Army.ca Forums

Air-Force.ca => Rotorheads => Topic started by: apostle on February 18, 2007, 13:29:34

Title: CH47 Chinook
Post by: apostle on February 18, 2007, 13:29:34
I read on a recent thread, sorry that I can't remember which forum it was posted on, that the Government plans to replace the Griffons with the new Chinooks.  While I applaud the decision to purchase the Chinooks (long overdue), I have a concern.  If this is true, would 17 Chinooks be able to meet all of the army's rotary lift needs.  My thinking is that if the Griffon is to be phased out, then it would make more sense to either buy more Chinooks or order new light to medium utility helicopters (such as the CH148 Cyclone) to supplement the Chinook fleet.  I would like some feedback from those would have more knowledge than myself on this, could 17 Chinooks meet all of the army's rotary airlift needs without putting too much strain on those airframes? :cdn:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on February 18, 2007, 13:33:13
I read on a recent thread, sorry that I can't remember which forum it was posted on, that the Government plans to replace the Griffons with the new Chinooks.  While I applaud the decision to purchase the Chinooks (long overdue), I have a concern.  If this is true, would 17 Chinooks be able to meet all of the army's rotary lift needs.  My thinking is that if the Griffon is to be phased out, then it would make more sense to either buy more Chinooks or order new light to medium utility helicopters (such as the CH148 Cyclone) to supplement the Chinook fleet.  I would like some feedback from those would have more knowledge than myself on this, could 17 Chinooks meet all of the army's rotary airlift needs without putting too much strain on those airframes? :cdn:

The Chinook is not replacing the CH-146.......
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: apostle on February 18, 2007, 13:35:58
Thanks CDN Navigator.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on February 18, 2007, 13:36:51
Thanks CDN Navigator.

I am CDN...but i am not a navigator........look again
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on February 18, 2007, 14:01:46
 ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on February 18, 2007, 14:02:23
;D

You are liking this way too much
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: apostle on February 18, 2007, 14:08:54
Oops my bad CDNaviator ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on February 18, 2007, 14:33:59
Apostle, the CH147A (I guessing on the designator, based on the original) will complement vice compete with the CH146 Griffon.  They have their own strengths.  I can tell you personally, the Griffon rocks for what is (honestly) asked of it -- it puts a smile on my face every time I fly it.

G2G

p.s.  CA...maybe having 4-5 navigators all around you is kind of rubbing off?  :P
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on February 18, 2007, 14:36:57
Oops my bad CDNaviator ;D

Ha ha...I made the same mistake...I think you're going to have to change your name... ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: pipstah on February 18, 2007, 20:35:19
I don't know why but I am pretty sure that G2Golf like that when people make that mistake  ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on February 18, 2007, 20:56:17
Ran across this photo of seating for 55 troops. Although I dont think they would be able to bring a ruck. :)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinook-helicopter.com%2Fstandards%2Fimages%2F55_Seats.jpg&hash=bb7b5a1eafb4bd73345cdbc7e8233119)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fk43.pbase.com%2Fu19%2Faztomas%2Flarge%2F8651455.CH47Interior.jpg&hash=88b0aa57a5d657d318c374a2d46ac957)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 18, 2007, 21:04:11
Nice.... (and tight)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on February 18, 2007, 21:16:18
But when you just have to pack em in, just take out the seats. ;D

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinook-helicopter.com%2Fnews%2FAfghanistan%2Fafghanistan_operation_mountain_lion.jpg&hash=0d6dae07055cb114bbd00dac7fd8b80c)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Stridsvagn_122 on February 18, 2007, 21:21:08
just imagine if someone farted in that.... ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on February 18, 2007, 21:22:00
Ran across photos of the PPCLI in Afghanistan - the early days. :)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinook-helicopter.com%2Fnews%2FAfghanistan%2Ftowr_ghar_a.jpg&hash=fa986dc65213bcb9838f47a23cf33220)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinook-helicopter.com%2Fnews%2FAfghanistan%2Ftora_bora_a.jpg&hash=cda6c954a8a04dfbf8e9a6b82ca2540f)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinook-helicopter.com%2Fnews%2FAfghanistan%2Fdna_a.jpg&hash=55298690f4c07116a8f91d922455884d)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinook-helicopter.com%2Fnews%2FAfghanistan%2FB_Co_PPCLIBG_3_a.jpg&hash=fb0d1718087fe1eb6d1cfe2d32babcb1)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on February 18, 2007, 21:36:40
very nice....and someday that will be a Cdn helicopter they are disembarking from!! ;D :cdn:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: BillN on February 18, 2007, 21:39:56
I believe the "world record" for the number of pax on a single Chinook is (was?) held by RAF.  They carried 84 pax on a single lift during the Falklands War.

The Canadian record is held by a joint 447/450 crew who flew Chinook 009 during RV85.  68 pax on a single lift, 2 platoons of the CAR, plus their RSM.   According to my logbook the pilot was Capt Tessier of 447 and the Co-Pilot was Capt Jim Baldaro of 450 Sqn.  Can't remember who the FE was, and I was the LM.  

Great days !!!!  :cdn:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: uncle-midget-Oddball on February 18, 2007, 21:40:26
very nice....and someday that will be a Cdn helicopter they are disembarking from!! ;D :cdn:

Well, to be truthful, some of the ones used by Canadians there over the last few years have BEEN Canadian birds in a previous lifetime.  ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on February 18, 2007, 21:45:29
Well, to be truthful, some of the ones used by Canadians there over the last few years have BEEN Canadian birds in a previous lifetime.  ;)

We just gave them to the Dutch to fly...right?  ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: uncle-midget-Oddball on February 18, 2007, 21:57:06
We just gave them to the Dutch to fly...right?  ;D

Just being polite  ;D. We knew that if we ever needed to use them and they said no, we could just tell Diemaco to halt shipments of weapons to the Dutch.   ^-^
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 19, 2007, 09:12:37
very nice....and someday that will be a Cdn helicopter they are disembarking from!! ;D :cdn:

If the Chinooks in the pictures are Dutch.... they are (or were) ours :(
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: ArmyRick on February 19, 2007, 10:16:46
In reference to the picture of the troops crammed in like sardines, The worst ride is better than the best walk  8)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on February 19, 2007, 12:48:57
In reference to the picture of the troops crammed in like sardines, The worst ride is better than the best walk  8)

When I was Chaplain to RCD in early nineties they used to say "Why walk where you can drive?" and "Any fool can be uncomfortable in the field." Sort of along the same lines I guess.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on February 23, 2007, 14:14:00
the Griffon rocks for what is (honestly) asked of it -- it puts a smile on my face every time I fly it.

You truly had a deprived childhood...
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chou on February 23, 2007, 14:56:55
Apostle, the CH147A (I guessing on the designator, based on the original) will complement vice compete with the CH146 Griffon.

Its actually the CH147 "F" model not the A, that we are planning to acquire.  It is far more capable, way more bells and whistles and almost double the range with the extra fuel tanks :)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Crimmsy on February 23, 2007, 15:23:20
What we call it won't necessarily have anything to do with what the manufacturer calls it.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: volition on February 23, 2007, 15:31:08
Sounds all nice!! But what is going to escort them?? The states have Apaches, what we will put c6`s on it! lol ???
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Inch on February 23, 2007, 16:36:49
Its actually the CH147 "F" model not the A, that we are planning to acquire.  It is far more capable, way more bells and whistles and almost double the range with the extra fuel tanks :)

We originally had upgraded "C" models IIRC, we called them CH-147's. So what model we get and what we call it are typically two different things.

Calling our new ones CH-147A's would follow along our traditional naming of aircraft types since these will be our second version of Chinook, thus the "A" or possibly "B" identifier.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on February 23, 2007, 16:39:18
Is there any news on when we are getting them? When the contract will be signed etc? We seem to have lost track of this purchase with all the hoopla over the C17.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 23, 2007, 16:56:42
no news.... on either the CC130Js, CH47s or the C27Js
(and that's just part of the Airforce's shopping list)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: peaches on February 23, 2007, 17:01:25
Some CAH-164D Apaches would be nice too.... :fifty:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chou on February 23, 2007, 20:24:11
We originally had upgraded "C" models IIRC, we called them CH-147's. So what model we get and what we call it are typically two different things.

Calling our new ones CH-147A's would follow along our traditional naming of aircraft types since these will be our second version of Chinook, thus the "A" or possibly "B" identifier.

Ahh... I did not know that, I was just referring to the manufactures designation.  We recently had a presentation on the Chinooks at the squadron where they clarified a few things regarding model type, specs, due date of "possible" arrival, location.. etc.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on February 26, 2007, 14:05:46
All CF aircraft have a C?### designator: C = Canadian, C/E/F/H/T/U = cargo, electronic warfare, fighter, helicopter, trainer, UAV, then a 3-digit numeric designator.

Our "CH147" Chinooks were Boeing CH-47C"+"s -- the first C-model with an AFCS (automated flight control system) in additional to the SAS (stability augmentation system).  Our C+'s were also upgraded with a 28,000lb hook (vice 24,000 hook of the CH-47C), had a 50,000lb MGTOW (vice 46,000lbs of the C) and an ISIS (internal structural integrity system) in the rotor blades.  The engines were also upgraded to the Lycoming T55-L-11C from two earlier engines, the T55-L-7C and the T55-L-11A, and provide ~3,900shp and an emergency 10sec rating of ~4,600shp.

I don't really see anything other than CH147A being used as the designator for the next Canadian model of Chinook brought into service.

G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2007, 15:27:54
I don't really see anything other than CH147A being used as the designator for the next Canadian model of Chinook brought into service.
If one person here can be confused by the suffix letter, others (especially in other people's armies) will be too. Tell your US buddy that you fly CH147As and he'd likely respond, sympathetically, with "I thought that all of those got upgraded/sold/retired/scrapped long ago". Perhaps CH147F would make more sense internationally.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Ditch on February 26, 2007, 15:38:18
Perhaps CH147F would make more sense internationally.

I concur - albeit we don't differentiate our Hercules aircraft with an "E" or "H".  If we get Spartans, will we just call a CC-277 or CC-27J ?  CH-147 works for the basic description, adding that "A" might just mess with too many minds in the end.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on February 26, 2007, 15:48:55
Folks seem to know that a CF188 is a Hornet, a CC130 is a Herc...they'll figure out a CH147(insert letter here) is a Chinook, methinks.

G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2007, 16:50:07
True, we don't officially tack on an E or H to our Herc designation, but we do use those letters the same as everybody else. We don't call our Es "CC130As" and our Hs "CC130Bs".

Although people could understand that a CH147 is a Chinook, calling what everybody else refers to as an "F" an "A" doesn't promote clarity.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 26, 2007, 16:58:25
in that case, call em CH147C1s or C2s?
It worked ok for the Leos 8)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on February 26, 2007, 17:12:38
in that case, call em CH147C1s or C2s?
It worked ok for the Leos 8)

CH147C2...sure, I'm good with that!  ;)

LM, we do have CH124A's and CH124B's however...
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 26, 2007, 17:55:51
Technicalities..... we can figure this out, we can figure out anything
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Inch on February 26, 2007, 19:41:29
CH147C2...sure, I'm good with that!  ;)

LM, we do have CH124A's and CH124B's however...

Don't forget the temporary CH124U (a stripped out B) and the CH124W (Waterbird config).

And if you thought that wasn't confusing enough, I think they're now differentiated by CH124B-1 and CH124B-2, either force generation config or SCF config. I can't recall all the specifics, but come summer time and waterbird season, there could be up to 4 different configs for Sea Kings. At least the cockpits are pretty much the same.   ;D

*edit*
Almost forgot, our new H-92's are going to be CH148's, not CH192's. People will figure it out.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 26, 2007, 19:47:11
yeah.... over the next 50 years ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Inch on February 26, 2007, 19:55:48
Uh, 44!

How would you like it if I called you 50 when you were only 44? The Sea Kings are crying because of your remark, sleep well tonight you big jerk!  ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 26, 2007, 22:02:42
Doh!

Sorry sea thing
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Rescue Randy on February 26, 2007, 22:14:34
Some bad news at the link, hope it doesn't impact DND too much....

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/AFcsarx070226/
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on February 26, 2007, 22:16:43
Some bad news at the link, hope it doesn't impact DND too much....

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/AFcsarx070226/

Since we are not buying the HH-47 it should have no impact on us.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 26, 2007, 22:24:08
I would presume tnat the US101 is a close cousin to the EH101
Sikorski S92 - Check
HH47...............

Somehow.... this sounds like a familiar story.... just on a larger scale.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PMars on March 09, 2007, 17:57:02
Some bad news at the link, hope it doesn't impact DND too much....

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/AFcsarx070226/
This is in reference to GAO upturning the selection of the HH47 for CSAR.

It actially works in our favour. At the rate they were going to get the contract finally signed, we would have been at the tail end of a big USAF order. Maybe we can work it so we get in ahead of USAF now.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: chinook003 on July 29, 2008, 23:36:40
All of our CH147's where C models except 009 which was actually a D model  modified back to C model so that it would match the rest of the fleet. 009 replaced the first Chinook which we lost in the US when it crashed after takeoff. A bad omen from the start.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 21, 2008, 01:09:36
Has the number of F models been cut down? According to this article, there will only be 6 D models and 6 F models acquired:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4610

Under the plan, Canada will:

Lease six commercial helicopters for one year to address immediate needs in Afghanistan;
Purchase six used Chinook D model helicopters to address immediate requirements—already in-theatre—from the US government for use starting in February 2009;
Purchase six F-model Chinooks to address long- term requirements (expected to be delivered by late 2011/2012)
Procure a small Scan Eagle UAV for use over the next nine months; and
Lease a larger Heron UAV tactical system that will be delivered by early 2009.


I think there is a mistake in the article.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Kevin Moran on August 21, 2008, 01:35:57
Just 2cents. Think it is great that the Service is getting the Chinook back.  Had a couple of rides in it when in 2VP. My Dad actually flew the first one back from the the States when He was in 450 SQD.  (Not the one that crashed obviously...that was a shitty day..the second one).  He always said what a great helicopter it is.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on August 22, 2008, 02:19:56
Kevin. I flew with your dad on 450 Sqn.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Kevin Moran on August 22, 2008, 12:48:32
Beenthere, small world eh?  He is retired out in Comox.  Enjoying all that Island living.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Hamish Seggie on August 22, 2008, 12:57:51
Hello Kevin. Good to see you are still kickin.

I'm glad to see the Chinook back. Great chopper.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 26, 2008, 22:15:24
Boeing Awarded US Army Contract for 191 CH-47F Chinook Helicopters

ST. LOUIS, Aug. 26, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has been awarded a five-year U.S. Army contract valued at $4.3 billion for 181 CH-47F Chinooks and 10 additional Chinooks under Fiscal Year 2008 supplemental funding. There are options in the award for an additional 24 aircraft over the course of the contract.

"This multiyear award will yield a cost savings of more than $449 million for the U.S. Army and taxpayers," said Jack Dougherty, vice president, Boeing H-47 Programs. "This also builds security into our production schedule for the next five years, stabilizing the work force for Boeing and for our supplier partners in more than 45 states."

"The Army is committed to providing an outstanding CH-47F Chinook aircraft to our soldiers in the field," said Col. Newman Shufflebarger, Army project manager for Cargo Helicopters. "This multiyear award not only allows the Army to field this important aircraft at a substantial savings, but enabled the contractor to enter long-term agreements for specialty metals, to include titanium, which significantly reduced long-lead times for these critical materials. The Army was able to reduce the lead time associated with a new-build aircraft by six months."

Also from the U.S. Army, Lt. Col. Thomas H. Todd III, product manager for CH-47F, said, "This multiyear settlement is the result of the tireless efforts of government and Boeing representatives. It ensures that our soldiers will maintain a technological advantage over our adversaries when it comes to heavy-lift missions."

"A long-term contract commitment is good for the warfighter, the Army customer and U.S. business," said Ken Eland, chief engineer for Boeing Tandem Rotor Programs and capture team leader for the company's CH-47F multiyear pursuit. "This award enables Boeing and our Team Chinook partners to make capital investments to reduce lead times for parts and components, improve parts availability and provide for a more accurate delivery schedule, which will enable greater precision in fielding the Chinook to U.S. Army units."

Boeing Rotorcraft Systems has delivered 48 CH-47F helicopters to the U.S. Army to date and has fully trained and equipped two units, with a third unit scheduled to stand up in August. Since the aircraft received its combat-ready certification from the Army in 2007, the F-model has completed several thousand flight hours, including deployments to Liberia in support of U.S. President George Bush, and is currently undergoing its first deployment to Iraq.

As with its predecessors, the CH-47F continues to excel across the full spectrum of operational missions, including air assault, combat re-supply, humanitarian relief, search and rescue, and transport operations.

Built at the Boeing Rotorcraft Systems facility in Ridley Township, Pa., the CH-47F helicopter delivers greater mission-critical capability for the warfighter with a newly designed, improved airframe, a Rockwell Collins Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit, and a BAE-designed Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS).

The CAAS greatly improves aircrew situational awareness, and DAFCS provides dramatically improved flight-control capabilities through the entire flight envelope, significantly improved performance and safety in the harshest of environments.

CAAS also incorporates an advanced digital map display and a data transfer system that allows storing of preflight and mission data. Improved survivability features include the Common Missile Warning and Improved Countermeasure Dispenser systems.

Powered by two 4,733-horsepower Honeywell engines, the new CH-47F can reach speeds greater than 175 mph and transport more than 21,000 pounds. The CH-47F, with the Robertson Aviation Extended Range Fuel System, has a mission radius of more than 400 nautical miles.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...80826a_nr.html
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Retired AF Guy on November 03, 2008, 18:54:03
According to this CBC report (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/30/chinook-kandahar.html) the first CF CH-47D and its Canadian crew has arrived in Kandahar.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on November 03, 2008, 21:11:38
Quote
The Canadian Air Force has confirmed that the first of six Chinook helicopters to be purchased from the United States are is now at the Kandahar Airfield base.

Can't even get good english from CBC.... cheez!

I believe the Chinook we got was delivered from.... some other place in Afghanistan
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chapeski on November 03, 2008, 21:39:21
"The push to get battlefield helicopters into Kandahar was mired in defence bureaucracy for almost two years. An internal debate pitted the army, eager to reduce soldiers' exposure to deadly roadside bombs, against a frustrated air force that sought a versatile aircraft, useful in more places than just Afghanistan."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but these choppers are very useful in places other than Afghanistan. They are just a little more useful there right now, than say, sitting on a tarmac looking pretty, or doing fly-fishing trips to the middle of nowhere. Just saying. (Sarcasm very much intended, sorry to any pilot that thought I was knocking them too!)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on November 03, 2008, 22:09:21
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these choppers are very useful in places other than Afghanistan. They are just a little more useful there right now, than say, sitting on a tarmac looking pretty, or doing fly-fishing trips to the middle of nowhere. Just saying. (Sarcasm very much intended, sorry to any pilot that thought I was knocking them too!)

