# Ch-47 Chinook - Shipboard Capabilities



## TR23 (5 Sep 2005)

What are the capabilites of the Chinook on a ship?  It seems like a huge aircraft to hanger and repair, especially with the huge rotor area.  Do the rotor blades fold on chinooks?  Is there a modification available to allow it?
Is the chinook able to operate for long periods of time in salt water/spray environment?  I know it has at various points, with the falklands coming to mind, but I was wondering if it was 'certified' or whatever process is involved.
If the CF buys amphibious ships, plus JSS, would the chinook be a good match at all?  It seems like the army's favorite, but how does that integrate with the navy?

Thanks for any responses, I know very little about the CF, but I am always looking to learn more.

TR23


----------



## TR23 (5 Sep 2005)

Oh, and moderators, if this thread should be a subtopic under one of the other chinook/helicopter threads, I apologize.


----------



## Sf2 (5 Sep 2005)

Right now, I don't think there is a ship in Canada's inventory that would allow a Chinook to land on safely - even the Sea King needs to fold the tail in order to fit in its hangar.

As far as salt water environments, there's nothing stopping it from operating in those locations, however I'm sure there would be some sort of washing cycle for the airframe and engines.

Sea King length 73 ft
Chinook Length 99 ft

I think the only ship that would fit a chinook would either be a full blown carrier, or an expeditionary ship similar to what the marines use


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Sep 2005)

Tip of rotor to tip of rotor, it's way too big for the currently designed JSS-IIRC the JSS SOR states must be able to operate two helicopters from the flight deck simultaneously. It would take a mighty big ship to carry any more than 4 Chinooks and operate 2 at the same time. For amphib purposes I would think we are looking at a small flat top, like the Spanish design or perhaps the Dutch ship that comes in at 27,000 tons and  18,000 tons respectively.


The Largs Bay class ship LPD can operate 2 Chinooks off the flight deck, but has very limited capability to transport/stow and maintian them. I don't think the LPD 17 is any better.   

The Spanish or Dutch flat tops seem to be the type of ship that is required. Personally, I don't think the government is going to sign on to this class of a ship- makes too much sense. 

I don't know what solution they are contemplating, but you can bet it will be old, expensive, of limited practical use and will have a short shelf life. I fear they are going to do what the Aussies did, and buy some old US tank landing craft and convert them to multi-purpose assault vessels.   

What is really required are LHA's. Fat chance.

Check out Richard Beedals Navy Matters site- some of his pages discuss options and programs for the RN- some of which are applicable [in theory] for the Canadian Navy. http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lphr.htm

Cheers.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2005)

TR23 said:
			
		

> What are the capabilites of the Chinook on a ship?   It seems like a huge aircraft to hanger and repair, especially with the huge rotor area.   Do the rotor blades fold on chinooks?   Is there a modification available to allow it?
> Is the chinook able to operate for long periods of time in salt water/spray environment?   I know it has at various points, with the falklands coming to mind, but I was wondering if it was 'certified' or whatever process is involved.
> If the CF buys amphibious ships, plus JSS, would the chinook be a good match at all?   It seems like the army's favorite, but how does that integrate with the navy?
> 
> ...



TR, 

Firstly, the CH-47 doesn't have a blade self-folding capability, but the blades can be de-linked at the lead/lag damper and swung into an "administratively stowed" position resting on specially constructed blade stands over the central  fuselage so that the blades fit entirely within the foot print of the Chinook.  This capability was developed by Boeing but is not a standard procedure and is not currently used by any CH47 operators.  

Interstingly, the Chinook with blades folded (albeit not a normal or self-powered procedure) then has a smaller footprint and volume space than the EH-101 -- the Chinook's fuselage is 51' long, 12' 5" wide and 19' tall at the aft pylon, while the EH-101 fuselage is 64' long, 14' 9" wide and 21' 8" tall at the highest point of the tai rotor's blades.....hmmmm....

Some will say the Chinook is not "fully marinized"...a statement more false than true.  It is mostly the inability to fold the rotor blades under own-power for stowage that people say this.  The Chinook is in fact significantly marinized, with anti-corrosion coatings in all areas that would be exposed to water during amphibious (swimming) operations.  Interestingly, the Chinook is rated to land and operate in the water at up to sea-state 3 -- greater that the Sea King to SS2, IIRC and the "not at all amphibious" EH-101.  CH-47 engines and other driveline components on the upper fuselage were not specifically treated for fresh or salt-water exposure and so fresh water rinsing would be required...much like the Australian Army Air Corps does with their CH-47D's that operate at stations near their coasts.

It would appear that the CH-47 and Canada's upcoming Sea King replacement, the Sikorsky CH148 Cyclone share the characteristic...neither of them currently has a blade folding mechanism... 

Cheers,
Duey

Neat site with info on US Army/Navy JSHIP trials (includes (worksafe) vids)


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Sep 2005)

Good stuff. So in theory, a Chinook could be stuffed into a CPF hangar already modified for the '148?   Yikes. Is the flight deck large enough for one to take off and land?

Also, the Austin class LPD, like many others, has no capacity to store/maintain the bird. The JSS will presumably have some [lots] of capacity for this. If I understand where you're going with this, the JSS will transport the Chinooks alongside the LPD. The Chinook will conduct ops off the LPD, but be serviced by the JSS? 
Also, one ship is effectively tied to the other if the LPD is deployed. 

Why has Sikorsky not provided for folding baldes on the 148? After all, they built this mechanism into the Sea King and the Sea Hawk [and Sea Dragon IIRC].

Cheers.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2005)

W601, Sikorsky is working on the 148's folding blades, it's just tat the S-92 currently has no such capability.  Re: LPD vice JSS-like ship...it depends on how the "big flat" ship (the amphib) and the "big fat" ship (JSS) spec out.  Since I understand the Navy doesn't want to mess with the JSS (and I don't at all blame them), I would say it will be the amphib which must adjust.

The following is unverified rumour; however, I have heard that Maersk is putting together a very convincing argument to the Cdn gov't to mod one of their S-class container ships to an amphib...an S-class is huge!  Even if you only used 2/3 of the foredeck, by my calculations you could literally operate 6+ Chinnoks from a converted S-class containership such as the Sovereign Maersk...  >

...food for thought... ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2005)

The Maersk beast looks more like a floating Warehouse than an amphib Duey.  Not a bad thing.

Off topic - looks like room enough in her to stow a couple of Tanks and a bowser of diesel or two.

It would tend to change the rationale on what was deployable, what wasn't, how much and how long.

