's my pennys worth.Given that each of the four Tac Hel Sqns were allotted four Chinooks I would predict that they would become largely ineffective and would provide little training or support.
The chance of four helicopters from a fleet of four ever being operational on a given day is very remote as realized from previous operations with both Chinooks and CH-113s. 
They require much more maintenance and support than smaller less complex helicopters and have more systems and components which in the event of malfunction will keep them from flying and will take more time to repair. Yes, these are the new and improved versions and some things have changed. However some things have changed in the military as well. When we got our last fleet of Chinooks they were introduced into squadrons which had been operating CH-113s which were also complex and had many similarities so the learning curve was not so great. Now we're talking about introducing them to people who have no experience with this sort of aircraft and with much less of a background in the systems that they will have to learn. Essentially it's starting from scratch and has to be done on four different squadrons.
All aircraft have to undergo periodic inspections which keep them out of service for a considerable period of time as major components have to be removed and replaced. Newly introduced aircraft types are subject to very thorough inspections to do sampling of wear and failure likelihood on highly stressed components and structural areas. This procedure is very labour intensive and also requires special tools, equipment and support facilities.I would suggest that four to six weeks would be required. After it's all been put back together a series of ground runs and air tests are required and lots of things require extensive troubleshooting and adjustments.
While all of this is going on our four Chinook squadron has been reduced to a trio. Usually as one comes out of the maintenance bay another goes in so it's still a trio.
Mishaps occur. Someone lands on a tree stump in the training area at night and drives the wood into the soft belly which rips a lot of skin and breaks some ribs and busts some composite material. The aircraft can be flown back to the squadron but the repairs require the services of a number of structural specialists but there are only two on the squadron. For the next three weeks or a month there are only two Chinooks available.
One of the two Chinooks develops a problem during an overnight stop at an airport 200 miles away and the crew discovers that because of a hydraulic pump that has failed the whole system is contaminated with ground up metal and a maintenance crew with a new pump and huge hydraulic test/flush pumping system and a whole hockey sock of new filters and cases of hydraulic fluid have to be flown in by the last Chinook on the squadron just as soon as they can figure what's wrong with Number two engine. 
Who's going to train the gunners on slinging their tubes today? Well they can always watch the film.
If this sounds like it's a bit pessimistic-- There have been days just like it in the past on a squadron that had four Chinooks.Two squadrons that had four Chinooks!
Now, who's going to look after all of the Griffins or whatever they're called while the whole squadron is fixin Chinooks.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Apr 2006)

OK beenthere.  I take your point. 

So....that being the case would it make sense to combine a heavy lift Squadron in proximity with an M777 Regiment and a Support Battalion as the core elements of a distributed brigade.  Form a light brigade but disperse the Three light battalions across the country as they are now but not have them part of the local brigade structure?  The light battalions would be primarily supported by the Griffins with only an annual exercise with the heavy support.

PS.  How does the Air Force keep the Navy's Sea Kings flying when they are dispersed internationally?  (Don't answer they don't.  ;D.  They must have at some point in time.)

Cheers.


----------



## beenthere (18 Apr 2006)

I've got limited knowledge of brigades and what they need to function so I wouldn't venture very far into that realm. When I was involved there were combat groups which I understand were brigades minus a few of the elements to qualify them as brigades. That may or may not have been the case.
When larger formations held exercises or in the case of exercises like Waincon the Chinook operation was often in the form of one of the squadrons being supplemented by a couple or three Chinooks from the other squadron along with the necessary personnel. This seemed to provide enough aircraft to have a small fleet that could provide somewhat reliable support.
The Sea King detachment on ships is made up of experienced personnel from Shearwater who are fully trained and they join the ship with a good stock of spare parts. Despite the stories that we all hear they do a very good job and their operations usually provide good service to the ships.
You mentioned a light brigade. I recall reading a book about a light brigade who ended up eating their horses in Crimea. Maybe we could find another name for your unit. One that evokes better memories. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Apr 2006)

Cheeky blighter.