Ummm... where did the fly fishing thing come from Cheapeski
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: WrenchBender on November 03, 2008, 23:45:58
Ummm... where did the fly fishing thing come from Cheapeski
The Duke and Duchess of York's Canoe trip in 1987 was supported by 447 (T) Sqn.

WrenchBender
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chapeski on November 04, 2008, 01:40:05
Ummm... where did the fly fishing thing come from Cheapeski

I was talking with a couple pilots back in March. I was joking with them while doing some kit exchange, made a joke about how the choppers could get you into some cool fishing spot. They could neither confirm nor deny this. Was just making a joke in jest. Seriously though, think of the fly in fishing a BN could do with a couple of Hooks though? Wouldn't it be great???
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on November 04, 2008, 12:47:42
Ummm... where did the fly fishing thing come from Cheapeski

Goose Bay Labrador ! ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chapeski on November 04, 2008, 19:52:05
I choose not to mention where I was talking to said pilots when this conversation took place for fear of incriminating the unit. I plead the 5th (even though we don't have it, i plead anyway!) I'm also secretly jealous of these outings as I haven't gone fishing in well over a year now.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on November 04, 2008, 22:00:19
Goose Bay Labrador ! ;)
I have a few old slides (remember when slides were the ultimate) from about 1970 that show a CH-113A sitting in a lake near Goose Bay while the crew were catching some fine trout. There are some great trout slides as well. It's the kind of fishing that no one would believe and without pictures it sounds like BS--but the pictures don't BS.
One day I'll dig them out and see if I can get them made into photos.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on November 04, 2008, 22:28:56
ahhh.... fishing salmon at CFS Moisie on the Quebec North Shore.... no need for any darned helicopter
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: maniac779 on November 18, 2008, 21:06:29
Are they sending pipes to the Chinook out of BHS in YPG?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 18, 2008, 23:13:47
Eventually- yes.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on November 19, 2008, 01:12:13
Are they sending pipes to the Chinook out of BHS in YPG?

Pipes have always been sent on Chinooks.  The last two C-model pilots were pipes.  You will see pipes going straight from BHS to a squadron and immediately to Ft.Rucker thereafter, then to Afghanistan.  Looks like tac hel is the place to be to get some operational experience while finally getting the chance to help out the troops.

G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: maniac779 on November 19, 2008, 11:12:21
Pipes have always been sent on Chinooks.  The last two C-model pilots were pipes.  You will see pipes going straight from BHS to a squadron and immediately to Ft.Rucker thereafter, then to Afghanistan.  Looks like tac hel is the place to be to get some operational experience while finally getting the chance to help out the troops.

G2G

That's what I like to hear.

That is going to make selection easy.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Spencer100 on January 28, 2009, 15:56:12
NY Guard Provides CH-47 Training To Canadian Aircrews
Wed, 28 Jan '09

Preparing For Deployment To Afghanistan
New York Army National Guard members offered hands-on CH-47 Chinook helicopter training to Canadian air force aircrews readying for deployment at a flight facility in Rochester, NY last week.

 

Aviation soldiers from the Guard's Company B, 3rd Battalion, 126th Aviation Regiment, who returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan in April, used their Chinooks and the upstate New York snow to train the Canadians on Afghan flying conditions.

The snow was a stand-in for the ubiquitous Afghan dust, Army Capt. Eric Fritz, instructor pilot for the battalion, explained. Fritz put together a two-week training program to prepare the Canadians for an upcoming Afghan deployment.

Members of the Canadian air force's 408th and 430th Tactical Helicopter Squadrons will be operating Chinooks in theater. The Canadian aircraft already are 6,000 miles away in place in Afghanistan.

 

"Everybody jumped at the opportunity to provide the training and transmit Company B's experience and information to the Canadians," Army Col. Michael Bobeck, aviation officer, said. "It makes everybody operate safer and allows us to accomplish the mission."

The first week of training focused on classroom briefings, battlefield scenarios and daylight-flying operations, and the second week was spent perfecting night-flying skills. The training plan culminated with a simulated air assault. All training flights took place within 100 miles of the flight facility here.

Landing and taking off in the light snowfall provided the Canadians with the same experience they'll get coping with the ever-present dust in Afghanistan, Fritz said.

 

"The New York National Guard has been very accommodating, because it's all been last-minute for us," Canadian air force Capt. Martin LeFrancois, 430th Squadron, said. "Now that we have six Chinooks waiting for us in Afghanistan, the training program that they prepared for us will be really beneficial."

(Aero-News salutes Army Sgt. 1st Class Steven Petibone, with the New York National Guard.)

FMI: www.airforce.forces.ca/, www.dmna.state.ny.us/
 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 12, 2009, 22:41:40
Puckchaser,
We could do like the Dutch & have em reconditioned...

While the new fighters would be nice.... the Chinooks are bread & butter tools for the land forces.  While the Airforce will consider the JSF as being their bread & butter...
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GDawg on February 12, 2009, 23:11:53
This all boils back to the argument that the Army and Navy should have their own air wings.

Shouldn't a small military pool resources and personnel rather than divide them up?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: geo on February 12, 2009, 23:20:56
GDawg... If the army wants the Chinooks, they should be able to decide on acquiring the necessary gear.  I don't think it should be a fight with the airforce over Chinooks VS JSFs
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GDawg on February 12, 2009, 23:45:33
GDawg... If the army wants the Chinooks, they should be able to decide on acquiring the necessary gear.  I don't think it should be a fight with the airforce over Chinooks VS JSFs

You're preaching to the choir, at the end of the day its the Canadian voter who decides what we do, and what equipment we get to do it.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on February 12, 2009, 23:54:05
This all boils back to the argument that the Army and Navy should have their own air wings.

Not keeping up with CF budget issues are you ?The CF has "X" amount of money. Army air wing or not, that amount of money doesnt change. If the Army decided to buy Chinooks, what exactly do you think the Army can afford to give up in order to pay for it.

Regardless of who flies them, the money problem remains. Every element needs new equipment that will cost more that the money available. Something will have to give.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: toglmonster on February 13, 2009, 02:09:31
-Just responding to the last part of MANIAC779 post. -

-Your right-

-Let's hope it stays just talk-
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: maniac779 on February 13, 2009, 13:24:26
-Just responding to the last part of MANIAC779 post. -

-Your right-

-Let's hope it stays just talk-

That wasn't me, but the end of the article.

Agreed however.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: KJK on February 13, 2009, 14:40:25
According to Defense Industry Daily Canada offered Boeing a limited risk reduction contract in Sept/08. Does anyone know if Boeing accepted the contract or not?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/on-the-verge-canadas-47b-program-for-mediumheavy-transport-helicopters-02390/#more-2390

KJK :cdn:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2009, 15:12:27
Not keeping up with CF budget issues are you ?The CF has "X" amount of money. Army air wing or not, that amount of money doesnt change. If the Army decided to buy Chinooks, what exactly do you think the Army can afford to give up in order to pay for it.

Regardless of who flies them, the money problem remains. Every element needs new equipment that will cost more that the money available. Something will have to give.

It makes no difference financially.

Same resources, same level of funding, but the funding is switched to the gaining chain of command.

There is no logical reason to retain what are rightfully Army and Navy resources in the a** f**ce.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on February 13, 2009, 15:27:36
It makes no difference financially.

Same resources, same level of funding, but the funding is switched to the gaining chain of command.

There is no logical reason to retain what are rightfully Army and Navy resources in the a** f**ce.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The Navy is more than happy to employ LRP but if they were in control of the purse string, the money would go elsewhere...what little of it there is already.

The AF is bleeding money supporting more than it can within the budget. If the army beleives there would be additional funding if it were to own aviation, it is saddly mistaken.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: mover1 on February 13, 2009, 15:36:27
What about Maintenance? would this mean that it would suddenly become a "Purple" Trade. And we can have a mixture of uniforms on the flight line.  With different training standards. IE Army has to do Army JLC manwhile the  Airforce and Navy guys can go where ever.
Would their maintenance doctrine, procedures and paperwork be armyafied?
I don't think the Army or Navy Owning these assets would help anything in the long run. In Fact it just may hurt it. As the public and the politicians see things that fly as Airforce Things that Float as Navy and things that walk run or drive as Army.
The Pilot trade would become purple as well.  As people become cross trained on other platforms the whole essence of the Airforce would eventually get blurred and cease to exist therefore killing it as two of its core trades dissapear into tri service nothinghood.
Why not just concentrate on learning how to properly use these assets and educate those who commit them on their proper uses and limitations.
At the end of the day I don't know  what the difference of the color of a T-shirt or hat will help anything.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Ditch on February 13, 2009, 15:43:42
There is no logical reason to retain what are rightfully Army and Navy resources in the a** f**ce.

This rant is getting tiresome - really, give it a rest. 

As it has been previously mentioned by others in the know - it was a CLS driven decision to rid the CF of our Hooks in the first place - how do you think our current post-Cold War CF would fare with separate aviation wings?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on February 13, 2009, 18:18:34
...it was a CLS driven decision to rid the CF of our Hooks in the first place...

Well, Comd FMC, but yeah... ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 13, 2009, 19:22:44
Three Torch posts that may be relevant:

The spectre haunting the defence budget
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/spectre-haunting-defence-budget.html

Defence equipment: The shoe drops
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/defence-equipment-shoe-drops.html

The Conservative government's January 2008 budget
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/conservative-governments-january-2008.html

Quote
As far as I can see the words "defence" and "Canadian Forces" do not appear in the budget...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 03, 2009, 15:30:35
When, if ever, will we sign the contract for CH-47Fs?  A Torch post, with lots of background:

Aussies look like buying CH-47F Chinooks; when will we?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/aussies-look-like-buying-ch-47f.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GAP on May 21, 2009, 11:06:37
DND Looks to Buy Fewer Choppers
Josh Pringle Wednesday, May 20, 2009
 Article Link (http://www.cfra.com/?cat=3&nid=65288)

The Defence Department has asked Boeing whether Canada's order for 16 heavy-lift Chinooks can be cut to 14.

The Canadian Press reports the Federal Government is looking to trim its order for new battlefield helicopters because of budget concerns.

DND wants to keep the $4.7 billion program within budget.

A spokesman for DND insists the Federal Government is still committed to the project
end of article
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 21, 2009, 16:37:59
Torch post, with lots of further links:

New Chinooks: The Foxtrot goes on...and on...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-chinooks-foxtrot-goes-onand-on.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 28, 2009, 16:58:57
Latest:
 
CHINOOK CONTRACT TO BE ANNOUNCED IN THE SUMMER: BOEING
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/05/27/chinook-contract-to-be-announced-in-the-summer-boeing.aspx

Quote
Boeing says it is expecting a contract to be announced this summer for the acquisition of 16 [see two previous posts--only 14 maybe?] Chinook F model helicopters for the Canadian Forces. According to Richard Meanor, manager of Business Development for International Rotorcraft Integrated Defense Systems, negotiations are in their final stages. The contract will include the establishment of an in-service support program using domestic industry but, similar to the C-130J deal, involving Boeing as the prime contactor. Boeing will select domestic companies for the work and then present the package to government for approval. When (if) the contract is announced this summer it will mark the end of a long process of discussions and negotiations on the Chinooks (by then three years in total).

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: karl28 on August 10, 2009, 10:16:34
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090810/canada_choppers_090810/20090810?hub=Canada


Apparently the Fed have given Boeing the green light for a 1.2 billion contract  for 15 choppers  and delivery is in the 2013 - 2014 range . For those in the  know more than me does that mean we will still be able to keep the 6 chinooks that we have in Afghanistan ? Plus the 15 new ones ?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on August 10, 2009, 10:21:33
There were old announcements that the six were a temporary measure, to be traded back once we get new ones.

As we have no desire to fly another split fleet, the final number will be whatever we buy new from Boeing.  The others will go back to BOeing who will do whatever they want with them.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on August 10, 2009, 10:30:39
Official DND news release:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3085

DND Backgrounder:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3084

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: karl28 on August 10, 2009, 11:45:31
dapaterson

To bad we couldn't keep the extra 6 I know there not the newest but extra choppers can't be a bad thing but thanks for the heads up .

Cheers Karl
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 11, 2009, 13:48:39
A post at The Torch:

CH-47F Chinooks: Three years to negotiate a contract
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/ch-47f-chinooks-three-years-to.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: DocBacon on August 13, 2009, 23:11:37
To bad we couldn't keep the extra 6 I know there not the newest but extra choppers can't be a bad thing but thanks for the heads up .

It may be that we don't want to keep those particular aircraft, anyways.  They may not be in mint condition.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on August 13, 2009, 23:52:20
They are not.

And even if they were, they are completely different aircraft.

Another fleet to support.

And who would crew and maintain the additional six? What do we give up in trade?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HercFE on August 14, 2009, 09:30:27
No word yet on were they will be based? Last word a year ago or so was possibly Bagotville.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on August 14, 2009, 09:43:59
Nope. Just speculation.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 14, 2009, 10:18:34
Petawawa speculation:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Forces+buying+Chinook+helicopters/1877617/story.html

Quote
...

The Chinooks would be operated from a single base, with CFB Petawawa in the Ottawa Valley seen as the front-runner for that location.

The Canadian Forces had originally planned to operate the helicopters from two bases. The government has yet to announce what base will be selected as home to the new aircraft...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on August 14, 2009, 10:59:53
Given that we have a minority government situation, I fully expect a decision and announcement to be made for maximum political impact, vice timed to give DND/CF maximum time to react.
Title: $1.15 billion U.S. for 15 choppers: Canadian Forces
Post by: SARgirl on August 18, 2009, 12:54:38
I thought a similar news story had already been posted on the forum, but I couldn't find it when I did a search.


$1.15 billion U.S. for 15 choppers: Canadian Forces
The Gazette
August 10, 2009

Link:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/billion+choppers+Canadian+Forces/1877846/story.html

News Story:
MONTREAL -- The Federal Government has placed a much-delayed order for 15 new CH-47F Chinook heavy-lift helicopters with the Boeing Co. The contract is worth about $1.15 billion U.S.

The twin-turbine aircraft will be produced at a Boeing plant in Pennsylvania and deliveries are set for 2013-2014. They will have Honeywell engines and have a load capacity of 21,000 pounds.

Defence Minster Peter MacKay said last week Canada will deal with a shortage of military transport helicopters in Afghanistan by buying six used machines from the U.S. and also by leasing Russian-built aircrafts.

Boeing has undertaken to match every dollar spent by Canada under the CH-47F contract by partnering and issuing contracts to companies in Canada – so-called offset work. About $500 million U.S. of offset contracts have already been signed with Canadian companies, Boeing said in Chicago Monday.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tango22a on August 21, 2009, 21:13:32
Should anyone be interested there is an hour long programme on the Chinook on Discovery Military Channel
today at 2200hrs EDST

Cheers,

tango22a
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SARgirl on August 23, 2009, 14:51:27
Should anyone be interested there is an hour long programme on the Chinook on Discovery Military Channel
today at 2200hrs EDST

Cheers,

tango22a

The Military Discovery Channel has 5 short videos to watch about the Chinook.  I didn't see the program mentioned in your post, so I'm not sure if the online videos cover the same information.

http://military.discovery.com/videos/gi-factory-chinook/

Edited to add:
This is a slightly off topic, but for those who are interested, on the Military Channel, if you do a search for, 'helicopter', there are several pages of videos about various military helicopters.

http://military.discovery.com/search/results.html?N=0&Ntt=helicopter&focus=video&query=helicopter&search=search&site=MIL&Ntk=All&search.y=0&Nty=1&search.x=0&Ntx=mode+matchany&No=0
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tango22a on August 23, 2009, 15:43:34
Egy sarvedo:

The programme went into the history of tandem-rotor helos and only really covered the Chinook for about one-third of the time...a bit of of a downer. It was under "the Greatest Planes" series.

Sorry. but that was the best I could do on short notice since I didn't see the ad for the show until almost the last minute,

Cheers,

tango22a

I can remember flying in a Labrador (CH 146?) in 1966 at CFB Borden while they were doing user-trials.

t22a
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SARgirl on August 23, 2009, 16:11:55
Egy sarvedo:

The programme went into the history of tandem-rotor helos and only really covered the Chinook for about one-third of the time...a bit of of a downer. It was under "the Greatest Planes" series.

Sorry. but that was the best I could do on short notice since I didn't see the ad for the show until almost the last minute,

Cheers,

tango22a

I can remember flying in a Labrador (CH 146?) in 1966 at CFB Borden while they were doing user-trials.

t22a

No worries.  Unfortunately, I wouldn't have been able to see the program either way; I just have rabbit ears.  I only have time on the weekends to watch programs and paying for cable to watch the television one or two days or less (often less, depends) a week isn't worth it, espeically when I can go weeks without turning on the television (depends).  There are only a few or handful of channels which would be of interest to me.  I have been contemplating cable, if for any reason, so I can tape the programs on the military channel during the week and then watch them when I can; I'm still thinking about it.

Some times the military channel will have the full length of a program online, split up over the course of several videos, I was hoping I could catch the program that way, but I didn't find it online when I did a search... maybe down the road they will have it on their site.

Sorry to hear the program was a 'downer'. 

Thank you for the reply.  :)   
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on August 23, 2009, 19:47:49
...Labrador (CH 146?)...

Labrador (RCAF) and Voyageur (Army) were CH113 and CH113A respectively. CH146 is the Griffon.

The US Navy version is the CH46 Sea Knight - possibly where you got the 46 from.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tango22a on August 23, 2009, 22:23:54
Loachman:

Sorry, but it was  a very long time ago. I think it must have then been a Voyageur as it was being flown by an RCASC pilot. At the time I was an O/Cdt at the Royal Canadian School of Infantry...I wanted Armour but at that time all Armour Officers came from RMC.


Cheers,

tango22a

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on August 24, 2009, 10:04:06
Being flown by a "RCASC" pilot, as in Royal Candian Army Service Corp ?
Seems strange, I would have expected an Army pilot.
Perhaps Loachman will have some thoughts on this.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on August 24, 2009, 10:25:40
There were quite a large number of helicopter pilots who were members of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. In fact in those days most army pilots were RCAC, RCA and RCASC, although there were a few infantry, signals and RCEME pilots. Moreover the Voyageurs belonged to 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon, RCASC.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on August 24, 2009, 10:53:23
Damn. Beat me.