Fingers crossed.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Maersk beast looks more like a floating Warehouse than an amphib Duey.   Not a bad thing.
> 
> Off topic - looks like room enough in her to stow a couple of Tanks and a bowser of diesel or two.
> 
> ...



Certainly room for a Battle Group easily!  The only thing I haven't heard addressed substantively on the converted S-class issue is the well-deck for LC's (LCU, LCM, but most likely NOT the LCACs)

It still supports the two ships (big fat / big flat) idea forming the backbone of the SCTF.  The post I had in the SCTF thread has a link to the US doing the same thing with S-class ships and apparently the Chinese have already done this with their own container ships...a quick Google of "S-class" "amphibious" "conversion" will net some interesting results.  The US case includes fairly detailed business case numbers.

I remember seeing on Discovery Channel the Hapag-Lloyd S-class container ship "Shanghai Express".  These things are not only huge, but they smoke along at 25/26 kts...you can water ski behind the darned things they move so fast! 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## TR23 (6 Sep 2005)

Duey - those S class ships present interesting opportunities, and apparently someone else came up with the idea first.  Trojan horse indeed.  Interesting to see how this unfolds.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Sep 2005)

> The following is unverified rumour; however, I have heard that Maersk is putting together a very convincing argument to the Cdn gov't to mod one of their S-class container ships to an amphib...an S-class is huge!  Even if you only used 2/3 of the foredeck, by my calculations you could literally operate 6+ Chinnoks from a converted S-class containership such as the Sovereign Maersk...



Duey:  I'd heard much the same and that the Maersk idea was a very serious one...wonder if our sources are the same!  ;D  Six Chinooks is about right, given what we're after...  Hmmmm.

Teddy


----------



## BillN (6 Sep 2005)

Before I joined 450 Sqn in 1983 there had been landing trials on Destroyers and Frigates.   This was before the CPF's came into service.   I do remember that there was a picture of one of our Chinooks sitting on a ships flight deck hanging in the CO's office, but I cannot recall what ship it was.

Having stood on the flight deck of the WINNIPEG when my wife sailed for the Gulf, I'm not sure I'd like to land a Chinook on it.   I've done some small confined areas in my time, but not that small 

Bill


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2005)

Is this what you were referring to Duey?

http://rusi.4t2depot.com/downloads/pub_rds/Carmel.pdf

Is there anything that is NOT possible?  If cash?


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Sep 2005)

$1.3 Billion USD. Quite a chunk of change, but what a ship!!!! I wonder what design standards are- Naval architecture with damage control, fire fighting and hard impact survivability? 

5,000 troops in one of the configurations- 72 Sea Knights in another. WOW!!


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2005)

> *Vessel conversions should not
> be viewed as competition to, or a
> replacement of, purpose build vessels, but as
> an excellent way to obtain interim capability:*conversion vessels allow fleet commanders to
> ...


*

Whiskey - not sure that the article is saying that the acquisition and conversion would cost 1.3 Bn.  I think that paragraph could also be read as saying the Converted S-Class is a cheaper ALTERNATIVE to a 1.3 Bn dollar ship, such as an LPD-17.  That would seem to be more in line with the concept of this being an affordable solution.

For what its worth.

But either way.  Dead right.  Some ship.  15 CH-47 on the deck.

As to vulnerability - over to you old seadogs out there.  How difficult is to sink a ship that size (6600 TEU or ~ 140,000 tonnes dead weight)?  Even with a 500lb Harpoon or ADCAP Mk48 warhead?.  Would a hold full of containers make it more buoyant?

And while on the subject of Jointness:




			Some experts call for an MPF Future flight deck 1,000 feet long and wide enough to accommodate the C-130, which flew off an aircraft carrier in tests 40 years ago and is being considered as a "connector" craft to shuttle troops and materiel from the sea base to shore. Unlike vertical lift craft, the C-130 can transport the 20-ton cargo container, a basic storage mode for war materiel.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_04_20.php

C-130s? C-27s? How fast CAN they stop?

This gets curiouser and curiouser.

*


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Sep 2005)

The problem with civilian vessels is their damage control and redundant systems. If you decide to add damage control and redundant systems to a civilian vessel to the standard of a military vessel you might as well just go and buy a purpose built military vessel.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Sep 2005)

Thinks for the correction Kirkhill. Okay.. how much are we talking here... is there a budget for the amphib that is known to the public?


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill, yup, that's it...that's the one I was looking for!  There is also another one in open source that I'm trying to "re-find"...it costed an S-class conversion at about $300-350M USD.  I was trying to be conservative with the CH47 on deck number but you can see that we would likely be able to fit the entire fleet on one of these "big flat" ships...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2005)

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1290/printArticle.html

I'll re-link to this article - it is a RoRo of similar class.  New build price is 160 MAUD or 120 MUSD.

300-350 MUSD for a conversion of an existing, slightly used hull doesn't seem totally ridiculous to this food scientist. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Sep 2005)

It seems that the bare-bones ship, as new in 2001, probably cost on the order of 80 MUSD to build.

Samsung built two for a Hong Kong carrier for 160 MUSD total.




> Last November, Hong Kong-based Orient Overseas (International) Ltd., the parent company of OOCL, ordered two 7,400-TEU containerships from the Korean shipbuilder Samsung Heavy Industries. They are expected to be delivered in the second quarter of 2003. The two post-Panamax containerships will cost a total of $160 million, Orient Overseas (International) Ltd. said.



http://www.americanshipper.com/paid/MAY01/how_much_bigger.asp

And a note on safety (presumably packed with containers)



> Safety of container ships
> 
> Compared, to bulk carriers or general cargo ships, so far container ships have a very good safety record. Apart from collisions or groundings caused by operational errors, very few container ships have suffered serious damage or have been lost at sea. Particularly for big vessels, very few cases of major damage have been observed.
> 
> MS Carlo was, in fact, the first container vessel to break in two in the winter storms of 1997/98. This unintended full-scale experiment demonstrated that these ships with high freeboard and closely spaced watertight transverse bulkheads are intrinsically safe: both parts of the ship remained afloat and were salvaged after the storm. There are other risks for container ships such as excessive wave loads, loss of containers at sea, a lack of dynamic stability and the danger of fire in containers. Container stowage on deck - an archaic system



http://amchouston.home.att.net/cs.htm

From a couple of other articles I get the sense that these beasts only have crews of 14 to 19 all-ranks.