But thems were Cavalwy donchano - not REAL light troops. ;D


----------



## beenthere (18 Apr 2006)

Back in the 70's when I had that book (I think that the title was "The Gallant 700") I was on an exercise in Wainwright and my AC was a cavalry type--8CH  believe. I would read selected passages to him and ask if his life in the cav was like that. I only did it because he had a thing about reminiscing about life as an armoured type.
Back on topic. I would consider that troops don't have a requirement to work with helicopters on a continuous basis. They are only another means of transport and only practical in specific operations so training could be done periodically or in preparation for an operation where they would be a major form of support.
They are costly to operate not only in financial terms but burning off flying hours for tasks that don't make practical use of them eats away at the life cycle of the aircraft and if it comes down to the crunch where they are really needed it just could happen that they would be in a less than usable state.
It takes a lot of management to keep the flying hours per aircraft  coordinated so that only one aircraft is due for it's inspection cycle at a time. 
I don't know what the cycle would be but if it were based on inspections carried out every 50, 100, and 500 flying hours and a very major inspection/rebuild done by a contractor in their facility at 2000 hours the aircraft is out of operation for periods that range from 1 day to 6 months.
A larger unit can shuffle aircraft around to meet the number of flying hours per month relatively easily in comparison to one with only four in the stable.It can also better absorb the loss of aircraft for unscheduled maintenance such as repairs due to mishaps or having an aircraft out of service for modifications.
For a major exercise a detachment of six to eight aircraft could be assigned to wherever the exercise is held and the normal cycle of training and maintenance could continue back at the home unit without interruption.
It's quite simple in that the more pieces that you have on your game board the more moves you can make.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Apr 2006)

OK so let me ask this:

Lets assume that the minimum working force is 4 A/C.

Would it work if, for example, rather than buying 16 A/C and parcelling them out 4/4/4 to the Brigades with a 4 A/C reserve 18 A/C were purchased and divided into 3 packets of 6 all under one Commander?  6 would be tasked to Trenton to support both Pet and Val, possibly Bagotville, Goose Bay and Gagetown.  6 would be tasked to Edmonton to support Wainwright, Shilo and possibly Comox and Yellowknife.  6 would be held for Operations and Reserve at Trenton.

The Commander would be responsible to cycle his A/C to ensure there are 12 flyable A/C at all times.

The A/C would be attached to and controlled by the local helo commander but not under his command.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Apr 2006)

Beenthere's bringing up points that were valid not only in the past but would be quite relevant in the future as well.  This is along the same lines as my thinking, whereby splitting capability up into too many smaller packages turns out to be both more costly and, ironically, less effective (because of the reduced overall serviceability rate at the smaller detachments/units - a problem experienced on a near continuous basis at the 447/450 twin squadrons (3 and 4 ac respectively, after the loss of CH147002 in Ranking Inlet)

Lets say we have a fleet of 16 ac, the most I would split it up to would be, as a purely hypothetical example, 10 aircraft in Trenton and 6 in Edmonton (my gut feel for the level of support needed in support of the Army at Edmonton and support to CMTC in Wainright weighed against that provided to eastern Canadian Army units [Pet, Valcatraz and Gagetown] as well as CANSOFCOM.)  Trenton poses a challenge in that the squadron would not be in direct contact with the primary user as well as the potential lack of "tactical aviation" mind set (as this squadron would most likely fall under command of 8 Wing Trenton, an "ATG-esque" wing with a clear transport and SAR flavour to it...)  The latter is a bigger concern for me as there are different mind sets between 'tac hel' and 'transport/SAR' communities.  It would no doubt be a challenge to maintain operational effectiveness in a location that doesn't have responsiveness to Army and SOF components as an inherent/full-time task.  I'm not saying Trenton wouldn't work, it would just be a big challenge for all those folks in the squadron as they might appear more like "fish out of water" than members of a tightly integrated and operational Wing.  I suppose in its support, Trenton is getting more and more experience/exposure to deployed operations, which is definitely something the heavy-lifter would unquestionably be doing in the future.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Blakey (18 Apr 2006)

Duey (or anyone else...)
What would you think of an "Army Air Corps" ala USMC fashion. In which all air assets (fixed and rotary wing) are sole property of the Army, and as such all pilots of said ac are in fact Army. This would give the Army the assets that it needs, in house. (CAS, CSAR, UH, AH, etc..)
Thoughts? am I right out of 'er?, aren't there any zoomies, or wannabe zoomies that would want to be Army?


----------



## HItorMiss (18 Apr 2006)

Blakey, wonderful idea now just convience the air staff to give up it's fiefdom and were all set.

does it make sense, you darn right it does. Gives the Army the ability to train and utilize it's assets as it's needed. I wonder if an interim solution such as TACCOM of whole Tac Hel Sqn's would work better? Like 427 is now TACCOM CANSOFCOM, we could dedicate whole Sqns to say LFCA, LFWA etc etc that way we use the choppers as we see fit train the pilots to the standard we want vs that the air force requires  (not saying it's better or worse) but the Air Force remains in control overall they procure the ac and they give us the pilots thus their budget remains the same.