1 Transport Helicopter Platoon was known as "1 Thump".

Groundcrew wore RCEME cap badges.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 24, 2009, 11:10:41
The Royal Winnipeg Rifles were reportedly the first to use the Voyageurs tactically. One (or two) came down from Rivers, MB to Shilo for a weekend. The one I was on had a RCASC pilot and copilot complete with khaki forge cap.

The town of Rivers was then the Canadian Joint Air Training Centre (CJATC) Rivers  There was an parachute exit tower there. Each intake (three) from Clear Lake Cadet Camp were bused to Rivers to go off the Mock Tower and then a tour of the High Tower at Shilo.

Saw a RCN Banshee there a couple of times.

http://www.airmuseum.ca/rcaf/rivers01.html
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on August 24, 2009, 11:30:26
Short hijack.

If nothing else, Rivers made Shilo look good.

CJATC was a tri-service organization. From an army point of view, its main features were the parachute school and the light aviation school which trained pilots to an operational standard on the L19, CH112 and CH113. Rivers also did UEO, FAC and GLO training and was home to the only ground attack specialized organization in the RCAF. The RCN Banshees would come to Rivers for CAS training using the Shilo ranges each summer, which usually resulted in a colossal prairie fire. And interestingly, the parachute packers (28 COD, RCOC) were stationed in Shilo.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 29, 2009, 14:25:51
From the photo info, the weekend the RWpgRif used the Voyageurs was Nov 1965. The unit was flown Wpg/Shilo/Wpg and all weekend in the field. Rifleman 62 is the short guy in picture 2 on the far right. One of these Voyageurs later crashed in Wisconsan I believe.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on August 29, 2009, 15:01:23
There were quite a large number of helicopter pilots who were members of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. In fact in those days most army pilots were RCAC, RCA and RCASC, although there were a few infantry, signals and RCEME pilots. Moreover the Voyageurs belonged to 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon, RCASC.

For those of you who are into interesting but useless factoids, I checked my 1965 Canadian Army List for qualified army pilots. These were identified by the symbols PG (pilot, glider), PH (pilot, helicopter) and/or PL (pilot, light) behind their names. Round figures from a cursory look: RCAC - 42; RCA - 61; RCE -2; RCCs - 6; RCIC - 24; RCASC - 68; and RCEME - 6. There also were a number of full colones and up with the designations. These either had qualified when more junior in rank or had taken the Senior Officers Pilots Course to make them aviation minded. This last group - gallant soldiers all - tended to make up in enthusiasm for what they lacked in skill. At least that is what the real army aviators who were unfortunate to have taken some of them up for check rides murmured in the mess after returning from the experience.
Title: CF confirms Chinook-Fs to be based in Pet
Post by: milnews.ca on December 14, 2009, 16:31:29
New Chinook Helicopters Will Be Based In Petawawa
CF news release NR 09.111, 16 Dec 09
News release link (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3219)


The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, announced today that Canada’s new fleet of 15 F-model Chinook helicopters will be based at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ontario.

The new CH-147F Chinooks will support land forces and other Government departments, secondary search and rescue missions, as well as responding to humanitarian emergencies such as fire, floods, and earthquakes.

“As stated in the Canada First Defence Strategy, there is a need to update and replace dated defence infrastructure to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Government of Canada is investing in the people, equipment, and infrastructure that the Canadian Forces need to do their job,” said Minister MacKay. “These significant investments in defence provide economic benefits to communities across Canada. As well, approximately 440 new positions are planned at CFB Petawawa as a result of the Chinooks’ arrival.”

CFB Petawawa will see various infrastructure projects to accommodate the Chinook helicopters. This infrastructure will include the construction of new hangars that will incorporate training, maintenance, operational storage, and logistics. Construction also includes a new ramp, a refueling facility, and a fenced-in parking area. The Government of Canada will conduct open, fair, and transparent competitive processes to award the construction contracts at CFB Petawawa.

 “Petawawa was chosen because it provides the best support to army and special operations forces, many of which are co-located there, while minimizing the associated infrastructure costs for the new fleet. From this location, the Chinooks will maintain a high-readiness posture for rapid deployment,” stated General Walt Natynczyk, Chief of the Defence Staff.

“These Chinook helicopters are state of the art,” said Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, Chief of Air Staff.  “These impressive new F-model Chinooks have a full suite of leading edge avionics, sensors, and self-defence equipment, and more than twice the range of older Chinooks. Basing them in Petawawa will maximize their ability to train and operate with their main customer, the army, for deployments across Canada or around the world.”

The value of the Chinook helicopter is highlighted by the operations currently underway in Afghanistan, with the six D-model versions currently employed there as part of Canada’s Air Wing in Kandahar. This workhorse helicopter saves lives every day, and contributes significantly to mission success by rapidly transporting troops and equipment to locations that would be more dangerous or impossible to reach by ground.

The CH-147F Chinooks, scheduled for delivery by Boeing starting in summer 2013, will be available for future deployed missions in which Canadian Forces will participate. Domestically, the robust performance and long range of the F-model Chinooks make it an ideal aircraft for operations in Canada’s vast and harsh environment, particularly in the North.

-30-
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: George Wallace on December 14, 2009, 16:39:53
Looks like the Air Force will now own most of the Mattawa Plain.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on December 14, 2009, 17:00:45
Looks like the Air Force will now own most of the Mattawa Plain.

They can have it! Full of stupid ragweed in the fall.
Title: Re: CF confirms Chinook-Fs to be based in Pet
Post by: beenthere on December 15, 2009, 01:18:02
New Chinook Helicopters Will Be Based In Petawawa
CF news release NR 09.111, 16 Dec 09
News release link (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3219)


The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, announced today that Canada’s new fleet of 15 F-model Chinook helicopters will be based at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ontario.

The new CH-147F Chinooks will support land forces and other Government departments, secondary search and rescue missions, as well as responding to humanitarian emergencies such as fire, floods, and earthquakes.

“As stated in the Canada First Defence Strategy, there is a need to update and replace dated defence infrastructure to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Government of Canada is investing in the people, equipment, and infrastructure that the Canadian Forces need to do their job,” said Minister MacKay. “These significant investments in defence provide economic benefits to communities across Canada. As well, approximately 440 new positions are planned at CFB Petawawa as a result of the Chinooks’ arrival.”

CFB Petawawa will see various infrastructure projects to accommodate the Chinook helicopters. This infrastructure will include the construction of new hangars that will incorporate training, maintenance, operational storage, and logistics. Construction also includes a new ramp, a refueling facility, and a fenced-in parking area. The Government of Canada will conduct open, fair, and transparent competitive processes to award the construction contracts at CFB Petawawa.

 “Petawawa was chosen because it provides the best support to army and special operations forces, many of which are co-located there, while minimizing the associated infrastructure costs for the new fleet. From this location, the Chinooks will maintain a high-readiness posture for rapid deployment,” stated General Walt Natynczyk, Chief of the Defence Staff.

“These Chinook helicopters are state of the art,” said Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, Chief of Air Staff.  “These impressive new F-model Chinooks have a full suite of leading edge avionics, sensors, and self-defence equipment, and more than twice the range of older Chinooks. Basing them in Petawawa will maximize their ability to train and operate with their main customer, the army, for deployments across Canada or around the world.”

The value of the Chinook helicopter is highlighted by the operations currently underway in Afghanistan, with the six D-model versions currently employed there as part of Canada’s Air Wing in Kandahar. This workhorse helicopter saves lives every day, and contributes significantly to mission success by rapidly transporting troops and equipment to locations that would be more dangerous or impossible to reach by ground.

The CH-147F Chinooks, scheduled for delivery by Boeing starting in summer 2013, will be available for future deployed missions in which Canadian Forces will participate. Domestically, the robust performance and long range of the F-model Chinooks make it an ideal aircraft for operations in Canada’s vast and harsh environment, particularly in the North.

-30-
I'd still like to see the last paragraph proved. The harsh northern environment is really something to contend with. One oil or hydraulic leak would turn a Chinook into a semi permanent landmark. 
Title: Re: CF confirms Chinook-Fs to be based in Pet
Post by: Strike on December 15, 2009, 13:03:05
I'd still like to see the last paragraph proved. The harsh northern environment is really something to contend with. One oil or hydraulic leak would turn a Chinook into a semi permanent landmark.

That could be said of any aircraft though.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on December 15, 2009, 13:08:20
Kind of a foregone conclusion.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 15, 2009, 16:46:56
I spent 25 years flying and 5 as a tech and have lots of Arctic experience. CH-113As and Chinooks virtually always got sick in cold places.
I flew on Buffaloes for a couple of years and C-130s for 15 and only had 1 C-130 that got sick in the cold. That was after an overnight stay in Alert. 8 Hours in a warm hangar in Thule and she was right back to normal.

Politicians and generals along with their spokesmen or people who write press releases for them are doing nothing more than assuring the public that they have done the right thing.

There's nothing wrong with them doing this and it's to be expected.

However just because they said these things there's no reason to believe them.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on December 15, 2009, 16:52:57
I spent 25 years flying and 5 as a tech and have lots of Arctic experience. CH-113As and Chinooks virtually always got sick in cold places.
I flew on Buffaloes for a couple of years and C-130s for 15 and only had 1 C-130 that got sick in the cold. That was after an overnight stay in Alert. 8 Hours in a warm hangar in Thule and she was right back to normal.

The ones that performed well were fixed wing.

Griffs head up north regularly so it's not like there is any lack of experience wrt helo ops up north that we have to worry about.  Given the extended range available that means less need to use fuel caches (and crappy gas).

As for the how the hooks will perform up north, I'm going to wait for Duey to chime in, since he's probably done the exact thing that we're debating about.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chapeski on December 15, 2009, 17:25:11
Strike, here's a quick question for you. With regards to the Hook's only being in Pet now, how will that affect training here? Will there be cross country trips when the Patricia's need some helo's for play in WX? Would it not have made sense to have a couple based here in Edmonton? I'm just curious is all.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 15, 2009, 17:25:34
It took us several weeks to fly a Griffon from Borden to Alert for Op Hurricane a couple of summers ago. Cracked windscreen, tail rotor problem discovered almost as soon as that was fixed, endless wait for parts, wait to get a right-hand windscreen when a left-hand one labelled right-hand came in (finally), other wrong parts, weather, trying to find a hangar where the windscreen could be replaced (the sealant needs twenty-four hours to cure and sufficient warmth to do so, and probably a few other things.

I doubt that the new Chinooks will be any worse, and hopefully newer technology will have improved things.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 15, 2009, 17:27:55
It's probably cheaper to build infrastructure in just one place.

Maintenance is simplified, and deployment to Wainwright should not be a significant issue.

Training areas (Tac Low Fly Areas) off base are probably better in Pet. Moose do not phone in complaints.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chapeski on December 15, 2009, 17:40:23
Thanks for the quick reply Loachman. I guess I'll have to hope for a posting to Pet so I can see them somewhat frequently.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 15, 2009, 18:22:56
On 450 Sqn. we did a couple of Arctic exercises. Frobisher Bay in 1972: We could keep 2 of 3 CH-113As in a heated hangar. One day the wind came up real quick and the rotor brake on the chopper that was outside(311) let go because the hyd. system leaked from the cold. The rotors started turning and eventually picked up some speed. The blades started to go up and down as they were turning. One blade drooped and hit the top,damaged the sync shaft and ripped the sync shaft bearing mounts out of the airframe. The blade broke in half. Most if not all of the rotor blades were write offs from contacting the fuselage and from flexing upward. Both rotor heads damaged. I witnessed the whole event. They had to break the fuselage down into 3 pieces and fly everything back south in a Hercules. Repair time was many months. All because of one small hydraulic leak caused by the cold.

Churchill in the 70's. Winter exercise. 3 or 4 CH-113As. Kept them in heated hangar with no major problems. At least what we called major--no aircraft damaged. Lots of problems with leaks in Churchill and a few on the transit from Ottawa and back. In Winnipeg just after startup a hyd line in the control closet broke and I got soaked. Snowbank by the aircraft turned pink.

 Petawawa or Wainwright  in winter is pretty much like the Arctic.

We regularly sent choppers to Alert and back in the summer. No problems. The Arctic in summer is like anywhere in Canada.

450 Was the SAR helicopter element for Trenton for several years and we regularly sent single choppers with only the FE for maintenance to all parts of the Trenton SAR area. Used to carry a Herman Nelson heater in the winter with good results most times.

In comparison the Chinook was a pig. All kinds of problems. Transmissions leaked, hydraulic systems leaked, engines had hot starts (requiring engine change), the cabin windows blew out in flight, structural parts failed, rotor heads leaked, and chip lights came on regularly.They got sick when they were left out in the cold. All kinds of flight control problems. Oleos went flat.
You name it and it happened.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 15, 2009, 18:28:06
It's probably cheaper to build infrastructure in just one place.

Maintenance is simplified, and deployment to Wainwright should not be a significant issue.

Training areas (Tac Low Fly Areas) off base are probably better in Pet. Moose do not phone in complaints.
The old Chinooks could fly from Edmonton to Ottawa with one fuel stop at Winnipeg using the long range fuel system. The system was designed and built by 450 Sqn before NDHQ even knew about it. That's another story. ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on December 15, 2009, 18:56:21
FYI: Boeing CHINOOK CH-147

Boeing CHINOOK CH-147
 The Boeing Vertol CH-47C Chinook was a special uprated variant of the heavy-lift tandem-rotor helicopter acquired by the CF in 1974 and used primarily for Mobile Command operations.

The first aircraft unfortunately crashed on its initial delivery flight. The remaining seven survivors used extensively by the CF in transport duties associated with 10 Tactical Air Group (10 TAG).

These included medium airlift requirements including the transport of troops, rations, military supplies, transport and weapons for mobility operations. Arctic re-supply and special heavy-lift operations were also routinely undertaken. The Chinooks were based primarily with 447 and 450 Transport Helicopter Squadrons while employed by the CF.

Although highly versatile, the CH-147 Chinooks eventually proved to be maintenance intensive and consequently expensive to operate so the CF retired the fleet as an economy measure in 1991. The ex-Canadian aircraft were eventually refurbished by Boeing Vertol and sold to the Dutch Armed Forces.

Canada has re-aquired 6 used CH-47D Chinooks from the US Forces for use in Afghanistan and has placed an order with Boeing for 15 CH-47F Chinook helicoptes, although this order has not been finialized yet.  It is not presently known if these aircraft will also be known as the CH-147


SPECIFICATIONS
CDN Reg: CH-147
US/NATO Reg.: CH-47
Manufacturer:  Boeing Vertol
Crew / Passengers: four: two pilots & flight engineer & loadmaster plus up to 44 passengers, 33 troops or up 28,000 lb (12,700 kg) external loads.
Power Plant(s): two AVCO Lycoming 3,300 shp T55-L-11C turboshaft engines
Performance: Max Speed: 180 mph (290 km/h) Cruising Speed: 160 mph (257 km/h) Hover Ceiling: 9,200 ft (2,804 m) Range: 115 mi (185 km)
Weights:  Empty: 20,616 lb (9,351 kg) Takeoff: 39,000 lbs (17,781 kg)
Dimensions: Rotor Dia: 60 ft 0 in ( 18.29 m) Length: 99 ft 0 in ( 30.18 m) Height: 22 ft i6 n ( 6.86 m) 
Armament: None


http://rcaf.com/Aircraft/aircraftDetail.php?CHINOOK-171

 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: karl28 on December 15, 2009, 21:07:52
       I am just glad that the CF will finally get these choppers that they badly need . Even if the new ones aren't used in Afghanistan they can still be used for lots of other operations or Future mission where ever they take the CF
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on December 15, 2009, 22:11:26
The Uk MoD just made a panic order of 22 Chinooks for the RAF. In return, the RAF will close it's Cottismore base (Tornado), in order to fund this.
They are expecting them in 2013. it sounds to me like an off the shelf purchase with none of their own modifications.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on December 16, 2009, 01:01:40
Frobisher Bay in 1972...

Dude, you're old!   ;D

Anyway, I see what you're saying about maintenance issues, but you can't compare the F model to the Cs that we were using.

That's like saying all Honda CR-Vs are crap because the 2002 model had a bunch of recalls.  (I only use this as an example because I have a 2002 CR-V and it had a bunch of recalls!)  Between then and now there have been loads of improvements to fix the problems from the past.  It can be expected that the same has been done with the F models.  Remember, several iterations have come and gone since we got rid of our hooks.

Of course, cold weather will be a factor.  It is in each and every aircraft, no matter the type or age.  Aircraft are usually designed based on where they will be used the most, not for the complete extremes.  As an example, how many helicopters are out there that have de-icing capabilities?  Not that many.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 16, 2009, 02:21:10
we got rid of our hooks.

Extremely poor terminology.

We did not "get rid of" them.

"Gave up", yes. "Lost", yes.

One "gets rid of" garbage.

One does not "get rid of" valuable things.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 16, 2009, 14:49:36
Yes Strike I,m an old dude but I have a good memory. I can't remember where I left my car keys an hour ago but I can remember working on a CH-113A tail # 418 in Rivers Manitoba in 1965 when it had less than 200 flying hours on it.

I stayed with the CH-113As until they were replaced by the CH-147s and did the acceptance check and delivery flight of Chinook 147005 from Harrisburg Pa. to Ottawa in April/May 1975.
I flew on Chinooks long  enough to discover that they weren't all that great and helped to design and implement several things that should have been incorporated into the aircraft before we ever bought them.

I remember when I migrated to C-130's and discovered that some very smart design engineers had made use of the bleed air ducting that goes to/from the engines to provide a system to preheat the engines using the same air source--the GTC/APU  that is used to start the engines. It's called nacelle preheat.

If I was going to buy a helicopter like the Chinook that was going to be used in Canada and left out overnight in extreme conditions that same  kind of preheat system--also routed to the transmissions and some other important areas would have priority over some of the other bells and whistles that are on the new Chinooks. If you can't fly the helicopter because one oil or hydraulic seal is leaking all of the other high tech crap in the world isn't worth a thing.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 17, 2009, 03:30:46
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/service_news_magazines/V17N4.pdf
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 18, 2009, 19:30:20
The CF's F(variant) will be a nice machine.  Much will be improved over the old C's...which Canada was still operating after most others had upgraded to D's.  I understand that there will be a lot of system modularity that takes into account much of the experience the Boeing and Chinook operators world-wide have had in the last 20 years (D's, E's, F's and G's).  Beenthere, you're right that there are some things that you can't change much, hydraulics don't like the cold very much, but if you get them going gently, they'll go and go and go.  Even the D's in AFG have nice FADEC engines that make fuel management issues a thing of the past.  The folks that get to fly and maintain these machines will really like them, I'm sure.