----------



## baboon6 (7 Sep 2005)

The Royal Navy has a relatively small (28 000 ton, 173metre) RO/RO and container ship, converted to an "aviation support ship", RFA _Argus_ (ex-_Contender Bezant_). She is used as an aviation transport, aircrew training ship, combat transport, auxiliary aircraft carrier and hospital ship. _Argus_ can operate up to 6 Sea Kings and 8 Harriers and can carry 750 troops. I'm sure it is plausible for Canada to convert a bigger ship for more varied roles as have been detailed above- troop and vehicle transport, helicopter platform.


----------



## YukonJack (4 Nov 2005)

I've seen the Chinook landed on the flight deck of Provider, athwartships of course....Protecteur and Preserver are supposed to have similar-sized decks. Just a point of note for the original post.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2005)

> I've seen the Chinook landed on the flight deck of Provider, athwartships of course



I highly doubt it.  I just rechecked my copy of HOSTACs (NATO helicopter operations for ships other than Aircraft carriers) and no Canadian Ship is certified for the Chinook.  During Op Apollo, Canadian Ships did receive certification for the Sea Knight, however.

There are two main problems with Chinooks at sea.  The first is that Canadian Flight decks are only stressed for about 25,000lbs, which is not good when you consider an empty Chinook weighs in at around that mark.  A full one tips the scale at about 50,000lbs (by comparison, a fully loaded Sea King weighs in at 20,500 lbs.  A deck weight limit is probably fixable with a refit (or in the design of a new ship class) and it is something we will have to do any way so that the frigates can finish their lives with CH-148 Cyclones onboard.

The second problem with Chinooks is that they are not, and have never been, marinized.  This is not inconsequential.  Even fully marinized helos such as the Sea King (which are built in the factory with special paints coating construction techniques which limit the damage a humid and salty environment will have on an aircraft) still require an awesome amount of attention at sea to prevent corrosion or avonics problems.  Anecedotal evidence from the UK and US military has suggested to me that they were not all that happy with the results of operating Chinooks from ships, because they were not designed to be operated in that environment.  This also is to say nothing of the lack of an automatic blade folding system...

I hope that before we rush headlong down the "Chinook road", with an intention of operating them from ships, that we (I mean DAR in Ottawa) do some basic research about just how well that would actually work.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## YukonJack (6 Nov 2005)

: Doubt all ya' want, sunshine....


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2005)

YukonJack said:
			
		

> : Doubt all ya' want, sunshine....



Yes, you're right then, the HOSTAC doesn't always know what aircraft can land on which ships, oh wait, that's what it's written for.

I haven't looked at the HOSTAC yet, but that's the publication that will state whether or not a Chinook can land on any of our ships, SKT checked it and it said that none of our ships could support it, so I guess the HOSTAC and him are wrong eh?


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Nov 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I highly doubt it.  I just rechecked my copy of HOSTACs (NATO helicopter operations for ships other than Aircraft carriers) and no Canadian Ship is certified for the Chinook.  During Op Apollo, Canadian Ships did receive certification for the Sea Knight, however.
> 
> There are two main problems with Chinooks at sea.  The first is that Canadian Flight decks are only stressed for about 25,000lbs, which is not good when you consider an empty Chinook weighs in at around that mark.  A full one tips the scale at about 50,000lbs (by comparison, a fully loaded Sea King weighs in at 20,500 lbs.  A deck weight limit is probably fixable with a refit (or in the design of a new ship class) and it is something we will have to do any way so that the frigates can finish their lives with CH-148 Cyclones onboard.
> 
> ...



SKT, "certification" and "it being done" are two different things -- I recall looking through 450 Sqn's history books and distinctly recall pics of a hook on an AOR...couldn't tell you if it was Provider, Preserver, Protecteur...I think it was some time in the mid-80's.

Re: deck loading on CPF...what is the load factor for the flight deck, i.e.  Lbs/Sq.ft.?  I would venture to say that a Sea King at AUW being hauled down by the bear trap will exert a wee bit more than 25,000 lbs...even a 1.5G downhaul would exceed 25,000lbs absolute, would it not?  A Chinook spreads its maximum 55,000lbs over six tires, four mounts, in fore/aft pairs spread 40 ' apart.  30,000lbs for weight on main mounts of an S-92...I think you'll see where I'm heading with this one...

"not marinized".....I think you meant to say "not FULLY marinized"...I would venture to say that with about 5 hours of time dipping, swimming, casting zodiacs, etc... in the water, I have more time with a helicopter sitting in the water...both fresh and salt water than many if not most Sea King guys.  Seeing 406 taped up flailing around the Bedford Basin, folding blades aside, makes me really wonder how "marinized" the SK actually was. ???  The entire lower half of the 'Hooks fuselage is zinc chromated.  Freshwater wash for engines and the fuselage would be done to a SeaKing/Cyclone as well, would it not.  So the real issue is whether auto/self-powered blade foldeing is an essential or only a highly-desireable requirement -- also, what will the shipborne CONOPS be?  

UK, US not happy?  That's funny, I have the US JSHIP report and have spoken with 3/160 guys who were quite content with op'ing off ships...well, them and the OH-58D guys.

SKT, have no fear...the DAR 9 guys are very aware of the issues.

So, what does this all mean?

Well....here's my take on the whole issue.  We (me and my 47 buds) will be so busy flying our arses off 350km South of where I am right now, as well as supporting "other units" in Canada, that we won't even be used as part of the SCTF and we will rarely, if ever, operate from an HMCS the way some people appear to be expecting us to.  Personally, I think that the SCTF Comd will just have to make do with the CH148 and its "fully marinized but lacking in other significant areas" capability when it comes to lifting troops off the big honking ship and taking them inland.  

My 1 Afghani (=2 ¢)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (6 Nov 2005)

Duey, 

I'm pretty sure that the Sea King at all up weight still touches down at around 20,500 lbs force on the deck. We land at up to 8 fps while on the wire, usually less though since anything over 8 fps counts as a hard landing. Even still, at 8 fps I'd be surprised if it really puts that much force on the deck, the oleos and tires would take most of the impact I would think.

I can tell you for certain though, each ship has an all up weight maximum that must be adhered to, perhaps this number already takes into account the landing force inflicted on the deck when you touch down, I can't say for certain.

Anyway, I'm off to the airport, embarking the helo and bound for the Bahamas. See you all in a few weeks.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Nov 2005)

Duey,

Look, I'm not advocating one helo over another.  I just been following the thread (and others) where alot of guys who have never flown a helicopter, much less from a ship are making alot of assumptions that may or may not be correct.  All that I am really saying is that IF we are going to buy the Chinook (or S-92, or CH-53) as a troop lifter with the intention of operating it from a ship, let us make sure have done our homework.  It may be that trying to buy one helo to do everything again, is going to leave us unhappy in the long run...