OK rotor heads good idea by Blakey and Me or are we both drinking lunch?


----------



## Journeyman (18 Apr 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> OK rotor heads good idea by Blakey and Me or are we both drinking lunch?



You may wish to prepare for sorting out tactical aviation with something equally simple - - get the Navy to give up any two of "sodomy, rum, and the lash"   ;D

(personally, I'd rather have our pioneers and mortars back from the non-infantry types seeking a viable operational role)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Apr 2006)

> (personally, I'd rather have our pioneers and mortars back from the non-infantry types seeking a viable operational role)



Journeyman- speaking as an ex-gunner, if you think the Artillery wanted your stinky pop-gun mortars instead of real guns, you are on crack (speaking metaphorically and not in any way infering that you have actually or even considered using drugs in the past). 

And for the record, I would much rather fly around in my helicopter wearing a Navy uniform, but no one asked me...


----------



## Blakey (18 Apr 2006)

Don't get me wrong, I hope the Air Force starts to reap the benefits of this new CDS soon, as well as the Navy. I believe the Air Force ( at least the TPT Sqn's 440 and the like) should have the capability to lift a Bn and its kit _en masse_ and drop them into any theater of operations via Galaxy, globemasters ect. I am not one who is of the mind that the Infantry can (or could sustain) itsself without the support of the Air Force and Navy, that being said, if the Army did go the way of self sustainability, then Air Force role would be much the same. I would also like to see a comparable GA fighter to say, a F16 or something along those lines for the AF. 

I think the TACCOM idea will work in the intrim, but as they (Air Force) find that they are finding it hard to staff these positions as well as regular Air Sqn w/ FE's, pilots ground crew ect, they will quickly start to lobby for their assets to returned to Air Command.



> OK rotor heads good idea by Blakey and Me or are we both drinking lunch?


Supper here, and I'm diluting it with Clamato. 8)

EDIT: One caveat, this is coming from a 17 year Infantry type, and this is in no way a claim to know all about Air Force Operations...just my thought, observations and opinion.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Apr 2006)

Blakey said:
			
		

> Duey (or anyone else...)
> What would you think of an "Army Air Corps" ala USMC fashion. In which all air assets (fixed and rotary wing) are sole property of the Army, and as such all pilots of said ac are in fact Army. This would give the Army the assets that it needs, in house. (CAS, CSAR, UH, AH, etc..)
> Thoughts? am I right out of 'er?, aren't there any zoomies, or wannabe zoomies that would want to be Army?



Blakey, prior to unification, I would have been an Army officer and aviator -- it worked fairlye well in the past...pre-unification.  After tac aviation turned into a bit of a ba$tard-child, borne of two parents but not really acknowledged by either.  This, interestingly, in stark contrast to the Navy's continued sense of ownership over maritime aviation.  Tac Aviation had a few different "ownership/funding" configurations (capital acquisition = Army, operations = Air Force) in the FMC days, but come 1992, the Air Force took overall all responsibility for aviation: capital, ops, fuel, system engineering support, PY's etc...  The Army only had a request/advisorial role to tell Air Command what it wanted.  Where the capability is today is testament to the lack of co-ordination and co-operation between the two elements.

It will be intersting to see how 427 works out...small correction, it's actually OPCOM to CANSOFCOM (vice TACCOM)...a noticably more intertwined relationship than originally envisaged by some folks.  There's a lot to the "why for" on that one...we'll have to see how it works out.  The Air Force is still responsible for manning, aircrew and maintenance standards, flight safety and accident investigation, and CANSOFCOM controls how the assets operationally generate and employ.  Jury's still out on that, but responsiveness to the user will likely increase noticeably.