Cheers
G2G
Title: Who's Up to Designing/Building Chinook Support Complex in Pet?
Post by: milnews.ca on March 29, 2010, 15:21:11
This (http://is.gd/b5rtd), from MERX:
Quote
    …. Defence Construction Canada – Request for Qualifications, Design and Construction of Support Facilities, Medium To Heavy Lift Helicopters (MHLH), Petawawa, ON.

In accordance with the rules, regulations, statutes and guidelines, and the professional associations of the Province of Ontario, Defence Construction Canada (DCC) is calling for submissions from Contractor Teams to provide the following services for the design and construction of the new facilities:

    • complete the design and prepare the construction documentation based on the Performance Specifications
    • design, register and obtain LEED® certification at the level of Silver
    • supply all labour, materials and equipment to construct the facilities
    • establish and maintain QA/QC processes throughout the implementation phase of the project
    • undertake complete commissioning and testing exercise to ensure compliance with the performance objectives.
    • supply as-built and operation and maintenance data ….

    The estimated design and construction cost is in the order of $124,000,000 ….

What do you get for $124M?  From the bid documents:
Quote
    The Heavy Maintenance Squadron Facility  will provide 2nd and 3rd line maintenance support for all Chinook operations in an approximately 13,000 sq.m. gross area. It will incorporate four (4) helicopter maintenance bays, one (1) explosion proof repair bay, as well as an interior wash bay with an underground water reservoir. Aircraft support shops and offices will also be located throughout the facility.

    The 1st Line Maintenance and Operation Facility will house the squadron operational helicopters, operators and support in a gross area of approximately 16,000 sq.m. The hangar floor will accommodate a minimum of ten (10) helicopters. The large, open, ready-use material shops will require basic systems with electrical and/or air compressor connectors to accommodate work benches, metal fabrication equipment and fume hoods. Squadron offices will also be housed in this facility.

    The Pilot and Maintainer Training Facility will be approximately 6,000 sq.m. gross area. A large portion will be high bays for simulators. Other areas will be used as computer rooms, classrooms, briefing rooms and instructor offices.

    The Common Support Facility will be approximately 5,000 sq.m. gross area. A large portion will comprise a high warehouse. Other portions will include office areas, repair shops for small equipment, and support vehicles.

Bid docs if you're interested available here (http://milnewsca.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/merx-chinook-facilities-pet/).
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on March 29, 2010, 19:34:34
The complex looks cool. Just about what I would have come up with. 8)
Hopefully it will have a built in fire suppression/extinguishing system so that the whole fleet doesn't go up in one big fire.

Hopefully someone has included anti icing for the roof structure above the hangar doors so icicles don't drop off and skewer the aircraft as they are being moved in or out of the hangar.
.
Hopefully the large storage area is going to be used to store every spare part for the Chinook fleet so that there is no time wasted in shipping parts from supply depots located all over the country. If you want to be able to find something when you need it never let the supply system have it.

It would also be nice to have fuel hydrants located at parking spots but that part should wait until the unit has been operating for a couple of years in order to sort out the best parking arrangement.

I'm such a worrywart. ::)

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on March 30, 2010, 14:31:18
Hopefully it will have a built in fire suppression/extinguishing system so that the whole fleet doesn't go up in one big fire.

That's pretty standard, which is also why there are several different bays, so all the aircraft aren't kept in the same hangar.

Hopefully the large storage area is going to be used to store every spare part for the Chinook fleet so that there is no time wasted in shipping parts from supply depots located all over the country. If you want to be able to find something when you need it never let the supply system have it.

Good luck with that one.  In an effort to lower our environmental footprint, the CF is sticking with "Just in Time" management of spare parts.  We may have alot of extra little pieces, but unlikely we'd have a couple of engines and a few full sets of blades just sitting around in case we need them.

It would also be nice to have fuel hydrants located at parking spots but that part should wait until the unit has been operating for a couple of years in order to sort out the best parking arrangement.

Not an environmentally sound option.  Plus, Pet already services 427 SOAS with refuelling via bowsers.  I suspect the only change would be that they will need to get an extra truck or two to manage the higher demand.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on March 31, 2010, 03:52:33
Leave it up to some wizard to come up with something named "Just In Time" to be used by of all people-the military so as to give the appearance of being environmentally friendly.

I don't know where the supply depots are located these days but I would bet big bucks that really good management would would put the spare parts really close to the one place that uses them.
That would be Just In The Right Place and would involve the use of common sense. Common sense is common and that"s why it's used a lot---in some places.

I can recall when we thought of setting up a unit fundraiser by placing bets on where something like a hydraulic line would come from after we put it on an IOR. Every supply depot in the country had bits and pieces of Chinooks stashed away.

Really good management would also never allow things like spare engines to be anyplace except in the squadron's hangar. Engine changes are so routine on most aircraft that the engines are either installed on the aircraft, in the engine shop being worked on or sitting in the hangar ready to go for the next engine change.

Rotor blades are another good example although they probably have less troublesome blades than in the past. However it isn't unusual for someone to hover the aircraft close enough to some trees that the aft blades do a bit of wood chopping.
One time long ago I closed a hangar door and in doing so scrunched the end of a blade. It was about 8 pm and we were closing up for the night and were going to head over to the JRs for a cool one. We took the blade off and installed one from the rack on the hangar floor. We hit the JRs before 10 and of course I bought a couple of rounds. :nod: The aircraft was able to fly the next day rather than sit while a truck drove half way across Canada with a fresh blade from a supply depot.
We had a SAR commitment back then so looking back I would have felt really bad about putting a vital part of SAR out of use and possibly costing some unfortunates to suffer and die for lack of resources.

Now we have a system in place to be environmentally friendly and while doing so possibly cause a whole fleet of helicopters to be unavailable in the event of some tragedy. Just think of this scenario. At 0800 on a given day the squadron is advised that a special inspection has been  ordered on the whole fleet because some part had failed. The techs do the inspection and find that all of the aircraft are faulty. What is required is that one part is needed for each aircraft. The parts are located in whatever supply depot and can be delivered in a day or two. It takes 30 minutes to install. At 1000 some terrible event takes place in Ottawa and every available resource is needed immediately. Every resource in Pettewawa  is available with the exception of every Chinook helicopter that Canada has just spent a gazillion dollars for.
When the people from high up on the hill ask why they failed to respond when they were needed most the reply is that we like to give the impression that we're green friends of the earth.
What happens then?
I know that the two events coinciding are rather unlikely but as we all with the exception of the good managers of course, know that  things can go wrong and on some days everything goes wrong.

 Fuel bowsers have clipped a few blades over the years as well. Things like after doing a refueling job at night the driver hops in and drives under the forward blade that hangs out beyond the front of the aircraft and droops really low. The result is the top of the bowser leaves a big gouge on the bottom of the blade.

Really good management is a rare thing in any government organization so what happens is that all kinds of fools end up in jobs that are far beyond their ability. They have to come up with all kinds of new ideas so that the fools in the next level up from them can say that they did a good job and move them up in the food chain where they can cause further havoc.

Really good management works on behalf of the organization to keep good systems good and only change what doesn't work.
The old saw "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is rather simple but it's wise. Wisdom and government should never be used in the same sentence with the exception of this one of course. 8) 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: captloadie on March 31, 2010, 04:21:09
Some people who have never worked in the supply system should keep in their lanes. You don't hear us whining that every time I went out to a CC-130 to rig it for a drop, the techs hadn't done their job and I had to wait.

The supply system isn't a "Just in Time System". Stores held at the unit or on the base are based on the consumption levels and stock limits provided to the supply system by the USER and the Program manager, which rarely ask the supply system important questions like what the lead times for delivery, or bother to tell the system where to source the parts/POL from.  Maybe if someone goes out to Mountainview and scrounges through the parts that are sitting out there (including brand new engines for long ago retired aircraft) maybe they will find some Chinook parts left over from the time when we ordered 5 of everything just in case.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on March 31, 2010, 11:16:48
The "Just in Time" system that is used on the Tac Hel side isn't there for small everyday parts, it's there for larger items.  Although it would be nice for us to have a full store available whenever we need it, it's not feasible for the amount of times we nay need those items.  Not only that, but we are not the only ones using these types of aircraft and this is why the system reduces our footprint environmentally.

Let's take the CH146 as an example.  Large items like transmissions, windscreens, etc are received from Calgary, Montreal and sometimes Texas, because that's where the main Bell centres are.

Using the example of an SI isn't realistic as most SIs involve smaller items being replaced, which are usually held by the units.  If we run out we still have some aircraft serviceable and order the parts through Bell.  If the SI involves a large item, then the fleet would have to be grounded regardless even if we held the parts because of the manpower and hours required to carry out the inspections and repairs.

As for the issue of the Chinook blades, sure, we'll probably go through a few, but I suspect no more than what we go through on the Griffon side.  With the proper tarining of everyone involved accidents like bowsers and trees can be avoided.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on March 31, 2010, 11:59:55
See Strike above:

"As for the issue of the Chinook blades, sure, we'll probably go through a few, but I suspect no more than what we go through on the Griffon side.  With the proper tarining of everyone involved accidents like bowsers and trees can be avoided minimized."
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on March 31, 2010, 13:23:25
http://www.chqsoftware.net/product_info.php?products_id=125&osCsid=c9110ec00644322c2362ed35f0ea9922
I found some examples of CH-47 service bulletins at the link above. They may help to illustrate the vast difference between the Chinook and the Griffon.

The Griffon is rather like a Honda Civic where The Chinook could probably be compared to  an 18 wheel transport truck. I make the comparison to simplify the difference for people who have limited experience and may have been misled by glossy sales brochures produced by Boeing.

The service bulletins usually entail more than checking for things like improperly installed seat belts and other  nuances that plague little helicopters.
I rather doubt that the stock of split pins and tiewraps that a TACHEL Sqn. gets by on would be of much help for a Chinook operation.

Also as the unit will be the one and only operation of it's type in Canada and it will provide all inspection and maintenance for the fleet from one facility it would only require the use of the free but much underused common sense that most of us have to rely on to conclude that it would be a great idea to keep a whole bunch of spares on site

It's all well and good to play the green game but there are some times when for the sake of operational efficiency we have to do what's practical.
Unless of course you are in some sort competition to be named as the greenest aviation unit in the CF and I'm sure that every Chinook that sits on the ground rather than goes flying will vastly reduce carbon use and those nasty emissions.

 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on March 31, 2010, 13:53:15
It might be the only Chinook unit in Canada, but it certainly won't be the only one in North America.  Where do you think 4th line maintenance with be done?  So it won't be providing ALL inspections and maintenance.  I might be getting picky, but it's only because you are not looking beyond our 1 unit and our borders.

As for being green, this is a CF policy, not an Air Force one.  Why do you think we have a massive supply depot in Montreal?

To quote captloadie:
Quote
Stores held at the unit or on the base are based on the consumption levels and stock limits provided to the supply system by the USER and the Program manager

This means it makes no sense carrying 3 full sets of blades, the same amount of transmissions and engines, and half a dozen windscressn.  Sure, have one or two on hand and then order replacements as they are used, as is the norm.  These items don't get replaced every day, even in theatre.

To put this in perspective, do you buy 30 jumbo packs of toilet paper so that you don't run out during the year?  Of course you don't (unless you are some type of hoarder in which case may I direct you to a pretty cool show on A&E on Monday nights).  Not only is this cost prohibitive, but the space it takes up could be used for other things.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on March 31, 2010, 16:32:22
When the Jet Rangers in Portage were turned over to Bombardier in 1992, all of the spares purchsed for the fleet came out of whatever supply depot(s) where they had been warehoused for the ten years that we'd been operating Jet Rangers, and were consolidated in Portage. Some things had both the Bombardier guys and us a little baffled and amused: there was a whole main uselage section in a crate, primed in zinc chromate.

We'd bought and  paid for something that had never been used, and was never likely to have been, and if we ever needed it there certainly would have not been any rush.

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in this "green" crap, but there is no sense whatsoever in buying stuff that is not likely to be needed much and/or in a hurry. I have reasonable confidence that parts will be stocked in the quantities and locations where it makes the most sense.

These are not the same old Chinooks that we bought three and a half decades ago, and the CF maintenance and supply systems and manufacturer support systems have all changed too.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chapeski on March 31, 2010, 16:46:32
Some people who have never worked in the supply system should keep in their lanes. You don't hear us whining that every time I went out to a CC-130 to rig it for a drop, the techs hadn't done their job and I had to wait.

The supply system isn't a "Just in Time System". Stores held at the unit or on the base are based on the consumption levels and stock limits provided to the supply system by the USER and the Program manager, which rarely ask the supply system important questions like what the lead times for delivery, or bother to tell the system where to source the parts/POL from.  Maybe if someone goes out to Mountainview and scrounges through the parts that are sitting out there (including brand new engines for long ago retired aircraft) maybe they will find some Chinook parts left over from the time when we ordered 5 of everything just in case.

Thank you for saying this as I was just about to start fuming about it.

beenthere, we have 2 main Supply Depots, 1 here in Edmonton, and 1 in Montreal. Items that take a while to get are sometimes on back order from the manufacturer, or we are awaiting new procurment contracts (item manager stuff, far above any regular supply tech's job). So before you go around decrying the system sit there and think of some of the other factors that come into play. Also, was there not a maintenance contract that was signed as well? Is that not the defacto thing the gov't is putting into the big contracts now? I don't think we are going to be in a big hurt for parts, not for a while anyway.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on March 31, 2010, 18:58:53
I'm not knocking the supply system but rather the idea that it's more important to be green than maintain a reasonable stock of spares right at the place where they are needed.

Spares will no doubt be needed from day one. Despite the sales pitch that paints the latest model of Chinook as being the perfect helicopter it's very complex and still retains a mass of systems that cannot work without failures.

Troubleshooting a system such as the "automatic" flight controls which are a combination of sensors, control units and hydraulic components as well as mechanical linkages usually involves swapping out so called black boxes and other components until the faulty component is isolated. Without a supply of components there is no option other than robbing parts from other aircraft. Once the robbing starts it becomes epidemic and results in two or more aircraft being unserviceable rather than one. It also causes duplication of maintenance functions as parts that are removed have to be replaced on both aircraft. Techs get pissed off when they work in a system that lacks the materials required to do their jobs and the whole situation deteriorates into a laughable but sad fiasco.

Test equipment used to check such systems comes at great expense and with all sorts of promises that it's capable of finding faults. However in reality it often cannot detect some of the simple faults that cause problems.
It's so smart that it overlooks the obvious. Just like some people.

Quick engine change units are essential to efficient aviation operations as it's often more efficient to change the complete engine than to change engine components while the engine is mounted on the aircraft. Sometimes an engine develops  faults that defy the usual troubleshooting techniques and removing it is a better option than an endless series of test flights. The best place to check functions is on a test stand where the techs can test the engine as many times as required and do all kinds of adjustments on the spot without all of the complications of calling in a crew and flying the aircraft, landing, making adjustments or changing components and then going through the whole flight test again.

If an aircraft develops an engine problem away from home base the sqn. can dispatch a repair crew with a spare engine that's kept right in the hangar and the whole recovery task can be completed in less time than it would take to ship the engine from the supply depot to the sqn.
To even think of an operational unit not having a QECU on hand defies logic.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on March 31, 2010, 19:37:36
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in this "green" crap, but there is no sense whatsoever in buying stuff that is not likely to be needed much and/or in a hurry. I have reasonable confidence that parts will be stocked in the quantities and locations where it makes the most sense.

I'm not knocking the supply system but rather the idea that it's more important to be green than maintain a reasonable stock of spares right at the place where they are needed.

Yes, parts that are used often will in all probability be kept at the unit, as has been stated already.

As for automatic flight controls, there is enough experience between the aircraft that we are flying now that the big heads in the maintenance world and supply will have a reasonable idea of what will have to be kept close by.  Not to mention that they are relatively small and don't take up much room in the way of stores.

Quick engine changes are essential, but that doesn't mean there's a reason to keep 3 or 4 of them kicking around in case they all go tits up.  Do you keep a full set of tires in your garage in case all of them go at once?  No, you have 1 spare (winter tires don't count in this analogy) because the chances of you losing all your tires at once is pretty remote...unless make a habit of pissing off the cops and run over a barrier of course.   ;D

The system may not be perfect, but it works for the Griffons both at home and abroad and is somewhat* working for the Chinooks overseas.  Let it go.

*I say somewhat working for the Chinooks overseas simply because we didn't have a Canadian stock system set up for these aircraft when we first got them and ordering parts and POL was a bit of a bear.  Not sure if this is still the case or not.  I've been out of that loop for almost a year now.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on March 31, 2010, 21:13:11
We seem to be able to look after our other fleets fairly well, acknowledging that nothing is perfect (and neither was the old system), so why expect New Chinook to be any different in that regard than CH146, C17, and C130J etcetera?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on April 02, 2010, 12:37:39
I think the folks will have the logistics worked out for the Hook.  Boeing (Vertol) is a very capable supporter of their products.  Whatever parts need to be kept in location to support 1st through 3rd level maintenance will be, the rest will be a blend of items supported by the CFSS (and the unit will leave that to the CF log/supply pros to manage) and the rest will be managed by Boeing and the in-service support provider (yet to be determined, but to be chosen by competitive assessment process with PWGSC).  I have faith that lessons learned from previous and recent acquisitions were taken into account in the work with the Chinook, and that both the aircraft and the installation will support the capability for decades to come.

Cheers
G2G

 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on April 04, 2010, 01:09:18
Finally! From out of nowhere--or wherever you are these days GTG-- comes a perfectly reasonable statement that covers it all and excludes green and "Just In Time".
Thanks for shining your light into what was a rather dark corner.

I had faith that  people who use good judgment biased on common sense and experience would provide the Chinook fleet with a first class facility and a system to provide the logistical and maintenance support it requires.

I suppose you sat in the sidelines giggling while I tried to reason with the unreasonable. ::)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on April 04, 2010, 15:28:25
I suppose you sat in the sidelines giggling while I tried to reason with the unreasonable.

Strike and I were unreasonable?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on April 04, 2010, 17:26:12
Strike and I were unreasonable?
In general or in particular?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on April 04, 2010, 17:29:48
Strike and I were unreasonable?
You weren't unreasonable.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on April 04, 2010, 18:08:44
Thanks. I didn't think so, but was not sure what you meant.

Have a little faith in this programme, though.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on April 04, 2010, 19:04:47
I do have faith in the program based on GTGs excellent post which includes information that a comprehensive stock of spares will be maintained at the facility.

Your post regarding all of the Jet Ranger parts that were unearthed sounds familiar. Just before 450 Sqn got it's first Chinook an 18 wheel transport truck arrived at the sqn with a load of Chinook parts. No doubt the shipper had mistakenly understood that the sqn would be the delivery point for the spares involved with the helicopter purchase.