Re: Chinooks on a Canadian deck: If you say that you have seen it, I bow to your obvious credibility in this area.  That said, it is not in HOSTACs and therefore not legal outside of a trial or experimental setting.

Deck weight limits:  I've spoken to several Ship's engineering officers about this.  The weight limit for our decks is based on a 25,000 lb wheeled helicopter landing at 8ft/sec (if I remember correctly), which does indeed exceed an absolute static weight limit of 25,000 lbs.  As I said earlier, the intention always was to strengthen the deck for the S-92 (a 30,000lb helo) , and will form part of FELEX.  

Waterbird:  Duey, any Sea King in the fleet is fully capable of floating.  The only reason that we tape up the "waterbird" is to make life easier for the techs at the end of the day by helping limit water ingress after 50-60 daily water landings and also to provide extra protection for the seals on various access panels.  The Sea King was designed with the salt water environment in mind, trust me.  

I agree with you about the Chinook.  If we get it, it will probably rarely if ever, see service on a HMC Ship.

Cheers, buddy!


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Nov 2005)

SKT, although I won't try to hide the fact that I'm somewhat biased towards the 'Hook, my points of clarification were primarily to try and curb some misconceptions out there, specifically the "not marinized" bit.  As I mentioned, in this post and others, I think the job over here for aviation is important and demanding enough, that I honest don't think we'll really see the TALC used for the SCTF.  I don't mean that as not wanting to contribute to that capability, but that the reality is that we'll only have so many of the heavy lifters and that most likely, manning will be fully taxed to support deployed operations over here.  I'm not even sure if heavy lift will ever qualify and stay current on the big honking ship...who know, I might be proven wrong.  Time will tell.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Nov 2005)

Duey,

Now that we are in heated agreement (hey, it's just like the old days at Royal Roads, huh?), a question for ya:

Did the 3/160 guys you spoke with mention any INS problems with their Chinooks at sea?  Just curious, because an often overlooked problem with helos that did not start out with shipborne operations in mind is getting the INS to erect while the ship is turning, deck is moving, etc.  

Cheers!


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Nov 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Duey,
> 
> Now that we are in heated agreement (hey, it's just like the old days at Royal Roads, huh?), a question for ya:
> 
> ...



SKT,  I don't think the -G's have INS per se, just AHRS (spin up much faster since not near the long-term accuracy INS has) -- also DGPS and a few other...ummm...."RNAV-ish" system onboard. 

Cheers, 
Duey


----------



## Infanteer (7 Nov 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> INS....AHRS....DGPS...."RNAV-ish"




HUH?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Nov 2005)

> HUH?



The thingy which tells you which direction you are flying in and whether or not you are upside-down  

Duey,

Thanks for the AHRS info.  All is clear now.

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> HUH?



Welcome to our world.........


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Nov 2005)

Infanteer,

INS - inertial navigation system: very sensitive accelerometers keep track of where a platform is but integrating its accelerations in all three linear axes.  It takes a while for the gyros to wind up (even laser gyros) and it takes longer to spin up ("erect" believe it or not) when the platform is moving around (as on a ship) or the higher North you go (due to less induced gyroscopic precession towards either of the Earth's pole)

AHRS - attitude - heading - reference system (a cheaper, less accurate version of an INS) primarily used in helicopters with a shorted flight endurance than long-range a/c such as Aurora or Herc (both with INS).

DGPS - differential GPS.  There are a couple different modes of DGPS operation but in this case, the idea is to determine a difference between two GPS sets on the same platform.  While non-P/Y code is roughly accurate to 16-30m depending on SA accuracy, and even Y-code GPS still only officially gets to 6-10m for a single set, two GPS receivers in near proximity to each other can very accurately determine their different range from the same satellite compared to each other to a fraction of a centimeter...they may still be +/- 10m to the world but they know their relative geometry (from the installation on the platform) to each other and the satellite.  E.g.  if one GPS unit knows it's 1.46m further away from satellete 25 than the other receiver, and that the two receivers are 3.25m apart, the nav system could calculate that aircraft must be tilted ~35degrees to the right....bank angle known and you haven't even looked at an Artificial Horizon/gyro!  Add a third GPS reciever on the platform and you can know resolve orientation in all three axis to fractions of degrees AND you still have the LAT/LONG/ALT position resolution as well...all without and INS or AHRS.

RNAV - "aRea NAVigation" (don't ask why the R...must have been a drunk Navigator making the contraction  )  Any kind of a system that can resolve your position to the required degree of accuracy.  Back before GPS, we used to use LORAN(-C) and OMEGA.  There are also astro-based RNAV systems and other systems that, shall we say, use very, very, accurate 3-D maps to determine, quite literally, where on earth" you are (think 12+ digit grid reference and accurate DTED (digital terrain elevation data)  ).

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> HUH?



Reminds me of my Advanced Aviation Course: "Gentlemen, you are speaking in an alphabet that I do not understand."


----------



## childs56 (8 Nov 2005)

DGPS as far as I know is not the differential between two GPS units. It is very similar to the old Lowrance system that was once used by Ships. The satellite or radio transmitter will send out a signal to the GPS receiver unit, this unit will calculate how much time the signal took to reach it and use that as a reference to its satellite position.As with all thing that use radio signals to calculate position the more the better. 

Pretty much it takes the radio signal that it receives and correlates that with what the satellite fix from your GPS says you are. The more signals you receive from DGPS the more accurate you are. These radio signals can usually be manually changed by you the operator to correspond with different transmitter freq's in your area. 

I doubt using two GPS receiver units in the same location will change your accuracy any, As I said above DGPS uses The GPS signal for a reference point and then radio transmission for a more accurate fix. The radio freq triangulate your position better, kinda like using a compass along with your GPS. 

Hope I haven't confused any one here, or worse made any one mad, just wanted to help make more clear what DGPS is.  Most GPS;s have this abilities.

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Nov 2005)

CTD, you have described another DGPS mode, often used to support LAAS or WAAS (local or wide-area accuracy augmentation system).  