One of the main reasons you won't see any other squadrons heading under Army control is based on the Chief's moves towards a more (truly) integrated force.  Moving aviation under any kind of command relationship beyond the inter-element tasking process of today would not be consistent with the regional delineation of assets within the respective regions and the regional commanders' purvue, i.e. what about aviation as a domestic capability doing things other than hard Army/green support?  It's also not to say that the Army would run things any better if they had more responsibility over aviation -- after all, as I've noted before, it was Comd FMC in 1989, LGen Ken Foster, when the Army still had the hammer for equipping and resourcing of "army" aviation (a.k.a. tac hel) who signed the death warrant for Chinook and Kiowa and started the process towards supplementing the Twin Huey (and eventually outright replacing it) with the CH146 Griffon.  Yup, the Army did it, not the Air Force...so I am very wary when I hear guys say, "it would be much better under Army control."  As in, when the Army scrapped three fleets (Chinook, Huey and Kiowa) for one?  See what I mean...nice to hear the sentiments in the bar, but the talk doesn't go far when it comes to the real world.  BGen MacDonald (IIRC) was also the Amry man at the table during DMC (Defence Management Council) when the recce pod (ERSTA) was being discussed for the Griffon.  VAdm Garnett asked who supported it (CH146 ERSTA - electro-optical recce surveillance and targert system) and not surprizingly got an avertive look towards the ceiling from MGen Bastien (A/CAS, and a fighter guy) and when Gen MacDonald was asked for the army position on the Griffon, he noted that there were many projects of greater importance than Griffon ERSTA and the project was officially killed (and, BTW, the $75M held in the CFUTTH project was redirected to the CF-188 System Life Extension Program [SLEP] and CP-140 Aurora Life Extension Program [ALEP]...convenient, hunh?)

Thus, while a nice though and raised for the right ideas, reality (which bites) causes things to turn out a little differently.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Blakey (18 Apr 2006)

Duey (all)
Thank you for the frank points.
Duey, many thanks for the lenghty, informative reply.
I would probably not be able to do justice in replying to Duey's post at this time (busy with other matters... 8)), I will present my position more markedly in the near future.

Thank you again for the responses.


----------



## Blakey (19 Apr 2006)

> small correction, it's actually OPCOM to CANSOFCOM (vice TACCOM)


Oops, my mistake.



> when the Army still had the hammer for equipping and resourcing of "army" aviation (a.k.a. tac hel)


As stated earlier by myself, not being a SME on the aviation side of things, are you speaking of the "observers" position that was manned by Army Snr NCO's in the Kiowa?. 

So this will kind of stand up as a "litmus test" with 427/CANSOFCOM?, is there any talk whatsoever (up in Air Command) that you know of, about possibly standing up (again?) an all "Army Air Corps"?. 

It just seems that this Idea would better the two services, Army and Air, whereas the Army could equip, staff, maintain all of its air assets (fixed and rotary), while the Air Force could concentrate on heavy lift, TPT of (large numbers) troops and equipment etc...

I hope what I'm trying to suggest isn't that confusing, I just would like to see the us (Army) being capable of light to medium lift UH with a AH capability and some sort of fixed wing CAS. I honestly think that it could work.


Hope you can understand my ramblings  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Apr 2006)

Blakey, at the end of the day, I think we're actually too small a force (tac aviation) to be considered as a uniquely "Army" asset.  Furthermore, the command and control structure is aligning with the regional commands, vice the 'pure' Army C2 structure.  If the Army were to be assigned OPCOM of all tactical aviation (less 427 SOAS), it would have to realize that in addition to its own force generation activities, the Army would also have to support all the non-Army things that tac aviation currently supports -- secondary SAR, national CF taskings (replacing batteries of microwave stations in North, public displays, domestic CD ops with RCMP/OPP/SQ, etc...).  Especially given the direction the CDS is heading with integral forces employed by the four new commands, a move of aviation from the Air Force to the Army is more like adjusting the accounting of who pays for what.  

Speaking frankly, folks should be under no illusion that what works for some large aviation forces (US, UK, etc...) would necessarily work as well for us.  I have spent most of my operational life working with the Army including most recently several years in Army doctrine and land force combat development staffs.  While I would like to think that tactical aviation would be better off as "Army Aviation", I honestly don't think that would necessarily be the case.  Regarding other users' C2 relationships, I suppose more will flow from seeing how 427 works out with CANSOFCOM in the future, but in contrast to many in the Army who are not particularly fussed with where aviation capability is, the SOF world is very keen on having spec ops aviation respond to its operational requirements.  Having recently spoken with many operators, I can confirm that the lads are very keen to have us working with them with whatever capacity we can squeeze out of the machines.  More often than not when I talk to folks in the Army, I get jokes and well-aged stories of "can't lift this, can't lift that", etc.... and never "lets see how we can maximize what you guys can give us".  It get tiring after a while, and it significantly affects the community's inclination to keep on trying to push rope with a user community that seems to continuously complain about the lack of capability.  Like it or not, guys will gravitate to operators that pull them in to the community vice those that continually razz them for what a machine that they had no part in procuring might or might not be capable of supporting.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Blakey (19 Apr 2006)

Duey, good points.
Maybe I'm just so wrapped up with the idea that the Army should be self sufficient --to an extent--, I still believe that we (the Army) need Air Force and Navy support in order to successfully conduct operations either international or domestic.