It looked as if Boeing had done some sort of a cleanup and no doubt it also included a substantial price markup. There were cartons of structural components such as brackets that would only be used during construction or rebuilding the aircraft and other obscure items. Also included were a huge number of general stock items such as clocks and standby compasses that weren't specifically used on the Chinook. The pile of goods sat in a corner of the hangar for several months until someone made arrangements to consign it all to the supply system. I doubt if anything in the load was ever used on the aircraft and this was only one shipment of parts.

I don't know if this little tale is factual but several years ago someone told a story about someone ordering a fuel filler door which was essentially an 8"x10" piece of aluminum sheet metal for a Canso aircraft. The response from the system was that there were none in stock but they suggested that they did have  the "next highest assembly".  Whoever was involved agreed  to accept the offer and a few days late they received a complete wing assembly. It's certainly not beyond belief that something like this could happen.   :warstory:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on April 06, 2010, 00:10:59
Truth be told, beenthere, I've been busy enough recently that I have far less time to spend 'after hours', so there was no snickering from the bleachers.  The team is taking everything that has been learned to date to make things a success.  I'm sure there will still be some teething pains, but those will be worked out, and I'm certain we'll see a good CF/OEM/ISS team effort to keep the beast in the air!  :nod: 

I just hope the folks with the unit will be able to handle all the poking and prodding everyone will want to do when the beast shows up on the line.  The PA folks may actually have the busiest job of all....Strike, did you hear that? ;D

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on April 06, 2010, 08:28:04
I just hope the folks with the unit will be able to handle all the poking and prodding everyone will want to do when the beast shows up on the line.  The PA folks may actually have the busiest job of all....

Yeah, 'cause they'll probably stick some egotistical guy in as the CO who only wants his good side showing in photos - you know the type, GTG...
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on April 06, 2010, 10:13:07
Yeah, 'cause they'll probably stick some egotistical guy in as the CO who only wants his good side showing in photos - you know the type, GTG...
Well, I'm not Airforce, but I can't imagine someone being selected as CO having a bad side for photo ops   ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: BulletMagnet on April 06, 2010, 10:53:24
I didn't know anyone in the Airforce had a "good" side...  ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on April 06, 2010, 14:11:55
I didn't know anyone in the Airforce had a "good" side...  ;D

DOH!  The other 14,249 do...  ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on April 07, 2010, 11:58:38

I just hope the folks with the unit will be able to handle all the poking and prodding everyone will want to do when the beast shows up on the line.  The PA folks may actually have the busiest job of all....Strike, did you hear that? ;D

Cheers
G2G

Does that mean I'm going back to Pet in the future?  If it means working together I won't argue!  Of course, knowing the system they will probably send some Navy guy who's never even been in a helicopter, let alone in the front seat.   ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on April 09, 2010, 17:27:34
You weren't unreasonable.
You Loachman.--weren't unreasonable. :salute:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on April 09, 2010, 18:13:24
You Loachman.--weren't unreasonable. :salute:

Wow, thanks alot for that.   ::)  (Insert name of a certain body part here)

Everything I said is simply based on policy and actions determined by bigger heads than mine.  I don't believe I formed an opinion either way as to whether or not it was good or bad.  Just because you don't like the policy doesn't give you the right to call me unreasonable.

And before you say that you did no such thing, given that Loach, you and I were the three main participants of the past few posts and you singled him out for NOT being unreasonable, that would infer that I was.

beenthere, you've pissed me off by essentially acting as if my posts are ridiculous blather.  Given the trade I'm about to OT to, spouting off about things I know nothing about would serve me no good.  Just because you don't like what I have to say and it doesn't conform to your way of thinking and of how things were done when you were in doesn't make it unreasonable.  Grow up.

Mods, I would like to say that I apologize for my outburst, but given that I post in this way rarely, if ever, I will do no such thing.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on April 09, 2010, 20:26:13
I generally take "being unreasonable" as a compliment.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on April 09, 2010, 21:24:12
I generally take "being unreasonable" as a compliment.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw

Thanks Loach, but I'm still pissed off at bt.  I'm unreasonable even though what I've been saying is essentially what G2G said?  But bt listens to G2G and not me?  He does realize that women have the vote now right?

Aside - Mind you, that quote may go well with that essay I'm writing for my next belt test.  Thanks.   ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on April 10, 2010, 01:05:38
Strike, please tell me that you can sleep well at night.

This currant scourge is (by his profile) a 63 year old retired flight engineer.
He has opinions.
His opinions, where relevent, are valid.  In this case... ~shrug~ your call.

At the end of the day, do you really care?


For disclosure, I've been aircrew (with a really cool full wing with crown) without being a pilot or a flight engineer -- my parents were married [yes, that lets out Loadies].
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on April 10, 2010, 01:27:59
I know his opinions are valid.  I've read his history.  I just don't like someone saying my comments don't mean squat then have another poster repeat what I just said and have them treated with respect.  Up until I told him to "grow up" (during my rant) I think the only serious show of annoyance I had towards him was to tell him to "let it go."

I don't like being treated like I'm sitting at the kids' table.  I may be younger than him but my posts are still valid and should be acknowledged as such.

Oh, wait, I did say he was old, but that was back when he started rambling on about 450 stuff from when they began their existence.  That was in jest and was taken as such.

As for sleeping, the chest cold isn't helping matters.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on April 10, 2010, 01:33:37
I don't like being treated like I'm sitting at the kids' table.
Are you kidding me??!! This is where the party is!!   ;D



Quote
As for sleeping, the chest cold isn't helping matters.
I'll leave that to PMs   >:D
Title: New Deadline for RFQ for Chinook Facilities
Post by: milnews.ca on April 12, 2010, 20:30:19
Update attached - a bit of an extension for RFQ for the Chinook support facilities from April 20 to April 27, 2010. 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on April 17, 2010, 18:51:03

For disclosure, I've been aircrew (with a really cool full wing with crown) without being a pilot or a flight engineer -- my parents were married [yes, that lets out Loadies].

Hmmm....that most likely rules out conception under the Tide box...are you sure we're talking about you?  ???


Strike, not to ding AF types, but I have seen a number of switched on PAOs who happen to be wearing the uniform of the senior service, as well.  Be kind to BT, he's not that so bad in real life...and I dare say, even a little less crusty than the slightly more youthful JM. ;)

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on April 18, 2010, 23:30:40
Hmmm....that most likely rules out conception under the Tide box...are you sure we're talking about you?  ???


Strike, not to ding AF types, but I have seen a number of switched on PAOs who happen to be wearing the uniform of the senior service, as well.  Be kind to BT, he's not that so bad in real life...and I dare say, even a little less crusty than the slightly more youthful JM. ;)

Cheers
G2G

Crap!  Don't let my brother hear you say that!  That's all the Navy needs is another one of us kicking around.  Mind you, I think I'd look pretty darn cool in black and the name certainly fits.
Title: Wanted: Someplace for Tech Trainees to Live in Wilmington, Delaware
Post by: milnews.ca on July 16, 2010, 12:48:44
This (http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24LP-003-51021&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=PAGE2&rowcount=282&lastpage=29&MoreResults=&hcode=VkhHMJa32JxWTch3nt3KJw%3d%3d) from MERX:
Quote
.... The Government of Canada has planned to purchase four (6) US Army CH-47D aircraft. In order to effectively use the aircraft, a rigorous training plan for Canadian Forces (CF) personnel has been established in Wilmington, Delaware.

To assist the Department of National Defence (DND) in renting accommodation in the most economical manner, it is the intention of the Government of Canada to solicit offers from accommodation properties in the form of daily rates for one and two bedroom suites with kitchen. The accommodation supplier will offer accommodation to DND within 15 miles of the Boeing Training Center, located at 17 Penn's Way, New Castle, Delaware ....

Deadline for bids:  24 Aug 10 02:00 PM Eastern Daylight Saving Time EDT
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 17, 2010, 18:24:25
Four more, in addtion to the new Foxtrots--or from those Deltas now at KAF after the departure?

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Wanted: Someplace for Tech Trainees to Live in Wilmington, Delaware
Post by: Oh No a Canadian on July 17, 2010, 19:02:03
Quote
The Government of Canada has planned to purchase four (6) US Army CH-47D aircraft.

  :o
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GAP on July 17, 2010, 19:09:29
Four more, in addtion to the new Foxtrots--or from those Deltas now at KAF after the departure?

Mark
Ottawa

correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the D's in Kaf loaners until we got our new ones? or did we buy them?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on July 17, 2010, 20:39:52
People have been known to cut and paste from old docs and not catch obvious mistakes before sending them out to be published.  I suspect this may be the case here.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on July 19, 2010, 00:01:15
People have been known to cut and paste from old docs and not catch obvious mistakes before sending them out to be published.  I suspect this may be the case here.

Indeed.  :nod:

Canada has six (6) D-models in KAF that it purchased outright from the U.S under a foreign military sales (FMS) agreement.  I suspect the MERX posting is in relation to technical training for these aircraft.

The Canadian government is on record as stating that it will dispose of (sell) these six Chinooks upon completion of their mission in Afghanistan, separate from the announced contract to procure 15 new-build CH147F Chinooks.

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Mortar guy on July 19, 2010, 01:48:14
G2G,

Any chance we'll keep the D models post Afg? I know that O&M costs would probably not allow that but I bet there are a lot of potential uses for 6 more airframes. Just dreaming...

MG
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on July 19, 2010, 02:22:46
G2G,

Any chance we'll keep the D models post Afg? I know that O&M costs would probably not allow that but I bet there are a lot of potential uses for 6 more airframes. Just dreaming...

MG

Don't think so, MG...it would kind of be like keeping a few of the old Labs, when the Cormorant came on line.  That the D's look similar to the CH147F to come, externally, is just that, visually similar.  The internal systems are significantly improved in the F's, including significantly modernized digital avionics suites and upgraded systems, particularly flight instrumentation, airframe construction, and fuel, electrical and protective systems.  Keep in mind, the D's are rebuilt C's and B's and themselves are pushing 30-35 years in age, or more, and keeping them going at the same time as aircraft with a physically different structure and systems would likely dilute effectiveness of maintenance and operations, as opposed to improve it.  I would think that the reinvestment of proceeds from the sale of the D's, even if returned into the Government's receiver general's account (vice DNDs operating budget) would be the most responsible use of the taxpayers' money.

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: milnews.ca on July 21, 2010, 23:19:47
Any chance we'll keep the D models post Afg? I know that O&M costs would probably not allow that but I bet there are a lot of potential uses for 6 more airframes. Just dreaming...

Funny you should ask (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100721/national/afghan_cda_mackay).....
Quote
Six aging Canadian Chinook helicopters that have become the pride of the air force in Afghanistan may not be headed to the scrap heap when the mission is over but they are not coming home either.

The CH-47D Chinooks, purchased from the United States with a price tag of $292 million a couple of years ago, have done yeoman's service since they began flying here early last year.

But with a plan to purchase 15 brand new CH-47F Chinooks there will be no need to bring home the aging fleet.

"Believe me, the value of those aircraft cannot be diminished. They will not be scrapped," explained Defence Minister Peter MacKay as he wrapped up a three-day visit to Afghanistan.

"We will turn them over. Most likely they'll go back to the company (Boeing) for resale. Possible consideration could be given for the purchase of the new F models that we will receive," he added.

The purchase of the new Chinooks will cost $2 billion plus an estimated contract value of $2.7 billion for 20 years of in-service support.

"We are, as you know, contracted to buy new Chinook aircraft so we'll be swapping them out but it is yet to be determined the fate of those particular aircraft. They will not come back to Canada," said MacKay ....
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 26, 2010, 21:15:49
Tail # 08-08048 made a hard landing today four injured but no fatalities.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi602.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt104%2Fvor033%2Fdaily%2520pics%2Fd24d51ee.jpg&hash=94cf5dc13b23b1430dbb90df1366f194)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi602.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt104%2Fvor033%2Fdaily%2520pics%2F1ee41d40.jpg&hash=a77efffbb3dca607c94c826e1e53a353)

Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers stand guard alongside an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Chinook helicopter which crashed in an eastern district of Kabul on July 26, 2010. An ISAF aircraft made a hard landing along the perimeter of a coalition force camp in Kabul province. Four aircraft passengers received minor injuries with the cause of the crash under investigation.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Ditch on July 28, 2010, 22:46:36
Hard landing?  Half that wall is missing...
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GK .Dundas on July 28, 2010, 23:43:55
Hard landing?  Half that wall is missing...

I can almost hear it now: Outraged homeowner :"what do you mean sorry ? You don't have any insurance and you're sorry !
Well we're all sorry !
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on July 28, 2010, 23:46:48
On a different note, weird that the aircraft has IRSS (infra-red suppression system) on it, but no EAPS (front particle separator).

Zoomie, I'm not sure if the wall wasn't originally dual height...but still, that's a heck of a hard landing.  I'm surprised the blades appear to have not struck the cabin.

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GAP on July 29, 2010, 00:35:24
It looks like he misjudged where his tail was....and that is a dual level wall....interesting, for everybody....
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on August 03, 2010, 17:34:21
Maybe the terminology has changed. I had always considered that a hard landing takes place when the aircraft contacts the surface of the intended landing spot with excessive vertical speed. In short--pounds it on too hard.

The pictures depict the aircraft with the port rear gear on one side  of the stone wall and most of the aircraft on the other side of it.

Was the pilot really trying to land on both sides of the wall? If that was the intent she appears to have made a rather soft landing.



Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on August 04, 2010, 13:01:10
Maybe the terminology has changed. I had always considered that a hard landing takes place when the aircraft contacts the surface of the intended landing spot with excessive vertical speed. In short--pounds it on too hard.


Kind of like saying two aircraft had a "near-miss," eh?   ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on August 04, 2010, 15:10:47
As strange as it sounds the term near miss is logical. This may not be the exact definition but it's close: "A situation where the potential for an accident existed but actions taken prevented it's full conclusion."

Example: Two aircraft were on converging paths but shortly before they would have collided someone realized what was about to happen and changed the course of one of them.

It's use isn't confined to aviation but that's where we see it used most often.

Do gunners use the term near hit?

Most likely the term hard landing was used incorrectly in this Chinook mishap possibly in an attempt to minimize the event or someone just looked at the pictures and noted that the aircraft was upright and relatively intact and they  decided that it had landed which is obvious and added hard to explain the damage.

No doubt as in most mishaps there is a lot that the pictures don't tell.  :-[
It looks as if they were about to land within the walls of a well established compound and something went wrong. They couldn't have had much forward speed or they would likely have gone past the wall rather than getting hung up on it. Pure speculation of course. 8)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: karl28 on August 08, 2010, 12:02:26
I am not sure if this is the right spot to put this but I read this on CBC news site about the recent crash of a chinook not sure if its true but CBC is saying that it was brough down by small arms fire here is the link for the article

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/TG1420.html
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: George Wallace on August 08, 2010, 12:06:35
I am not sure if this is the right spot to put this but I read this on CBC news site about the recent crash of a chinook not sure if its true but CBC is saying that it was brough down by small arms fire here is the link for the article

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/TG1420.html

Thanks.

Perhaps you should read this: 5 Aug 10: Hard Landing for CAN Chinook in K'Har Province (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,95732.0.html).
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: karl28 on August 08, 2010, 16:10:38
  Thanks George I had forgotten about that one all together if you want to move it over to that it's cool with me thanks for posting that link hope that your having a good weekend.

Cheers Karl
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on August 10, 2010, 16:03:08
Don't think so, MG...it would kind of be like keeping a few of the old Labs, when the Cormorant came on line.  That the D's look similar to the CH147F to come, externally, is just that, visually similar.  The internal systems are significantly improved in the F's, including significantly modernized digital avionics suites and upgraded systems, particularly flight instrumentation, airframe construction, and fuel, electrical and protective systems.  Keep in mind, the D's are rebuilt C's and B's and themselves are pushing 30-35 years in age, or more, and keeping them going at the same time as aircraft with a physically different structure and systems would likely dilute effectiveness of maintenance and operations, as opposed to improve it.  I would think that the reinvestment of proceeds from the sale of the D's, even if returned into the Government's receiver general's account (vice DNDs operating budget) would be the most responsible use of the taxpayers' money.

Cheers
G2G
It could be that keeping a few of the old CH-113s would have been a good plan.
The Cormorants have had a few setbacks which should have been anticipated.
The first opportunity that I had to look over the Cormorant I got bad vibes just from looking at the tail rotor.
No doubt that has been taken care of by now.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on August 10, 2010, 19:16:03
Beenthere, I think that is accurate - I believe the AW101 & variants' tail rotors are now metal alloy, not composite, and include a number of re-designs.  I understand this was especially the case for the VH-71 Merlin VIP aircraft for the POTUS.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: kj_gully on September 14, 2010, 06:51:12
Probably should be on another thread, but this might be the last non chinook post here?? Cormorant 908 has a completely new tail rotor design, an AW139? main rotor hub turned on its side. So far so good. Flies a little smoother, the shudder thru transition is noticable reduced. Drivers and FE seem to like it.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on September 14, 2010, 08:34:09
Now that's encouraging. With a totally Rube Goldberg contraption for a tail rotor it flies a little smoother and the shudder through transition is noticeably reduced. ::)
 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on September 17, 2010, 22:19:51
Gully, I think the t/r re-design for general fleet fitment is very similar to the VH-71's (US101) t/r design.  It is a notable improvement over the numerous variants/mods of the original design.  I hope this makes things work better for the fleet.  :nod:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 26, 2010, 18:12:32
This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§9) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is not good news for DND:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/auditor-slams-ottawas-helicopter-purchase-and-warns-of-fighter-jet-risk/article1773452/
Quote
Auditor slams helicopter purchase and warns of jet-fighter risk

STEVEN CHASE

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Published Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2010

Spending watchdog Sheila Fraser is warning the $16-billion purchase of F-35 fighter jets carries significant risk of delays or cost increases even as she reprimands the Defence Department for how it bought billions of dollars of helicopters.

“I hope no one is assessing that as low risk,” the Auditor-General said of the F-35 project as she answered questions on her fall report that sharply criticized Defence purchasing.

The price tag for two types of military helicopters has doubled to $11-billion because the Department of Defence low-balled estimates when seeking approval even when it knew that planned design changes would hike costs, Ms. Fraser’s office reported Tuesday.

She also faulted Defence and Public Works for sole-sourcing the Chinook helicopter without properly justifying a decision to skirt a normal competitive process. “What we found in the audit is troubling,” Ms. Fraser said in her report.

This sharp criticism of how Ottawa buys military hardware comes at a bad time for the Harper government, which is taking heavy fire for its decision to embark on a costly jet-fighter acquisition without a competitive bidding processes.

The Auditor-General probed the purchase of 28 maritime Cyclone helicopters and 15 medium- to heavy-lift Chinook choppers – acquisitions that have suffered huge delivery delays of seven years and five years respectively.