The element of that particular system you're missing is that the differential capability is based on a separate GPS receiver installed in a very accurately surveyed position -- this bit is crucial to the accuracy of multi-platform DGPS.  The GPS receiver notes the difference between the true known position (surveyed) and what GPS signals tell its position to be.  The DGPS station then broadcasts a local or wide area correction signal, either through a separate RF channel (VHF-FM in some cases of marine systems) or in the 1100/1500MHz band acting as a "pseudolite" (using an assigned GPS channel but with a.  A moving platform-based DGPS-enabled receiver uses this correction signal to improve the accuracy of its own satellite-based solution -- commonly used for high accuracy around ports and harbours....being trialled in some cases as a precision aviation landing aid (can approach ILS-levels of accuracy).  

The single-platform DGPS solution I described needs only a differential baseline of a few meters to provide relatively accurate pitch, roll and yaw information in addition to the standard Lat, Long, Alt solution.  I know of several fixed-wing platforms that are equipped with the system as well as a few rotorcraft -- had a buddy write a 15,000 word paper on the system when we were on the Aerospace Systems Course in the Winterpeg.

As an aside, LORAN-C is a nav system that operates similarly to the multi-angulation of GPS but only in 2-D. 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## childs56 (8 Nov 2005)

I thought you had meant that it required two separate GPS's mounted at certain points, instead of a GPS and a DGPS receiver which can be either mounted together or separate. I learned about these systems on A/C a few years ago, it intrigued me as to how accurate you can get. I mean you can tell every axis you are moving on, or for guys like me when you are lost it can tell you exactly where you are with in a foot or two.    
A good source for info on this stuff. 
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/dgps.htm

Cheers.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Nov 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> I thought you had meant that it required two separate GPS's mounted at certain points, instead of a GPS and a DGPS receiver which can be either mounted together or separate. I learned about these systems on A/C a few years ago, it intrigued me as to how accurate you can get. I mean you can tell every axis you are moving on, or for guys like me when you are lost it can tell you exactly where you are with in a foot or two.
> A good source for info on this stuff.
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/dgps.htm
> 
> Cheers.



It does, CTD. The separate signals from the dual antennas (or in some cases triple antennas) are fused by a multichannel GPS receiver and the AMS (avionics management system) to resolve the aircraft's pitch, roll and yaw.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## childs56 (9 Nov 2005)

I am not going to go into the specifics other then to say, It does not require two separate GPS systems, only that A DGPS system does require a separate receiver (an antenna) then the GPS receiver. But may be built into the GPS unit. 

How it works on a specific A/C I do not care to discuss because their are to many different set ups to mention. 

The "Differential" in the DGPS comes from the Radio signal that is received by the Differential receiver attached to or remote from the GPS unit itself.  The computations are made according to the difference between what your GPS receiver is telling you and what the Differential receiver is telling you. Kinda like fixing a compass to your GPS but not having to use a map to verify your exact position etc.
Yes two or more GPS/ DGPS receiver units can be used in conjunction with each other, on A/C this is what they do to tell pitch, roll yaw and all those other things A/C do. 
You do not require 2 GPS units to give you a more accurate fix or to use DGPS, only that you must have at least one GPS receiver(capable of DGPS) and one DGPS antenna attached to your GPS unit. That is all that I am saying. 

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Nov 2005)

Rog that.


----------



## CH-47 (14 Nov 2005)

hey guys can u help me with a bit of info about chinook shipboard capability?


----------



## CH-47 (14 Nov 2005)

i do know that chinooks do a lot of water landing and they are sealed for floating.I have only seen pictures of them doing water landings in river and calm non salty waters.  But how much do we know about it operating in sea based environment? how much of it is marinized? flight manual states it can only operate in sea state 2, not 3. It doesn't have anything about its long term operation in sea environment. Could someone check and let me know how much do we know about its servicing and wash cycle after operating in sea environment. What other issues should be considered?


----------



## CH-47 (14 Nov 2005)

does it have floats like NH 90?


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Nov 2005)

CH-47 said:
			
		

> i do know that chinooks do a lot of water landing and they are sealed for floating.I have only seen pictures of them doing water landings in river and calm non salty waters.   But how much do we know about it operating in sea based environment? how much of it is marinized? flight manual states it can only operate in sea state 2, not 3. It doesn't have anything about its long term operation in sea environment. Could someone check and let me know how much do we know about its servicing and wash cycle after operating in sea environment. What other issues should be considered?



47, I've only ever swam a Chinook in freshwater, so I can't tell you about the wash procedure, but there was nothing in the AOIs (aircraft operating instructions) limiting ops to fresh water only.  I know of guys who swam ours in salt water up North (around Churchill) and did a freshwater hose off after the swim.  I would also think there would be some requirement to freshwater rinse the engines, much like Sea Kings to after landing on or flying at low level for extended periods over salt water.  I recall the flight manual said the aircraft could be landed in water and shut down in up to SS-2 (and under 40,000 lbs AUW IIRC).  I do not recall any specific limitation about higher sea-states if full power was maintained.  I can see this being useful if you were trying to recover a zodiac or other similar boat in rougher seas/water.  We had a plywood dam that we inserted just foward of the main ramp to minimize water flowing up the cargo area, but it was only meant to limit large flows of water internally, not make the inside totally water proof.  In fact, it was a sure thing that water could reach up to the hook hatch conducting amphib ops with RIBs.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Navy_Blue (7 Dec 2005)

If we ever do get CH-47 again we will probably not see them on ships.  JSS is only being designed to carry 4 CH-148.  The only concession for the Griffon is that they be craned on and off. Granted 4 CH-148's probably take up the space of one or two CH-47's.  But they're heavy and it becomes a stabilization issue for the ship.  It's endless and expencive.  

The CPF's will require a lengthy refit to accommodate the CH-148.  Even with a refit it's going to be a tight fit.  

The CF should just order more CH-148's and make sure the Army has use of them.  For the size of our armed forces we would find them very useful tools.  Logisticly it makes sence too same parts and the same training to maintain them.  

The CF and the Navy have a lot on there plate right now and if some how they do manage to acquire an amphibious assault ship that could carry the CH-47, we wouldn't have anyone to man the ship.  The US put a crew of 650 on the San Antonio class just to sail it.  We would need to tie up 3 CPF's if we wanted to man just one.  

I can't se why we can't get people in this outfit.  For what ever reason not many people see the CF as a viable career.  

Personally I love it.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Dec 2005)

Welcome aboard 'trode.

Cheers


----------



## Guest (7 Dec 2005)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> If we ever do get CH-47 again we will probably not see them on ships.   JSS is only being designed to carry 4 CH-148.   The only concession for the Griffon is that they be craned on and off. Granted 4 CH-148's probably take up the space of one or two CH-47's.   But they're heavy and it becomes a stabilization issue for the ship.   It's endless and expencive.