> Speaking frankly, folks should be under no illusion that what works for some large aviation forces (US, UK, etc...) would necessarily work as well for us


You're probably right, I think its more of a pipedream that I have, when it boils down to it, the government (present or any future) will not or would not lay down the money needed to stand-up an entirely separate aviation unit within the Canadian Army, but...everyone is entitled to their dreams I guess.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Apr 2006)

The CF is smaller than the Marine Corps. They seem to have managed integrating the parts into one entity.  Admittedly they have an entirely expeditionary focus ... much like your new expeditionary command.

Sorry.... I suddenly hear a chorus of "It seems to me, I've heard that song before" coming on.


----------



## beenthere (22 Apr 2006)

Duey. Rather than a 6-10 split maybe give some consideration to periodic deployments to Edmonton during certain phases of troop training during the first years of working the Chinooks into ops. That would work out the details and practise of running detached operations without having to create another unit. 
Training,development, and maintenance functions grow best under one healthy standard. In the past there were more than a few things that grew into general practise as a result of geographical/operational isolation without ever becoming recognized or approved.
When the dust has settled and requirements become better established if there's a requirement for a sqn in Edmonton one could be established and maybe it could be the reason for acquiring a couple of the latest new models with a few more buttons and bows.


----------



## beenthere (22 Apr 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> Beenthere's bringing up points that were valid not only in the past but would be quite relevant in the future as well.  This is along the same lines as my thinking, whereby splitting capability up into too many smaller packages turns out to be both more costly and, ironically, less effective (because of the reduced overall serviceability rate at the smaller detachments/units - a problem experienced on a near continuous basis at the 447/450 twin squadrons (3 and 4 ac respectively, after the loss of CH147002 in Ranking Inlet)
> 
> Lets say we have a fleet of 16 ac, the most I would split it up to would be, as a purely hypothetical example, 10 aircraft in Trenton and 6 in Edmonton (my gut feel for the level of support needed in support of the Army at Edmonton and support to CMTC in Wainright weighed against that provided to eastern Canadian Army units [Pet, Valcatraz and Gagetown] as well as CANSOFCOM.)  Trenton poses a challenge in that the squadron would not be in direct contact with the primary user as well as the potential lack of "tactical aviation" mind set (as this squadron would most likely fall under command of 8 Wing Trenton, an "ATG-esque" wing with a clear transport and SAR flavour to it...)  The latter is a bigger concern for me as there are different mind sets between 'tac hel' and 'transport/SAR' communities.  It would no doubt be a challenge to maintain operational effectiveness in a location that doesn't have responsiveness to Army and SOF components as an inherent/full-time task.  I'm not saying Trenton wouldn't work, it would just be a big challenge for all those folks in the squadron as they might appear more like "fish out of water" than members of a tightly integrated and operational Wing.  I suppose in its support, Trenton is getting more and more experience/exposure to deployed operations, which is definitely something the heavy-lifter would unquestionably be doing in the future.
> 
> ...


Trenton is actually quite into the "tactical world" . Unfortunately because of restraints due to lack of airframes the quarterly TALEX exercises don't come off anymore but there is lots of the same thing going on.
 A TALEX committed 12 aircraft and crews for about 10-14 days and was about as tactical as it comes for a CC-130. Lots of single ship airdrops worked up to 3, 6 and 12 ship formations and drops in a 24/7 operation.
From what I see from reading between the lines is that the Base Commander wants operational units to offset the high profile that The RCAF Museum has created so anything that flies and makes noise is an asset. The base is forever promoting it's commitment to the units that it houses.Everyone dresses in the new combat duds and the place has taken on a whole new look and commitment. 
That's a far cry from the ugly duckling welcome that awaited 450 Sqn. in Uplands..We had to move all of our ugly vehicles over to the former fighter Q Hangar where they would not be seen by the visiting public.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Apr 2006)

beenthere said:
			
		

> Duey. Rather than a 6-10 split maybe give some consideration to periodic deployments to Edmonton during certain phases of troop training during the first years of working the Chinooks into ops. That would work out the details and practise of running detached operations without having to create another unit.
> Training,development, and maintenance functions grow best under one healthy standard. In the past there were more than a few things that grew into general practise as a result of geographical/operational isolation without ever becoming recognized or approved.
> When the dust has settled and requirements become better established if there's a requirement for a sqn in Edmonton one could be established and maybe it could be the reason for acquiring a couple of the latest new models with a few more buttons and bows.