The federal spending watchdog was careful not to allege deceit or malfeasance but nevertheless reserved the toughest language of her entire fall report for the way the departments of Defence and Public Works initially underestimated these purchases.

“They were presented as being off the shelf or what would be a simple purchase,” Ms. Fraser told reporters. “But this was anything but the case.”

She said Defence officials were aware their plans to upgrade the basic model Chinook would drive up its final price tag but failed to disclose this to Treasury Board when obtaining a green light for the acquisition in 2006.

“National Defence knew prior to seeking preliminary project approval ... that significant modifications to a basic Chinook were desired and planned,” the Auditor-General’s report said. “It also knew that these would increase the risks to cost and schedule.”

Ultimately, changes that Defence required to “Canadianize” the Chinook drove up the cost of each aircraft by 70 per cent more than what the supplier Boeing had first quoted. Including maintenance costs that weren’t initially disclosed, the price tag for the Chinooks has soared more than 80 per cent to $4.9-billion, the watchdog said

Ms. Fraser’s office warns the spiraling costs of both helicopter purchases could force the military to cut the use of the choppers in order to stay within budget. The Canadian Forces “may have to curtail planned training and operations” as a result, the report said.

In the case of the Cyclone maritime chopper, Defence officials have told the watchdog it may have to “reduce the number of anticipated flying hours” to save money, Ms. Fraser’s report said.

Defence also submitted a remarkably modest estimate for the Cyclone helicopter in 2003 when seeking early project approval, the audit said. “[At the time] National Defence should have presented estimated costs for infrastructure, personnel, and operations and maintenance or contracted in-service support.”

Ms. Fraser warned that the Defence Department has yet to budget the full cost of operating both the Chinooks and the Cyclones. “After lengthy delays and significant cost increases, National Defence still has not completely estimated what it will cost to operate these helicopters,” she said.


I thought that the MND of the day did make a good, cogent case for a sole source Chinook procurement and, it appears to me, that Ms. Fraser does not dispute that. In fact her report recommends, on p. 25 (§6.64) (http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00967/2010_Auditor-Genera_967462a.pdf) that:

6.64 Recommendation. National Defence should review and apply the lessons learned with these helicopter acquisitions to ensure that, for future major capital equipment acquisitions, the degree of modifications and/or development involved is fully reflected in approval documents—in the assessment of risk, project timelines, and costs—and that procurement strategies are tailored to the complexity of the equipment being acquired.

And, at §6.74:

6.74 Recommendation. National Defence should start estimating full life-cycle costs in the options analysis phase of its project management process and present these costs to decision makers at subsequent steps in the process as the estimates evolve. The basis of cost estimations should be included in approvals documents. National Defence should start full life-cycle planning for the preferred option in the definition phase of its project management process. Preparation of plans should be started at the time of preliminary project approval.

Ms. Fraser does fault DND for the management of the advance contract award notice (ACAN) process but not, it should be noted, for using the process itself. It was, she says (§6.78, page 30) ”evident from the files that National Defence concluded very early in this acquisition process that the Chinook helicopter was the only one capable of meeting its needs. As early as the fall of 2005, National Defence was considering a sole-source procurement with Boeing.” She complains that the courtesy of direct, pre-contract talk was not accorded to another potential supplier. I cannot remember who the alternative supplier might have been.

I will not because I cannot comment on her suggestion that the only way to afford the Chinooks might be to restrict their use. It seems to me that she might be overstating the implications of life cycle costing - suggesting that one must be able to, accurately, forecast use and, consequentially, maintenance costs.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on October 26, 2010, 18:50:25
I understand the need for determining costs of operation and maintenance.  It gives one a sense of one machine/system stacks up against another and whether or not one can afford the capability one is buying.

While it is a reasonable method for comparing systems it is, in my opinion, a particularly poor method of determining a long term budget.

Donald Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" pile up far too high and too fast 5 years down the line, let alone 25 years down the line.

A budget can only be as good as the current information and that information is constantly changing.

Which raises another pet peeve of mine:  How many Project Managers, Project Leaders and Stakeholders had their fingers in the pie between the time the primary need was identified and the contract was awarded?


PS I am not slagging the buy.  The Chinooks are needed in the numbers purchased. No question.   
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on October 27, 2010, 19:36:39
I have just finished reading the Auditor-General’s review of the Cyclone and Chinook purchases  (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#hd5a) and some thoughts as a one-time Project Manager, but with no Defence connections (I work in the food industry) come to mind (beware – I am about to make a fool of myself again):

Auditors and accountants generally check performance against the rule book and not against real world requirement. If the rule book describes a flawed process, that is not their problem.  Disregard that changing the rule book literally requires an Act of Parliament.

Next has to be noted that great store is set in having all the information set in detailed specs early on in the process and that they should not change throughout the process so as to permit a “fair and transparent process”.  This is an unrealistic requirement.

Requirements change rapidly in a high tempo operational environment. Currently there are literally thousands of operational helicopters generating lessons learned daily and manufacturers are routinely producing new counters to new threats.  Requirements must change, and thus so must specifications, otherwise the aircraft (item of any sort) will be heading to obsolescence before the first unit reaches Initial Operational Capability.

Time delays don’t improve this situation as manufacturers are constantly upgrading their catalogs and dropping old equipment for new lines.  Options: Less expensive but less capable or more expensive but more capable.  The sweet spot you were planning on is no longer available because vacuum tubes and the stoker’s shovel necessary are no longer manufactured.  Do you want to go up or down?

It is not clear to me that anyone in the Auditor General’s department has a clear understanding of what it is to negotiate a contract.  Of course there are minimum requirements – but there is also the art of getting the highest value at the lowest price.  Consequently, during negotiation, it is usual to beat up the supplier and demand that that chrome plated gew gaw be included or else there is no deal.  This contributes to the common practice of rewriting “final” contracts 6 or 7 times in the last 24 hours.  Capabilities are traded for dollars.  Such practices however, are inconsistent with the Auditor General’s requirement that you only buy what you asked for 24 years ago. That and that alone.

Additionally I am at a loss to see how it is possible to put the Chinook, even with extended range tanks, into the same developmental category as the Cyclone which was always a “paper” exercise with Sikorsky making promises.  Of course the problem wasn’t helped by a the government of the day determining that they would do what was necessary to avoid further political embarrassment and mess with the specs and the competition to ensure that the only flying aircraft in the category, the EH101, was not acquired.

On the other hand, to my understanding (but here I am on very thin ice) the Chinook is flying with all the modifications that DND wanted, just not all in the same airframe.   This does represent a developmental risk but not on the scale of the Cyclone with its untried powerplant, its revised gearbox and its fly-by-wire control system.
Finally, although the A-G headlines a 70% increase in airframe costs and a reduction in airframes from 16 to 15 the project at large seems to be coming in with about a 15% total capital overage  (2.3 BCAD vs a projected capital cost of 2 BCAC).  I’m used to working with about three less zeroes on my calculator but overall I don’t find the project to be that far out of spec.

As to estimating support and O&M costs......you can’t write a budget on the day you identify the requirement and the one you get when you sign the contract will be invalid the day after.

The one lesson that I have learned from doing projects is: Decide early and act fast.  Tomorrow's decision is no better than today's for you will always be dealing with an environment that doesn't precisely match the one you planned for.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on October 27, 2010, 23:44:47
Reading the report, it looks like DND potentially saved two billion dollars.

In June 2006, DND estimated total costs at $6.9B when it sought and received Cabinet approval in principle (para 6.67).  In July 2009, DND total costs were identified as $4.9B based on $2.3B actual committed capital acquisition and $2.6B budgeted in-service support for 20 years (para 6.48).

$6.9B (initial estimate) - 4.9 (actual) = $2.0B savings over the project identification, definition and development phases.

Food for thought.


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on October 27, 2010, 23:59:42
Reading the report, it looks like DND potentially saved two billion dollars.

In June 2006, DND estimated total costs at $6.9B when it sought and received Cabinet approval in principle (para 6.67).  In July 2009, DND total costs were identified as $4.9B based on $2.3B actual committed capital acquisition and $2.6B budgeted in-service support for 20 years (para 6.48).

$6.9B (initial estimate) - 4.9 (actual) = $2.0B savings over the project identification, definition and development phases.

Food for thought.


Regards
G2G

I'm so throwing this in my homework on CFDS media response lines!  I would be given the topic that's getting the most attention these days.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 28, 2010, 23:20:08
So how the frig did the AG miss that?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on October 29, 2010, 03:23:50
So how the frig did the AG miss that?

She didn't.

Her staff didn't.

It's right in the report, here (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#hd4b).

The very first estimate that DND provided to Cabinet in early June 2006 was $6.9B.  This estimate included full life-cycle in-service support costs.  Shortly thereafter (still in June 2006), DND provided its preliminary project approval (PPA) estimates to Treasury Board.  The Government's recently-revised procurement policies, under which DND was one of the first Departments directed by Treasury Board to realign its major capital project activities, resulted in a fair degree of confusion regarding which costs were to be included within (or excluded from) budget estimates identified at various project phases.  The confusion resulted in the life-cycle in-service support costs not being included.  See Exhibit 6.6 (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#ex6) for details.  The result was $2.0B identified in the PPA phase.  Later, as greater understanding of the still-developing Government procurement policies was developed, the life-cycle in-service support costs were reintegrated into the project budget estimates.  The resulting inclusion of those life-cycle costs in the July 2009 EPA estimates (also in Exhibit 6.6) increased the overall amount to $4.9B.  Note that this was still notably less than the very first estimate upon which Cabinet approval-in-principle was based.  Had the $2.6B in in-service support cost been included in the PPA estimate in late June 2006, the total estimated cost would have been $4.6B.

Thus, the progression of estimates would have been from an initial $6.9B to $4.6B during intermediate stages to a final $4.9B, or some $2.0B less than the amount upon which Cabinet granted its original approval for the project to proceed.

In the end, the numbers that the AG and her team include in her very own report numerically describe the progress of the project.  Technically, the final acquisition and in-service support budget was $2B or 29% lower than the original estimate.

Regards
G2G
Title: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Fred Herriot on December 13, 2010, 18:52:40
Has anyone heard of which squadron would be reformed (or assigned) to take control of the CH-147s now being flown (and soon to be acquired) for the Air Force?  I know they'll be based at CFB Petawawa, which is where 427 SOAS is now based, but I doubt that squadron would take control of these beasts.

And would said squadron fall under 1 Wing's control in Kingston?
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: MikeL on December 13, 2010, 19:15:14
  I know they'll be based at CFB Petawawa, which is where 427 SOAS is now based, but I doubt that squadron would take control of these beasts.

That Aviation Squadron is not just "now" based in Pet.. they've always been there.. they've just recently in the past few years become SOAS.  Also, why would you assume that 427 would not get any of the Chinooks?
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: ModlrMike on December 13, 2010, 19:23:44
Hmmm..... 6 helicopters, 3 brigades.....
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Jammer on December 13, 2010, 19:41:53
All of the CH-147s will be based in Petawawa, with the exception a small number going to AETE in Cold Lake.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: George Wallace on December 13, 2010, 19:47:43
That Aviation Squadron is not just "now" based in Pet.. they've always been there.. they've just recently in the past few years become SOAS.  Also, why would you assume that 427 would not get any of the Chinooks?

Probably because they never saw the news footage of them breaking ground for the Chopper Hgr in Pet.    ;D
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Fred Herriot on December 13, 2010, 19:51:11
That Aviation Squadron is not just "now" based in Pet.. they've always been there.. they've just recently in the past few years become SOAS.  Also, why would you assume that 427 would not get any of the Chinooks?

Well, 427 SOAS is technically part of CANSOFCOM even if administratively, it's part of 1 Wing.  So that squadron is tasked pretty much to support JTF-2 & CSOR.

Thinking of that, I have to wonder when 400 THS in Borden will be brought up to become 2 CMBG's air support squadron.

So unless 400 will take over the CH-147s as well as fly their Griffons, you'll need a new squadron.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Fred Herriot on December 13, 2010, 19:54:35
Hmmm..... 6 helicopters, 3 brigades.....

Actually, it'll be 21 helicopters (15 F models & 6 D models).

And while splitting them apart between 400 THS, 403 THTS, 430e ETAH, 438e ETAH & 408 THS (excluding 427 SOAS since they're supporting CANSOFCOM) as Heavy Transport Flights might work . . .  ???
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Jammer on December 13, 2010, 19:56:31
427 IS part of CANSOFCOM...not technically...it is.

400 will stay in Borden...period.

A new Sqn...undecided.

Once again...ALL CH-147s will be based in Petawawa...period.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Jammer on December 13, 2010, 19:57:48
and FFS....it's spelled Chinook...(or Shithook if you've flown in them).
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Fred Herriot on December 13, 2010, 20:01:49
and FFS....it's spelled Chinook...(or Shithook if you've flown in them).

Only helicopter I ever flew in was a Sea King that was on HMCS Saguenay when I was deployed in the Navy for an exercise off Norway back in the late summer of 1988.  Would the Chinooks compare to that?
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: MikeL on December 13, 2010, 20:08:07
Actually, it'll be 21 helicopters (15 F models & 6 D models).

And while splitting them apart between 400 THS, 403 THTS, 430e ETAH, 438e ETAH & 408 THS (excluding 427 SOAS since they're supporting CANSOFCOM) as Heavy Transport Flights might work . . .  ???

Why are you black listing CANSOFCOM from getting Chinooks?
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: ModlrMike on December 13, 2010, 20:14:55
Actually, it'll be 21 helicopters (15 F models & 6 D models).

Yes, but not for several more years, and I think the OP was asking about the immediate post TFK period.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Fred Herriot on December 13, 2010, 20:19:38
Why are you black listing CANSOFCOM from getting Chinooks?

No, I wasn't intentionally blacklisting them, but would a CH-147 be a better deployment platform for a CSOR company or JTF-2 troop than a Griffon?
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Jammer on December 13, 2010, 20:22:15
In some tasks...yes. The Chinook is rather big and loud to do sneeky peeky stuff that is more suited to the Griffon...such as it is.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: George Wallace on December 13, 2010, 20:24:31
No, I wasn't intentionally blacklisting them, but would a CH-147 be a better deployment platform for a CSOR company or JTF-2 troop than a Griffon?

 ???

I'm missing something here.  Where do you think the TAC HEL support for these two units is located?   Does it matter what platform is required, as every situation will be different? 

Seems to me you are phishing for something you know little, or nothing, about.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: greentoblue on December 13, 2010, 20:30:31
As already mentioned, all the F model Chinooks will be concentrated in Petawawa.  Consequently a new squadron will be stood up to be their home unit.  Early speculation is that 447 or 450 Sqn will be reformed as the Chinook Sqn.

Don't want to get into conops; suffice to say that the Chinooks will be a military-wide asset available to support training and deployments throughout the military ie you will see them on a regular basis in Wainwright.

As I understand it there are no plans to incorporate the D models from theatre into the new Chinook Sqn.  Operating two different fleets would require two completely different chains of training for aircrew and maintainers and a separate supply chain for each platform.  However, this being the Canadian military, stranger things have happened (don't get me started about the Maritime Helicopter replacement/CH-148 Cyclone project!).
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: MikeL on December 13, 2010, 20:32:31
No, I wasn't intentionally blacklisting them, but would a CH-147 be a better deployment platform for a CSOR company or JTF-2 troop than a Griffon?

Chinooks are employed by 160th SOAR and support USSOCOM, seems to work well as a platform for them. I'm sure CANSOFCOM can emply and find ways to use the Chinooks. 
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Jammer on December 13, 2010, 20:33:23
The D models will not be coming back to Canada.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: George Wallace on December 13, 2010, 20:36:43
Some of today's news:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ground+breaking+ceremony+held+Chinook+helicopter+fleet+Petawawa/3968687/story.html (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ground+breaking+ceremony+held+Chinook+helicopter+fleet+Petawawa/3968687/story.html)

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Government-of-Canada-Invests-in-CH-147-Chinook-Infrastructure-at-CFB-Petawawa-1367960.htm (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Government-of-Canada-Invests-in-CH-147-Chinook-Infrastructure-at-CFB-Petawawa-1367960.htm)

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Media-Advisory-Government-Canada-Breaks-Ground-on-CH-147-Chinook-Helicopter-Hangar-CFB-1367449.htm (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Media-Advisory-Government-Canada-Breaks-Ground-on-CH-147-Chinook-Helicopter-Hangar-CFB-1367449.htm)

Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Jammer on December 13, 2010, 20:38:25
Chinooks are employed by 160th SOAR and support USSOCOM, seems to work well as a platform for them. I'm sure CANSOFCOM can emply and find ways to use the Chinooks.
[/quote
True enough, but I see CANSOFCOM being a user rather than an owner of the platform. There are no intentions to have specifically fitted out A/C for SOF use such as are the US A/C.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: ArmyDoc on December 13, 2010, 23:24:25
and FFS....it's spelled Chinook...(or Shithook if you've flown in them).
I've flown in them and don't call them Shithooks.  In fact, I have a certain fondness for an aircraft (and their crews) that allows us to fly over the IED threat thereby reducing death/injury.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Hamish Seggie on December 13, 2010, 23:38:52
I've flown in them and don't call them Shithooks.  In fact, I have a certain fondness for an aircraft (and their crews) that allows us to fly over the IED threat thereby reducing death/injury.
I rather like the Chinook as well. Although I've never flown in the current  D model, I did fly in them in the late 70s....before we "divested" our selves of them.
The last one I flew in was in 96, a US Army Hook in Ft Polk, Louisiana. I have never flown in one in Afghanistan, but I appreciate your love for them Doc.
An impressive chopper.
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Good2Golf on December 14, 2010, 00:25:16
427 IS part of CANSOFCOM...not technically...it is.

400 will stay in Borden...period.

A new Sqn...undecided.

Once again...ALL CH-147s will be based in Petawawa...period.

^ concur.


4XX has not been decided yet, but it will be separate (other side of the Mattawa, where the shovels were dug today) from 427 SOAS.  Betting folks would likely put their money on 450 Sqn as it was the senior CH147 Sqn (over 447 Sqn) and had perpetuation of 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon (THP, a.k.a. 1 Thump) history, the squadron that flew the Chinook's baby brother, the Voyageur, back when the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (RCASC) flew them in the transport role.  That said, the Forces could surprise people by renumbering the squadron with another decommissioned squadron for some other reason?  Whatever the unit number, it would most likely be a conventional tactical helicopter squadron (THS) within 1 Wing's direct chain of command, unlike 427 SOAS operating under operational command (OPCOM) of CANSOFCOM.  For Chinook support, CANSOFCOM would likely submit a request for such support just like any other requesting CF organization.