Actually, thats not quite true.

The Hanger on the JSS is spec'd for 4 CH-148   The flight deck is spec'd for 4 more helos, up to and including the V-22 (It's in the SOR)

I can almost guarrantee that there will be space on the flight deck for   *at least* 2 Ch-47s in the "good-to-go" pos.

The Flight Deck has to accomodate a bird taking off and a bird -re-arm, refuel at the same time.

(We want to be VERY usefull to our alies with this new toy.) 

We *will* be getting CH-47s.. everybody knows this, the CDS wants em.. the ChairForce wants em.. we know how to fly 'em, maintain them .. (yes.. the know-how has not been forgotten.. yet..)

There will be, of course.."ahem".. a competition.. well..sorta.. 

Bottom line: JSS has been designed to support a wide range of Helos.. CH-47 included.

Oh.. they want a lil' bird for armed reece in the sky..  that meets lib pork-barreling standards.... Bell ARH.. now shhhhh..


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> ...
> Oh.. they want a lil' bird for armed reece in the sky..  that meets lib pork-barreling standards.... Bell ARH.. now shhhhh..





I've been waiting to see how long it took to get that one mentioned... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





If that happened, I could see the 146 retained for a specific domestic role, and the ARH/407 join the CH-147G in operations.

I think folks are finally starting to realize where RJH is heading with BHH and will gradually learn to give him the answer he's looking for...

a) maximize the CH-148's potential to support the SCTF with all of its marinization requirements, and 

b) put a capable package of Canadian helos in AFG to support us for the next 8-10 years while we're there.  Whether the CH-147G's (okay, maybe CH-147F with refuelling boom and wx radar mods) fly with a modified CH-146 (armed) or a CH-136A (aka 407/ARH) would be an interesting question to deal with in the mess... ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Dec 2005)

> The CPF's will require a lengthy refit to accommodate the CH-148.  Even with a refit it's going to be a tight fit.



No tighter than a Sea King.  The Cyclone folds into the same "box" as a Sea King.  I saw the "footprint" proposal of a Cyclone on a CPF last week.  Looks to me like it will work.

Guest- there is something about the way in which you write which makes me think we know each other.  Sea King pilot with tac hel background, perhaps?  I Apologize if I am wrong...  

Duey- Interesting things are indeed afoot for the helicopter portion of the Air Force.  Can't wait to see how things are going to work out!

Cheers!


----------



## Navy_Blue (7 Dec 2005)

For those of you who think the JSS will be anything more than a floating servies station.  I give you this:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp

It's the PMO website for the JSS.  It is not protected or secret I got the site from Google.  The most recent draft NOV 17th 05 states that the ship will carry 4 CH-148's have one ready to take off and one stand by with rotors turning on the flight deck.  The other two spots for helos are too maintain the task groups other helicopters.  Nowhere dose it say anything about V-22's or anything tactical other than a boarding team (which is stupid to send an assest like the JSS close enough to board anything).  

In other documents it dose talks of accommodating and recovery of UAV's.  It also states the CH-146 Griffon will be "embarked" and "disembarked" (code for we'll need a crane) via the flight deck. 

We may get the CH-47 again but its not worth talking about the Navy using it, joint or other wise.  The CH-148 will do what we need it too.  

Don't get me wrong guys I can't wait to see this ship come out it will be state of the art but its just a ferry, tanker, warehouse, hospital, and an HQ in one big piece of steel.  To a member of the MSE department a ship is just a ship to us, we make them get where they have to go.

The CDS has big dreams and great plans but he doesn't have the numbers (people) to back them up.  Hurry up and wait folks.

P.S. The way it stands right now the HMCS Montreal will be the first ship to get the new flight deck for the CH-148.  They are saying there will be 4" clearance on either side of the helo once its in the hanger.  I would say thats kinda tight.

Thats all for now.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2005)

NB, 4" clearance for the Cyclone...luxury...should see a Griffy inside a Herc! 

I fully agree with you on JSS.  Some folks are mistaking the JSS for becoming the Chief's amphib...two different things.  Like you said, it was my understanding that JSS is a newer, sleeker AOR essentially.  I understand that the Navy has gone to some pains to make sure folks don't mess with the SOR in any substantive way, and that the amphib is a different issue.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (7 Dec 2005)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> P.S. The way it stands right now the HMCS Montreal will be the first ship to get the new flight deck for the CH-148.   They are saying there will be 4" clearance on either side of the helo once its in the hanger.   I would say thats kinda tight.



I was under the impression that the Charlottetown was already in the process of conversion for the trials and that she was no longer capable of Sea King Ops. I heard this from the XO of the VDQ a couple weeks ago, haven't seen anything in writing thus far though so it could just be rumour.

That would be 4" clearance from the door on the way into and out of the hangar, the hangar itself is quite a bit bigger than the door. Otherwise, how the hell would you walk around the thing with 4" clearance inside the hangar? So much for Section Base 3! The Sea King sponsons can't be much more than 6" clearance from the door on either side, it's a tight fit as well.


----------



## Guest (8 Dec 2005)

I direct you gentlemen to the original SOR

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs/JSS_SOR_V3_18-May-05.pdf

In it you will find a number of ref to supporting large birds.. CH-53E AND the V-22 are mentioned specificaly.

AFAIK... The Brain Trust deems this important... in the interest of facilitating our dear friends to the south.

SeaKing Tacco, I don't believe we've met. 

I'm just a guy.. tryin to put Hellfires on a JetRanger   ;D   >

On a side note, have you guys really wondered why, all of a sudden.. we're getting new toys?!?

MY personal, uninformed theory.. ol'e Georgie boy took Paul aside and offered Canada a chance sit at the big person's table at NATO.. instead of the kiddie group.. (Luxemburg, Belgium..ect. ) 

He said "Paul, you little scamp.. I know you want to be a grown-up.. if you put away your toys and act like an adult.. we MAY just take you seriously.

So now.. that it's finaly sunk in.. that we don't matter in the big old world (Politicaly).. and the ONLY way to fix it.. to be quite blunt.. it to be USEFULL.. to a better world order.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Dec 2005)

Even if thats true [and I'm not saying it isn't] these projects are so far out into the future that neither Paul or George, or their policies, are going to be relevant anymore. Further more, the political entity that is Canada today is not likely to be intact in the medium term - we are too divided and polarized as a nation to continue on - the present course of the forthcoming election will once again demonstrate that. Parts of former Canada will be so far to the left or so deep in the other sides camp they will be sitting up here like little frozen pieces of Cuba or Iran.