Beenthere, fully agree...I'd keep all the machines in one location -- Trenton doesn't seem like a bad idea, and do TD runs to CMTC in Wainright when required.  Re: 450's SMP vehicles...we had them back at the squadron in the late -80's/early-90's...the public didn't seem to mind.  Shameful that some green-suited micro-managers actually thought up the idea of hiding our trucks in the Q-hangars... :-\

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (24 Apr 2006)

Duey.The Relocation of the 450 Sqn. from St.Hubert to Uplands was somewhat odd by any means. It came as a result of one of those rather quick and suspicious political announcements that are followed by actions that don't really make much sense. As I recall there was an announcement that "military flying from St. Hubert would cease."That was made about early 1970.
 At that time St. Hubert had 429 Sqn. with a number of Buffalos, 450 Sqn. with CH-113As and the Air Reserve Unit with Single Otters all of which belonged to Mobile Command. The Buffalos were moved to Trenton and Edmonton and given to Air Transport Command in what was later revealed to have been a somewhat sneaky move engineered by ATG.  450 Sqn. was moved to Uplands which was not in favour of having the squadron on their base for some reason and the Base Commander actually stated that sentiment publicly. The Air Reserve Unit continued to operate at St. Hubert and still does so. 
 After the CF-100s moved to North Bay, 436 Sqn. moved to Trenton and AETES moved to Cold Lake Uplands was getting pretty bare looking and 450 Sqn. and 2AFMS became big time operators on the hangar line.There were SMP trucks all over Uplands and they were welcome. Too bad that someone made another one of those announcements and we lost a line of great hangars at Uplands.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2006)

beenthere said:
			
		

> Duey.The Relocation of the 450 Sqn. from St.Hubert to Uplands was somewhat odd by any means. It came as a result of one of those rather quick and suspicious political announcements that are followed by actions that don't really make much sense. As I recall there was an announcement that "military flying from St. Hubert would cease."That was made about early 1970.
> At that time St. Hubert had 429 Sqn. with a number of Buffalos, 450 Sqn. with CH-113As and the Air Reserve Unit with Single Otters all of which belonged to Mobile Command. The Buffalos were moved to Trenton and Edmonton and given to Air Transport Command in what was later revealed to have been a somewhat sneaky move engineered by ATG.  450 Sqn. was moved to Uplands which was not in favour of having the squadron on their base for some reason and the Base Commander actually stated that sentiment publicly. The Air Reserve Unit continued to operate at St. Hubert and still does so.
> After the CF-100s moved to North Bay, 436 Sqn. moved to Trenton and AETES moved to Cold Lake Uplands was getting pretty bare looking and 450 Sqn. and 2AFMS became big time operators on the hangar line.There were SMP trucks all over Uplands and they were welcome. Too bad that someone made another one of those announcements and we lost a line of great hangars at Uplands.



Yup, what went around, came around....again.  We were in the 7 Wing mess at Uplands for the reading of the '94 budget that there was an announcement in that actual speech that a "tactical helicopter squadron" would be moving from Uplands to St-Hubert...didn't take much imagination to figure who was moving...    Merci, Monsieur Masse

Who knows...maybe after standing down in St-Hubert, 450 will stand up in Trenton, to meet up with its (old school, down deep 10TAG) brothers, the Buffs?   

Cheers,
Duey

p.s.  It was a real shame to fly in to Ottawa one time and taxi past the flat expanse that used to be my 10 Hangar home...  :'(


----------



## beenthere (5 Jul 2006)

What's the latest on this? I was away for the month of June and haven't  heard anything other than the announcement that there had been a plan to get 17 aircraft within the next few years. I saw press coverage in three newspapers but they were all similar and lacking in detail.


----------



## geo (5 Jul 2006)

it's been announced that we're going to get them (maybe, sometime, possibly) but no detail on it's financing and no detail on source / type of aircraft.


----------