Gov't is on record as stating that the 6 CH147D's will be disposed of upon termination of their mission in AFG, so the total future Chinook fleet will be 15 CH147F's.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Journeyman on December 14, 2010, 00:41:10
In some tasks...yes. The Chinook is rather big and loud to do sneeky peeky stuff that is more suited to the Griffon...such as it is.
Shame that memo wasn't passed around in-theatre.  ;)
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Loachman on December 14, 2010, 01:01:17
had perpetuation of 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon (THP, a.k.a. 1 Thump) history, the squadron that flew the Chinook's baby brother, the Voyageur, back when the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (RCASC) flew them in the transport role.

The 46th anniversary of 1 Thump's stand-up was just days agao, on 10 December. This also, therefore, was the 46th birthday of Tac Hel.

Gov't is on record as stating that the 6 CH147D's

Ummm... 5 CH147Ds, courtesy of some unknown Taliban chap.

Oh, and "topic merged".
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Good2Golf on December 14, 2010, 01:28:53
...Ummm... 5 CH147Ds, courtesy of some unknown Taliban chap.

Not to be picky, but CH147207 makes it six again.  ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 14, 2010, 01:31:13
We got another one? Why wasn't I informed?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on December 14, 2010, 01:35:44
We got another one? Why wasn't I informed?
  *cough* UAV *cough*

 ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 14, 2010, 01:42:40
  *cough* UAV *cough*

 ;D

Oh, yeah, I forgot: You made a similar *cough* offer *cough* for one or two of those too, didn't you?

Sorry. I'll try harder not to forget in the future.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on December 14, 2010, 01:46:09
You made a similar *cough* offer *cough* for one or two of those too, didn't you?
I didn't specify; I just included "some dedicated ISR support" in the request.

I did specify the Chinooks, but he was getting the big bucks to fill in the details   ;)
Title: Re: New Chinhook Squadron
Post by: Old Sweat on December 14, 2010, 07:29:20
The 46th anniversary of 1 Thump's stand-up was just days agao, on 10 December. This also, therefore, was the 46th birthday of Tac Hel.

That makes the birth of 1 THP as 10 December 1964, but I was introduced to the CO in Gagetown in the summer of 1964. (I don't think they had any aircraft at that time.) Somebody thought it would be a neat thing to do because we had the same last name, albit with different spellings.

I am 99% sure that there were at least two operational tac hel flights in 4 CIBG at the time: the Bde HQ C&L Flight and the Hel Tp in the Recce Sqn. That means we came push the birth date of Tac Hel even farther back.

Sorry for the hijack.

Modify to add: There was a third "aviation unit" in 4 CIBG. The aviation platoon (not sure if that is the correct name) in 4 Field Workshop RCEME did the second line maintenance on the L19s and CH112s in the brigade. The platoon commander was supposed to be qualified as a pilot so he could test fly his platoon's work.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 14, 2010, 11:22:49
My original source was, I believe, Maple Leaf several years ago. That article was quite definite that 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon was the first Tac Hel unit in the CF. I accepted it as fact but it may not have been so much.

From http://www.hillmanweb.com/rivers/07.html:
Quote
In December 1963, No. 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon (No. 1 THP), a unit of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, was established at RCAF Station Rivers, along with their fleet of CH-113A Voyageur transport helicopters and one CH-112 Nomad.

So, out by one year on that (either the article was or I have slipped a year on my calendar notation somehow), as backed up by http://www.militarybruce.com/published_news/rivers-air-base.html which also states that:

Quote
by 1956, Army helicopter pilots were also training at Rivers at the Army Air Tactical Training School (AATTS).

But what were those pilots flying operationally in the late fifties?

From http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/nomad-eng.asp

Quote
The Hiller UH-12E Nomad served from 1961 to 1972, primarily with the Air Observation Post (A.O.P.) troops in Petawawa, Shilo, Gagetown, and Germany.

Although, from what I was told when arriving at 427 Squadron in 1982, Kiowas replaced L19s and Cessna 172s there in the AOP role. There was still sigs wire laid by these aircraft hanging in some tree tops.

http://rcaf.com/Aircraft/aircraftDetail.php?NOMAD-174 only specifies 4 Brigade in:

Quote
Some of these helicopters provided reconnaissance and liaison facilities for No. 4 Canadian Infantry Brigade Group in Germany.

http://www.rotorhead.org/military/nomad.asp does not mention 4 Brigade at all, just Pet and Rivers:

Quote
The Canadian Military bought 27 Nomads in 1961. The Hiller Nomad served from 1961 to 1972, primarily with the Air Observation Post in Petawawa, Ontario, Canada. One other notable area of use was the Army Aviation Tactical Training School in Rivers, Manitoba, Canada.

http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/CAF_Hiller_details.html has the most detail, giving short histories for each CH112. The only operational use is listed as RCD in Lahr. That backs up the account of L19s and Cessna 172s as the only AOP aircraft in Petawawa and elsewhere. Unfortunately, the earliest dates for each of the Hiller accounts is 11 June 1970, at which time they were all renumbered into the current tail number system, and no mention of when they commenced operational service in Lahr.

http://www.manitobamilitaryaviationmuseum.com/PDF/CJATCRivers.pdf discusses training Army pilots for L19s and helicopter conversions, but does not mention operational helicopter flying in any detail.

Okay, Tac Hel's true birthday is now uncertain, and I have amended my calendar to reflect 1 Thump's correct birthday. There are gaps in readily available information.

I did learn that Stanley Hiller built his first helicopter at the age of nineteen. Some interesting photographs of his designs can be found at http://www.helis.com/timeline/hiller.php
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 14, 2010, 12:40:13
I'll defer to experts but I recall the Hillers as Command & Liaison aircraft and L-19s (Birdogs?) as AOP aircraft - but maybe only where I served.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on December 14, 2010, 12:41:50
You are correct that 1 THP was the first formed helicopter unit with a CO, etc. There had been at least one independent AOP Troop before this, but each field regiment eventually had an AOP Troop. The flights I mentioned were also sub-units of other units.

In the late fifties the army was trying to establish a pool of helicopter pilots besides the artillery fixed wing AOP pilots. There were enough by the early sixties that a flight would appear in Gagetown for the summer concentrations. I think they were home based in CJATC Rivers. You have covered that based with your comment re the AATTS.

I can confirm that L19s were used for AOP in the places mentioned. I had my first flight in one in 1961 as an officer cadet as part of our training.

As for the CH112s, I flew as a passenger in the brigade helicopter aircraft circa 1965-1966. As I posted before, this included a no duff autorotation when the warning lights on the instrument panel started doing really funny stuff.

The army also tried to build aviation awareness with a program to teach full colonels and above to fly. The graduates included Allard, Moncel and Wilson-Smith, while Dextraze was taken off the course to go to the Congo. These gentlemen tended to want to keep their hours in so they could draw flight pay. As they were past their prime in terms of coordination, depth perception, etc and had only been basically trained, the junior pilots in the local AOP Troop, for example, used to be detailed to fly with them. In Gagetown one could tell when the brigadier had been flying by watching for a white-knuckled AOP pilot hanging on the bar.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: George Wallace on December 14, 2010, 12:46:28
The RCD also had a Helicopter Troop (Hillers) in Germany, which got swollowed up by 444 Tac Hel in 1970.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 14, 2010, 12:59:10
1 THP which became 450 Sqn. had always been designated as transport-450(T) Sqn. I believe that it changed to Tac when the Chinooks were taken out of service and replaced by the small helicopters.
My first recollection of the term Tac Hel was in the 70's when 403, 408 and the other units that used CH-135s were called Tac Hel Squadrons.

Away back when L-19s were used as artillery observation aircraft and trainers. The L-172 was a liaison aircraft.
The CH-112 Nomad was a training helicopter in Rivers and some were in Germany. I don't know for sure but I think that they flew in support of armored operations. 1THP had one for a utility helicopter.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 14, 2010, 13:16:23
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/hst/page-eng.asp?id=744
This is mostly correct with the exception being that 450 also flew the CH-112 Nomad.
However it wouldn't surprise me that in reality the one CH-112 Nomad actually belonged to some other organization and was only being "hosted" by 450 Sqn.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 14, 2010, 14:42:25
Beenthere, indeed, 450 was  "450 (Transport) Helicopter Squadron" until shortly after the SERT CH135 Twin Huey's showed up the fall of 1990.  Then, once the Chinooks were retired and 450 Sqn was supporting both the SERT through SAH (SERT Assault Helicopter) Flight and the Army via UTTH Flight, 450 was renamed 450 Composite Helicopter Squadron, to note the two roles (RCMP and DND support).  When 450 moved (back) to St-Hubert in 1994, UTTH Flight became A Flight and SAH Flight became B Flight.  A Flight disappeared in 1995, but B Flight survived, moving to 427 in 1996.  As you know, BT, 450 has a lot of rich aviation history, and it would be nice to see that captured when the Chinooks fly Canadian skies once again.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Anyone's Grunt on December 14, 2010, 15:02:42
For what it's worth, the signage used in the groundbreaking ceremony yesterday that featured the artists rendering of the new facility featured a 450 Sqn crest on the flag and glass front entrance.  Now I know that doesn't really mean too much but it could be a clue.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 14, 2010, 15:25:58
450 Sqn. would be the logical designation for the unit. Of course 450 Sqn. was not a logical designation back in 1968 as it was hijacked from an Australian Sqn.  and the new crest was added.
Then again it would be logical to continue with the illogical logic that was considered logical back then.
Wouldn't it? 8)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on December 14, 2010, 15:29:03
450 Sqn. would be the logical designation for the unit. Of course 450 Sqn. was not a logical designation back in 1968 as it was hijacked from an Australian Sqn.  and the new crest was added.
Then again it would be logical to continue with the illogical logic that was considered logical back then.
Wouldn't it? 8)

Is it bad that I actually understood what you just said?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 14, 2010, 15:32:17
Is it bad that I actually understood what you just said?
It's not bad. Just logical. :)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Hamish Seggie on December 14, 2010, 16:21:01
I understood it too. Wow.....amazing

and I'm Infantry...... ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 14, 2010, 21:27:28
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ground+breaking+ceremony+held+Chinook+helicopter+fleet+Petawawa/3968687/story.html
From the description of the facility it sounds very much like what I had in mind. I may have mentioned my concept about a year ago. It's ideal to have everything in one location rather than having to go to remote places for courses and to have first and second line maintenance located together.
Nice to have the warehouse which hopefully translates to supply of spare parts located where they will be needed.
There is no mention of a facility for the usual fleet of maintenance vans and other equipment necessary for field deployments unless it's what's noted as the back shop and parking lot. It will take a large number of maintenance vans and other vehicles to support a deployment of Chinooks.
Has anyone heard anything regarding the number of personnel that will be required to support this sort of an operation?

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 14, 2010, 21:50:15
Beenthere, the unit will likely be a fair bit bigger than any of the other Tac Hel Sqns, given that all 15 Chinooks and associated maintenance and training will operate from that single location.

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on December 14, 2010, 22:06:12
That's a given. I would think that by this time there should be an idea of how many people would actually be needed. Probably more than all of the Tac Hel Squadrons combined just for the Chinooks.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Fred Herriot on December 15, 2010, 21:13:15
It's not bad. Just logical. :)

Armed Forces logic.  Go figure . . .  ::)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: BillN on January 13, 2011, 20:53:22
I suppose you have to know the history of why the number '450' was chosen. 

When the 400 series was first used back in WW2, 400 to 449 went to the RCAF.   Scoot forward now to 1968 when 1THP was informed that it was to become an air force squadron, the CO of the day requested that a number not previously used by the RCAF be 'issued'. 

This was done because it was felt it was very important that the RCASC traditions of 1THP be kept alive and not swept under the carpet. And that the customs and traditions of a former RCAF squadron, now to be stood up in 1THP's place, would not be allowed to take priority.

As we now know DHist, not doing any proper research into the matter, assumed that 450 had never been used, and so it came to be that 1THP became 450 Sqn. 

During my time on the Sqn in the mid-1980's contact was made with 450 Sqn RAAF Association, who were thrilled to find out that 'their' Sqn had been reformed.  In fact many of them made a trip to Canada when our first Sqn Colour was presented.  I know the CO during my time, LCol David 'Doc' Purich - now sadly passed away, requested to DHist that 450 CAF be allowed to carry the battle honours won by 450 RAAF.  This was turned down, even though the Aussie's agreed to it.

The SWO of the day, himself an ex-RCASC boy soldier, always on formal parades had the band play 3 marches.  We marched onto parade to Waltzing Matilda, did the marchpast to Wait for the Wagon, and marched off parade to the RCAF marchpast.  And that was our history in music.

The Sqn Birthday was 12th December, and we always had a formal Sqn parade as close to that day as we could.  It was on that day when the RCASC was authorised to stand-up 1THP in 1963 at Rivers, Manitoba.

It was a great and very unique Sqn, and I for one will be immensely proud if 450 is stood up again with the new Chinooks.

"By Air to Battle"

Bill
A former 450 LM


450 Sqn. would be the logical designation for the unit. Of course 450 Sqn. was not a logical designation back in 1968 as it was hijacked from an Australian Sqn.  and the new crest was added.
Then again it would be logical to continue with the illogical logic that was considered logical back then.
Wouldn't it? 8)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: beenthere on January 13, 2011, 21:29:59
Thanks Bill. That's a logical explanation of an illogical designation given to the only illegitimate Sqn. in CF history.
I served in 1 THP and 450 Sqn. and would consider that 450 Sqn would be the logical designation for the new unit.

However with the logic expressed in some circles to move army aviation resources into a brown orientation 1 THP may be a more logical designation.

As per usual in the history of both 1 THP and 450 Sqn. something as mundane as the designation of the name of the new unit is shrouded in secrecy.
There can be no doubt about it--the RCASC lives on.
Title: Wanna buy a used Chinook?
Post by: milnews.ca on February 02, 2011, 08:43:52
Choppers to be auctioned off as combat mission ends (http://bit.ly/fzbwFr)
Quote
The National Defence department has put “For Sale” signs on the air force’s Chinook helicopters in Afghanistan — two years after taxpayers shelled out $282 million to buy them.  The department recently sounded out allies in the war-torn country to see whether any are interested in the heavy battlefield transports, bought second-hand from the U.S. Army.  Some defence analysts suggest Canada might be better served by bringing the choppers home for domestic operations, perhaps improving the search-and-rescue system.  So far there have been no takers for the five CH-147D choppers, which were rushed into Afghanistan after the Manley commission made it a condition of Ottawa continuing the war until 2011 …. If no buyers are found for the Canadian Chinooks they will be packed up and brought home when the combat mission ends in July, said the general who leads the transition headquarters.  “We’re still looking to divest ourselves of them,” Brig.-Gen. Charles Lamarre said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press ….
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Retired AF Guy on February 02, 2011, 18:16:14
Choppers to be auctioned off as combat mission ends (http://bit.ly/fzbwFr)

I think  Mr Huebert has the best idea, bring them back. I'm sure the military can find a use for them.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: mover1 on February 02, 2011, 19:19:31
Talking to a few of the FE's and they said that they are pretty much used up and require a lot of man hours to maintain so bringing them back may not be a good idea or even a bad idea. Depending if we intend to fly them or use them as training aids.

All we need is some mis informed defence critic to tell us that we need 5 less new helicopters because we brought some back with us from Afghanistan.
Or say something like well we don't need all the new choppers because we are bringing the old ones back so lets cancel the project.

Mind you we could paint them a different color too and use them for something else.
 

Any thoughts or opinions form those who have "been there and worked on them" in any capacity other than a passenger?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: NavyShooter on February 07, 2011, 13:13:41
If they were the same variant as the others that we're getting (have?) it would make more sense to bring them back.

Since they're not the same variant, does it make sense to double up the spare-parts, training, etc, and have to worry about young Private Bloggins accidentally installing the part for the old helo on the new, and no-one noticing it?

Just my thoughts....fleet manageent would be an issue with multiple variants onhand.

NS
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: KJK on February 07, 2011, 18:07:48
Why not bring them back and trade them in on the new 'F's? Isn't Boeing looking for older models for the CHAPS program. Or would trading them in violate Treasury Board rules?

 :cdn:KJK
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GK .Dundas on February 07, 2011, 22:53:58
Why not bring them back and trade them in on the new 'F's? Isn't Boeing looking for older models for the CHAPS program. Or would trading them in violate Treasury Board rules?

 :cdn:KJK
I must say that makes perfect sense to me......so it must violate some regulation somewhere . ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: benny88 on February 08, 2011, 02:02:54
Anyone care to speculate on whether new pilots will be piped directly to this aircraft? Also, I know this is a very general question, but what's flying them like? Tac Hel has begun to creep further and further up my list...
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on February 08, 2011, 11:45:46
The new Chinooks would likely be crewed with a blend of experienced Chinook-qualified aviators, other experienced tactical aviators (Griffon, etc...) and by new pipeliners.  This breadth of experience would ensure depth and sustainability to the operation.  The Chinook is a very impressive aircraft to fly; powerful, stable and surprisingly manoeuvrable.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 08, 2011, 15:39:49
The new Chinooks would likely be crewed with a blend of experienced Chinook-qualified aviators, other experienced tactical aviators (Griffon, etc...) and by new pipeliners.  This breadth of experience would ensure depth and sustainability to the operation.  The Chinook is a very impressive aircraft to fly; powerful, stable and surprisingly manoeuvrable.

Regards
G2G

Are you a pilot? I forgot to ask lol....
I've flown as a pax in the Chinook in the late 70s/early 80's and again in a US Army Chinook in 96. Amazing aircraft!!
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GAP on February 08, 2011, 15:54:44
Are you a pilot? I forgot to ask lol....
I've flown as a pax in the Chinook in the late 70s/early 80's and again in a US Army Chinook in 96. Amazing aircraft!!

Jim... http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=7688 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=7688)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on February 08, 2011, 16:18:40
Jim... http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=7688 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=7688)

 ;)

...although I prefer the term "Aviator," as that includes not just flying an aircraft but understanding and tailoring the application of aviation capability* to support the Airmobile Force Commander's intent and scheme of manoeuvre.

Cheers
G2G

* - including conduct of the estimate and ability to read, interpret and conduct dynamic cockpit folding operations of maps down to 1:12,500 scale (i.e. the map-tac 'steering wheel')
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on February 08, 2011, 17:50:48
;)

...although I prefer the term "Aviator," as that includes not just flying an aircraft but understanding and tailoring the application of aviation capability* to support the Airmobile Force Commander's intent and scheme of manoeuvre.