----------



## Navy_Blue (8 Dec 2005)

Hey inch,

In reply to your last.  Charrelotown was out of a normal refit early in the summer and nothing new was done to the flight deck or hanger door.  Same old boat and as per normal for a ship coming out of HSL its worse off than when it went in.  I assume your a zoomy and understand that moving the track for the bear trap port and widdening the hanger door are big jobs.  That is only a fraction of the planes that are in the works for the CPF.  The CPF will be a new ship in the next 10 years.  

I agree with whiskey none of these changes are going to be quick.  JSS isn't due until 2012 but more like 2017.  The CH-148 is something like 2008 to 2011.  

Oh and for our Guest 18th May 05 and 17th Nov 05 are quite different dates and I'm sure doing the math you would find that one is more current than the other.  I say again "floating sevice stations"  JTF may find a way of using them for more fun but its so far down the road everything will have changed in the Forces the Navy and the World.

I love this place  >

Cheers


----------



## Guest (8 Dec 2005)

Navy Blue -  

The original SOR still stands. The document you pointed to is NOT a SOR , but rather an annex.

It does not replace the document I aluded to.

It IS in the Navy's best interest to remain as compatable with US Forces as possible.

As you, and others should already know, interoperability and near seamless integration within a US Navy TF is a very high priority. 

As such, JSS and any future LHD, LPD.. ect  will be required to support Helos operated by the US. (V-22 will be a BIG part of Maritime Aviation for the US) 

You can put a large bet on us accomidating such an aircraft.


----------



## Inch (8 Dec 2005)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Hey inch,
> 
> In reply to your last.   Charrelotown was out of a normal refit early in the summer and nothing new was done to the flight deck or hanger door.   Same old boat and as per normal for a ship coming out of HSL its worse off than when it went in.   I assume your a zoomy and understand that moving the track for the bear trap port and widdening the hanger door are big jobs.   That is only a fraction of the planes that are in the works for the CPF.   The CPF will be a new ship in the next 10 years.



I am a Zoomie, in particular a Sea King pilot that has traversed a Sea King or two into and out of a CPF hangar as recently as Wed last week. As SeaKingTacco stated, the Cyclone is supposed to fit into the same size "box" as a Sea King, this includes height, length and width. No mods on the hangar door are necessary, even if it is a few inches wider, it will still fit. My understanding of the new beartrap is that they'll either offset the beartrap or just offset centre lock so that the main probe is slightly left in the trap vice dead centre like the Sea King since the Cyclone will be bigger on the right than the left when folded. No modification to the tracks is necessary, or so I understand it.

The big changes required are a nose guide winch system vice a tail guide winch system to straighten the helo laterally on the deck, and of course the fact that the Cyclone will be nearly 8000 lbs heavier, the deck will need a bit of a beefing up.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Dec 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> The big changes required are a nose guide winch system vice a tail guide winch system to straighten the helo laterally on the deck, and of course the fact that the Cyclone will be nearly 8000 lbs heavier, the deck will need a bit of a beefing up.



Is that loaded with fuel or empty?


----------



## Navy_Blue (8 Dec 2005)

I can't verify the width of the CH-148 but the length is all most 15 longer.  The wings or nacells or what ever you want to call them on the side of them are much bigger than a Sea King.  Not to mention the ramp on the back.  This thing is going to take up alot more space than you think.  Everyone I've talked to in the MSE world has said what I put forth in my earlier msg's.  HMCS Montreal first and its a big job.  All we can do is wait and see.  

Have a good one...


----------



## Inch (8 Dec 2005)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I can't verify the width of the CH-148 but the length is all most 15 longer.   The wings or nacells or what ever you want to call them on the side of them are much bigger than a Sea King.   Not to mention the ramp on the back.   This thing is going to take up alot more space than you think.   Everyone I've talked to in the MSE world has said what I put forth in my earlier msg's.   HMCS Montreal first and its a big job.   All we can do is wait and see.
> 
> Have a good one...



Oh boy, 15ft longer eh? You know that a Sea King is 72ft long when spread right? Sorry, but a Cyclone spread (front edge of the rotor arc to the rear edge of the tail rotor arc) is going to actually be shorter than a Sea King by about 3 1/2 ft. Folded length of both is under 50ft.

The Sea King is a little over 16ft wide when folded, the fuselage of a Cyclone is 12' 9", I don't have the dimensions handy for when it's folded, but I assure you, it isn't much wider than 16ft folded. Hell, not folded it's only 17'3" wide from left sponson to the right edge of the horizontal stabilizer on the tail.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it's been my experience that the Navy doesn't know a whole lot about the Sea King and what it does, so I expect that any knowledge about the Cyclone would be even scarcer. Considering it's the AirDet that puts a helo into the hangar and pulls it out, I'd say there's very few, if any, pers of the ship's company that really know how close the sponsons are to the hangar door.

Cyclone info can be found here: http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,3038,957,00.pdf
Sea King info is from my brain/Aircraft Operating Instructions.

Whiskey, Cyclone's All Up Weight (AUW) will be 28,000 lbs max, empty weight will be closer to 16,000 lbs or so.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Dec 2005)

Navy Blue,

I'll put this delicately.  The Cyclone WILL fit on a CPF.  There will be modifications required to the Frigates- it was always in the plan.  I saw the briefing last week, so I am certain of this.  The helo might be slightly off centre while in the hangar- so what?  

I will repeat myself just to be clear- while a Cyclone might be bigger and heavier than a Sea King, IT FOLDS to the same size.  Following me and Inch on this point?

I don't tell you how to fix the ship- don't tell us how to operate helos from the ship.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Dec 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Navy Blue,
> 
> I'll put this delicately.   The Cyclone WILL fit on a CPF.   There will be modifications required to the Frigates- it was always in the plan.   I saw the briefing last week, so I am certain of this.   The helo might be slightly off centre while in the hangar- so what?
> 
> ...



I was waiting for that last remark


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Dec 2005)

"Saucer of milk, Table 2!"   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

If you guys need info on fixing a ship or operating helos from one, PM me - I am a world expert on these matters.


----------



## Navy_Blue (9 Dec 2005)

When I saw 68'6" length I though it was just the fusilage length not rotor tip to tail rotor tip.  The guys in the dock yard from the sounds of it are getting ready for a big refit of the flight deck and hanger.  It may not be as big as I though but the refit will be.  Like I said We'll wait and see its not till early to mid 2007.

C yas


----------



## Baz (9 Dec 2005)

Reminds me of the EH-101 - so many people said it wouldn't fit that the press and politicians started to repeat it as fact...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Dec 2005)

> When I saw 68'6" length I though it was just the fusilage length not rotor tip to tail rotor tip.  The guys in the dock yard from the sounds of it are getting ready for a big refit of the flight deck and hanger.  It may not be as big as I though but the refit will be.  Like I said We'll wait and see its not till early to mid 2007.



Your ship (along with the rest of the Frigates) will indeed be refit for the new helo.  The work to be done includes changes in the hangar, a new hauldown system (including low-profile trap) and removal of the tailprobe grid and tail straightening system at the back of the deck.  The deck itself requires strengthening.  I also seem to recall a bunch of lighting changes, too.  In any case, sounds like some major work to me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Dec 2005)

Baz said:
			
		

> Reminds me of the EH-101 - so many people said it wouldn't fit that the press and politicians started to repeat it as fact...



Funny don't recall those statements...what I recall was the expense involved not the helo size. CPFs are designed to operate _big_ helicopters.


----------



## h3tacco (10 Dec 2005)

Just to elaborate what SKT said I believe the mods to the hangar will include the removal of the tail rotor work stand and a number of vents on the ceiling. I have also heard that a redesign of the LSO compartment is trying to be piggybacked onto the project to address a number of UCRs on heating/cooling, visibility for short statured LSOs, and hopefully an integrated display for the LSO. I guess time will tell.


----------



## Baz (12 Dec 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Funny don't recall those statements...what I recall was the expense involved not the helo size. CPFs are designed to operate _big_ helicopters.



I couldn't find a specific quote on the 'net, it was just this long running rumour.  I don't know how many times people in the Navy said it to me.  I'm pretty that Art Hangar, when he was the Defense critic, asked me in the back of a Sea King in 3 Hangar "so I heard that the EH-101 won't fit in a Frigate's hangar."

The definitive statement for me is from the SOR (para 4.1.2.2.2): "The MH shall fit in existing hangar spaces of the FFH, DDH and AOR classes of HMC Ships, with an allowance for conducting maintenance.  Required ship modifications should be kept to a minimum."  Saying it won't is saying that the people who bought it don't know what they are doing...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Dec 2005)

Baz,
Good to see you onboard, buddy!

It's been a few years...

Cheers,

Dale


----------



## TR23 (12 Dec 2005)

Is there any kind of rumour or confirmation of which Chinook is going to be chosen?  I've seen Duey(who seems to be a resident Hook expert) mention both the G, and a reworked F.
Are they're any others in the mix?  Could someone run through the basic differences in equipment and capability between the models?  I believe the G is the American SpecOps variant for the 160th correct?


----------



## Sf2 (12 Dec 2005)

G model isn't in full blown service yet.....

The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) currently operates two variants of the Chinook Helicopter. 

The MH-47E is a heavy assault helicopter based on the CH-47 airframe, specifically designed and built for the special operations aviation mission. It has a totally integrated avionics subsystem. This avionics package combines a redundant avionics architecture with dual mission processors, remote terminal units, multifunction displays and display generators to improve combat survivability and mission reliability. The "Echo" model also has an aerial refueling (A/R) probe for in-flight refueling; external rescue hoist; and two L714 turbine engines with Full Authority Digital Electronic Control that provides more power during hot/high environmental conditions. 

The MH-47D Adverse Weather Cockpit (AWC) Chinook is a twin engine, tandem rotor, heavy assault helicopter that has been specifically modified for long range flights. It is equipped with weather avoidance/search radar; aerial refueling (A/R) probe for in flight refueling; Personnel Locator System (PLS) for finding downed aircrews; Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR); secure voice communications; Fast Rope Insertion Extraction System (FRIES) for insertion of personnel/equipment and extraction of personnel; defensive armament system consisting of two M-134 machine-guns and one M-60D machine-gun; and internal rescue hoist with a 600 lb. capacity.

I know the CDS had his eye on some special ops variants for "those guys".  Not sure how realistic his wish list was, but I'm pretty sure they didn't wanna cheap out on anything.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Dec 2005)

I'm looking for an electronic version of an AHS (American Helicopter Society) "Vertiflite" article on the MH-47G...quite interesting.  It talks about the rebuild of MH-47D's and E's into G's as well as some new -G builds required to bring the end-state -G fleet up to 61 aircraft.

Not sure how the F v. G thing is proceeding, manufacutring costs on both models are being reduced and not sure how that might affect consideration of the two configurations.  G would be nice, but I'd even be happy with an F-model with FLIR, and a refueling boom added and the -GA-714B engines.  The onboard equipment on the G model actually yields a lower payload for the G than the F, but we're still talking 22,000-ish lbs lift for the G vice 24,000+ for the F.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## TR23 (13 Dec 2005)

Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## TR23 (13 Dec 2005)

I imagine your looking for more detail then these articles I found, but I don't have access to the more detailed papers from vertiflite.
www.vtol.org/news/aug03-3.html
www.vtol.org/news/dec03-1.html
www.vtol.org/news/july03-6.html


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2005)

TR23 said:
			
		

> I imagine your looking for more detail then these articles I found, but I don't have access to the more detailed papers from vertiflite.
> www.vtol.org/news/aug03-3.html
> www.vtol.org/news/dec03-1.html
> www.vtol.org/news/july03-6.html



Yup, TR...those are some earlier articles...not sure why the gap between Sep 05 in the archive and the Dec 05 breaking news...i.e. missing Oct and Nov archives, Nov issue had the full article.  Maybe they're still being transferred to the archives.  I thought that AHS members could get the entire Vertiflite mag electronically, but after surfing around the site, it seems it's only hard copies to the members and summaries in electronic format.  I would have to scan my vertiflite and unfortunately, I don't have a scanner over here.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (5 Apr 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I can't verify the width of the CH-148 but the length is all most 15 longer.  The wings or nacells or what ever you want to call them on the side of them are much bigger than a Sea King.  Not to mention the ramp on the back.  This thing is going to take up alot more space than you think.  Everyone I've talked to in the MSE world has said what I put forth in my earlier msg's.  HMCS Montreal first and its a big job.  All we can do is wait and see.
> 
> Have a good one...



A little update, I had a look at the dimensions of the Cyclone on the 12 Wing MHP SO site and here's what I found...... The folded Cyclone will be smaller in length, width, and height than a folded Sea King, that's right, smaller and by almost a foot in every dimension. No mods necessary to the door width.


----------