Cheers
G2G

* - including conduct of the estimate and ability to read, interpret and conduct dynamic cockpit folding operations of maps down to 1:12,500 scale (i.e. the map-tac 'steering wheel')

LIKE!
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: eurowing on February 09, 2011, 15:53:31
But, but...  I don't know any "Aviator" jokes. I have tons of pilot jokes. ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on February 09, 2011, 16:29:41
But, but...  I don't know any "Aviator" jokes. I have tons of pilot jokes. ;D

How many aviators does it take to change a lightbulb?

None.  Real pilots just leave them in the dark.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on February 09, 2011, 17:22:49
I work on the theory that if God had wanted soldiers to fly, He would have made the sky brown.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on February 09, 2011, 17:45:57
I work on the theory that if God had wanted soldiers to fly, He would have made the sky brown.

Well, sometimes He needs a little help.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on February 09, 2011, 22:01:54
What I said.

Ubique!
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Anyone's Grunt on February 10, 2011, 15:13:48
Anyone care to speculate on whether new pilots will be piped directly to this aircraft? Also, I know this is a very general question, but what's flying them like? Tac Hel has begun to creep further and further up my list...

Here's a better question (at least as far as I'm concenred.)  Will the new squadron be employing missions specialists?  And, if so, who does an infantry sergeant need to blow to become one of them, if they are indeed going to employ them?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on February 10, 2011, 15:34:19
I would expect that at least 6 of these aircraft would be bought by the civilian market if given a chance and a decent price. I know on the West Coast that a early Chinook and a Vertol are quite busy, they might welcome a chance to upgrade their fleet. Not the first time either, seems this company bought up our Labs for conversion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Helicopters#cite_note-3


(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi690.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv262%2Fcolinpark_photo%2FWork%2520pictures%2FIMG_3327.jpg&hash=8c8ff20111ee57360ee63924351d34b4)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PH-10171a.jpg
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: rnkelly on February 10, 2011, 16:20:51
Here's a better question (at least as far as I'm concenred.)  Will the new squadron be employing missions specialists?  And, if so, who does an infantry sergeant need to blow to become one of them, if they are indeed going to employ them?

When the CAS was at work last week he said that the sqn will be employing full-time specialists that will be fully posted to the sqn as oppose to the current attach postings that gunners are getting.  Don't know the answer to the second part of the question, sorry! 

I'm guessing that the specialists' role will expand when this happens otherwise they might get bored OR they will be used as the standards/training guys for when they augment for deployments.  I think they'll be looking for mostly junior ranks though, sorry Sergeant!

Rumours are that a significant number of these specialists will be required as well.  Sounds like a pretty cool gig that includes aircrew perks/allowances! 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Ditch on February 10, 2011, 21:01:05
If it becomes a bona-fide trade. It will most likely be a blue trade.  Hence open to VOT and subsequent reduction in rank - so don't despair senior NCOs, you too can play.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GAP on February 17, 2011, 10:22:36
 Taking the High Ground
Article Link (http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=16131)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - Skip Robinson

Since the Canadian Forces purchased six CH-47Ds from the U.S. Army, its personnel have been training with National Guard units throughout the U.S., including mountain training with B Company of the 1st Battalion, 126th General Support Aviation Battalion (GSAB) out of Stockton, Calif.

In 2008, when the Canadian Forces decided to purchase six Chinook D-model helicopters from the United States Army to support its operations in Afghanistan, it had been 16 years since it had sold its previous Chinooks to the Netherlands (see p.8, Canadian Combat Helicopters in Afghanistan supplement, Vertical, Dec'10-Jan'11). Consequently, there was no current Canadian Air Force experience on the CH-47 — no pilots, instructors, flight engineers, maintainers or avionics techs who had flown or worked on Chinooks. And, because Canada's only Chinooks were the ones actually in Afghanistan, there was no way for personnel to train on the CH-47D (Canadian designated CH-147D) in Canada.

To overcome this hurdle, the Canadian Forces began working with the U.S. Army and National Guard (see p.14, Vertical 911, Spring 2010). As a result, Canadian pilots and maintainers now attend U.S. Army qualification courses for their initial Chinook training, then go through a "Canadian seasoning program" at an Army National Guard flight facility. This seasoning program is spearheaded by the National Guard Bureau at the U.S. Department of Defense, which organizes the training through different states depending on operational tempo and aircraft availability.

Built to Suit
Although the seasoning program has a loosely followed curriculum, B Company of the 1st Battalion, 126th General Support Aviation Battalion (GSAB), California Army National Guard, based out of Stockton — prefers to develop a training schedule based on an individual aviator's proficiency and what he or she would like to learn or practice. As one instructor pilot with B Company, who are known as the Delta Schooners, explained, "Whereas one pilot may want to simply work on [basic] tasks, others may be ready to jump into graduate-level maneuvers such as NVG [night vision goggle] dust landings with an external load."

The typical seasoning program is a two-week curriculum that follows the "crawl, walk, run" process. The training program has evolved quickly since 2008, and includes all personnel involved in the Chinook program, from maintainers and avionics technicians, to production control clerks and maintenance officers. On the operations side, training is given to pilots and flight engineers (FEs). Said the B Company instructor pilot, "It's nice when they bring their own FEs, since they have slightly different 'call and response' techniques, and they can help communicate with the American crews when Canadian crewmembers are speaking in French."
More on link
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Trunk Monkey on February 17, 2011, 19:12:43
If it becomes a bona-fide trade. It will most likely be a blue trade.  Hence open to VOT and subsequent reduction in rank - so don't despair senior NCOs, you too can play.

I cannot see it becoming a bona-fide trade. Ever. For one, would not be enough bodies to stand up a new trade as there are only so many TacHell Sqn's. I can think of other reasons but this one alone would squish that thought.

To Anyone's Grunt....all Tac Hel employs Msn Specs and I don't see the Chinook Sqn being different, but that's what I think. Your CoC/CM is the way to go IRT being a Msn Spec. If you are on one of the 3 big bases, go to the Sqn there and have a chat with the Msn Specs.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HeavyHooker on August 14, 2011, 16:13:45
Update on the CH 147F models.  Still designated MHLH by the way.  I highly doubt they will have an "A" designator as it just doesn't make sense to be honest but thats just my two cents.

First bird is on the jig and the fuselage is just about complete.  No OPSEC issues here either for those that may be concerned as that little nugget was taken from open source.  Expected delivery is still mid-end 2012. 

The unclass memo is out and about from 1 Wg Comd wrt the standup of the new squadron.  Intent is to lean heavily on IMLC crews as this will form the trg cadre.  Aircrew will consist of 19 pilots and 6 FEs.  No mention of LMs so I am not sure where that stands.  I know there are still battles being fought over the viability of having a LM in stead of a second FE (as the Brits do it, our IMLC program has been modelled solely after the US Armys 2 FE system thus far).  Requirements for techs are 3 x ACS, 5 x AMSup, 23 x AVN, 15 x AVS, 2 x AWS, 1 x Int, 3 x LOG Air, 2 x Met, 1 x MSE, 3x RMS.  Decisions on pers to man the startup positions as well as the new CO/SCWO are to be made before the boards sit in Oct 11.

A/C 205 (crashed 16 May) is being returned to Canada but no mention on the rest of the Delta models.  Last rumour is they are still looking for buyers but the prospect of flying them has snuck back into the rumour mill.  Wait and shoot I guess on that.

Anybody have anything else?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on August 14, 2011, 16:20:43
WRT the new Sqn, there will be a SigOp det, of I believe 3 pers including 1x Sgt. Didn't see it on your list of the tech requirements.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HeavyHooker on August 14, 2011, 16:35:57
The memo I referred to is only the standup guys for the new Sqn.  Are the Sig Ops to be in the initial cadre in 2012 APS?  Or are they in the follow on crews over the next couple of years?

HH
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on August 14, 2011, 20:43:25
I'd have to ask the friend I know who is supposedly going to be posted there. I think it would be safe to assume that they'd be on ground right from the start, as a new Sqn would need all the IT infrastructure as well as COMSEC material be shipped in and a COMSEC account creation.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Ditch on August 14, 2011, 21:02:47
assume that they'd be on ground right from the start, as a new Sqn would need all the IT infrastructure as well as COMSEC material be shipped in and a COMSEC account creation.
Does Petawawa not have their own IT section to provide this support?  Unless these pers were primarily for deployment support - the Base/Wing level IT department should have this task.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on August 14, 2011, 21:05:46
The Tac Hel sqns, last i saw, have their own Sigs sections to support the field CP and all that stuff that comes with living in the field with the Army. I can't see the Chinook sqn being any different.

The IT and COMSEC stuff can easily be handled by base as it is elsewhere.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on August 14, 2011, 21:28:00
I'm not sure about the comsec stuff being done by somebody else, and it's been several decades since my custodian* course, but somebody has to hold, issue, receive and all the rest when the squadron is in the weeds. I suggest that is something that ultimately falls on the CO's shoulders, and he will want a competent authority of his own to do the hard stuff.

* I learned my real custodian skills in recruit training, and I still wield a mean mop, but the other custodian course is where I first learned really net terms like "This page intentionally left blank."
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on August 14, 2011, 21:31:55
but somebody has to hold, issue, receive and all the rest when the squadron is in the weeds.

That does not create a requirement for a signaler. My unit for example draws its COMSEC stuff from the Wing vault when we deploy but we do not take a Jimmy with us.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Tango18A on August 14, 2011, 22:17:39
Tac Hel Sqns also have CPs in the field as you Sqn would not. As per the COMSEC account, this is a unit holding not Base.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on August 14, 2011, 22:24:25
Tac Hel Sqns also have CPs in the field as you Sqn would not.

While this is true at home, when deployed on OP MOBILE we most certainly did have a CP and still no requirement for a signaler to handle COMSEC.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on August 14, 2011, 22:26:10
While this is true at home, when deployed on OP MOBILE we most certainly did have a CP and still no requirement for a signaler to handle COMSEC.

Did you have an actual COMSEC account created for MOBILE, or were you just drawing from another unit as it was a snap deployment?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on August 14, 2011, 22:27:55
The NCO I/C Sigs is usually the custodian and the OpsO or his/her designate is often the alternate custodian.  The OpsO is responsible to the CO to ensure that cryptographic material and equipment is handled IAW applicable regulations and policies.  At Tac Hel squadrons, the Sigs section is within the Ops Flight, hence the OpsO's responsibility to the CO for crypto.   As the unit holds most crypto (less that for specialized systems held by formation - a specific case within tac hel sqns) on their own unit accounts, the CO is ultimately responsible for its proper handling, as Old Sweat noted earlier.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on August 14, 2011, 22:34:15
Did you have an actual COMSEC account created for MOBILE, or were you just drawing from another unit as it was a snap deployment?

COMSEC was drawn from 14 and 19 Wing crypto vaults by each respective crew when we departed. Further COMSEC was sent to us later and was handled by our own guys. We did not have signalers in our organization.

Can a Tac Hel Sqn in Petawawa not draw its COMSEC from Base when i needs to go in the field ? How are CH-146 Sqn organized now WRT to signalers ?

Edit : Thanks to G2G for the organization rundown.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on August 14, 2011, 22:48:19
There are army sigs in each of the CH-146 Sqns, the number 3 comes to mind but I'd have to check at work tomorrow. G2G might have the number off-hand though.

That would be a big PITA if they had to go to LFCADA in Pet and sign out crypto everytime they wanted to train with it, not to mention the items to run secure circuits in the building. You have a bone to pick with SigOps being employed at Tac Hel? Seems like you don't want us there....
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on August 14, 2011, 22:49:42
2 CMBG Sigs LFCDA will control distribution to the Sqn Sig section. How that section will look is TBD.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on August 14, 2011, 22:52:03
You have a bone to pick with SigOps being employed at Tac Hel?

Nope.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on August 14, 2011, 22:57:42
2 CMBG Sigs LFCDA will control distribution to the Sqn Sig section. How that section will look is TBD.

Is that typical of the other accounts in the Bde, being a sub-account of LFCDA?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on August 14, 2011, 23:05:10
2 CMBG Sigs LFCDA will control distribution to the Sqn Sig section. How that section will look is TBD.
Is that typical of the other accounts in the Bde, being a sub-account of LFCDA?

It's* distributed to the sqn, from the Bde's Crypto Dist Authority when required and held by the unit's custodian (NCO I/C Sigs in the Pet case.)  Three (3) is (or was just a few years ago) a good number for conventional TH Sqn sig ops tasks.  Other stuff is appropriately looked after by other folks.

Cheers
G2G


* - conventional crypto
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Tango18A on August 15, 2011, 00:43:35
All Bde units are sub-acct holders of their appropriate LCFDA. The only exception would be while on Operations where units would not transfer items to an AOR, they would draw upon arrival.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on August 22, 2011, 09:36:28
Speaking to the thread title :

RAF New Chinook Helicopters

Defence Secretary Visits RAF Odiham To Announce £1BN Contract For 14 New Chinook Helicopters...

The Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox, has today announced a contract award for 14 new Chinook helicopters, the RAF’s workhorse on the frontline in Afghanistan.

The contract with Boeing to supply the Chinook heavy lift helicopters will bring a significant enhancement to the mobility of frontline forces. Already the largest fleet in Europe, this new contract will bring the UK’s overall number of Chinooks to 60.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/new-chinook-helicopters-22082011



Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Fred Herriot on August 25, 2011, 00:05:14
Good for them.  :nod:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HeavyHooker on August 25, 2011, 11:23:29
That is kind of a shocker considering all of the austerity measures in place through out the Brit military. 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on August 25, 2011, 12:25:19

Daily Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/voiceofthemirror/2011/08/23/chinook-deployment-delat-is-contemptible-115875-23365842/)

Quote
The broken Tory promise on new Chinook helicopters is a betrayal of British troops in Afghanistan.
 
And it exposes the tawdry use of the Forces as a political football by a party that talks a good game yet runs and hides on the pitch.
 
To slash Labour's order for 22 Chinooks to 14 is bad enough but delaying deployment of them until 2015 - after operations are due to cease - is contemptible.
 

Shame on David Cameron and Defence Secretary Liam Fox who repeatedly challenged Labour when it was in power to produce the extra helicopters.
 
Axing troops, freezing pay, scuttling our only aircraft carrier and now ditching Chinooks prove the Government has launched a devastating attack to destroy Britain's military


Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/voiceofthemirror/2011/08/23/chinook-deployment-delat-is-contemptible-115875-23365842/#ixzz1W3QxLxUs
 Go Camping for 95p! Vouchers collectable in the Daily and Sunday Mirror until 11th August . Click here for more information

The Mirror is not my preferred source but was quick to hand as I head out the door.

To be fair to Cameron Labour's actual promise was on a par with 2 per man per week perhaps.  The promise was for 12 immediately (which I don't believe they actually got around to ordering) and up to 10 at some indefinite point on the horizon.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: milnews.ca on August 26, 2011, 21:48:10
Meanwhile, back here....
Quote
Four Chinook helicopters flown by the Canadian military in the deserts of southern Afghanistan soon will be headed to another desert — in Arizona.

Unable to sell the aging aircraft, the federal government has decided to ship the Chinooks to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group, a U.S. air force installation known as "The Boneyard."

The helicopters will be stored at the open-air facility outside Tucson until the government can find a buyer, said Tracy Poirier, a spokeswoman for the Defence Department.

The department, however, declined to provide a cost estimate for the storage, saying it is prohibited from revealing the details of contracts made with a foreign governments.

"This was the most economical option available to us," Poirier said. "This facility is the biggest of its kind in North America and very specialized at storing and reinstating old aircraft." ....
Postmedia News, 26 Aug 11 (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Canadian+Chinooks+Boneyard+bound/5314852/story.html)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: newfin on August 28, 2011, 11:04:18
The article says "four" aircraft.  I thought they had five altogether.  Six were originally purchased and one was destroyed by fire after being shot at.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on August 28, 2011, 15:42:39
147202 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=77906) was shot down 5 Aug 2010, 147205 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=122420) rolled over in brownout conditions on 16 May 2011.

147202 was destroyed in the post-crash fire.  147205 was damaged beyond economical repair in the accident and may be partially salvageable.

147201, 203, 204 and 206 are the four aircraft to which the articles refer.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Ditch on August 28, 2011, 18:20:09
Which tail had the droop stop issue?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on August 28, 2011, 20:48:57
Which tail had the droop stop issue?

204
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on August 30, 2011, 15:42:03
OK .... first time I have seen this done!  8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BTBrJb3P9o&feature=fvwrel
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Scoobs on August 31, 2011, 21:37:44
205 will not be used for any more flying, i.e. ops.  The parts of it that are remaining will be used for training aids.  It is policy that once an a/c is in a crash and it is non-repairable, no parts that were on the a/c can be used for operational needs.  The exception is that if a part is really needed (such as if there are no more out there), then the part would have to be sent to R&O (repair and overhaul) for re-certification.  Sometimes this can be much more expensive than just buying a new part.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HeavyHooker on September 20, 2011, 14:51:30
Newest word (aka rumour as I am getting this info second hand):

First two birds will be off the line in 2012.  A large crew (approx 100 troops) will be flight testing them in Arizona (I have no idea where Arizona came from but this is what I have heard) to include pilots, FEs and LMs.  Apparently a list already exists somewhere deep in the bowels of Kingston...

Still no word that I have heard on names for the new MHLH Sqn or when they will be announced but last official word was before the boards sit this fall so should be soon I would think.

Any other juicy gossip out there?

HH
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Scoobs on September 20, 2011, 23:20:27
HH,

there is truth to some rumours.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HeavyHooker on September 21, 2011, 03:00:45
And correction to my last:

It was actually fourth hand rumours.  I learned this little nugget today.  I wouldn't have posted had I known it was that unreliable but it looks like sometimes the telephone game gets some tidbits correct though eh?   :nod:

HH
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on September 21, 2011, 08:24:46
147701 will start flight test next summer, but the other machines won't go into production until substantive design elements have been confirmed through the combined flight test program.  That's all part of the plan.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HeavyHooker on September 21, 2011, 16:21:11
So will the crews be headed to the US this winter or spring then to do the Foxtrot model conversion?  Any idea when the names of this mystery list will be announced?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on September 21, 2011, 16:26:30
The only "crews" identified at the moment are the CF members of the combined flight test team. 

Public announcements indicate that the MHLH Squadron will be stood up Summer 2012 and that the first production airframe will arrive in location in Summer 2013.  The initial cadre training program has not been announced, yet.


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Scoobs on September 21, 2011, 21:41:25
Good2Golf,

not sure where you are getting your info.  x2 helos will be used for flight testing.  You are correct about the timelines.  First helo to be delivered to the Sqn will be number 3, dates as per your post.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on September 21, 2011, 22:56:13
Good2Golf,

not sure where you are getting your info.  x2 helos will be used for flight testing.  You are correct about the timelines.  First helo to be delivered to the Sqn will be number 3, dates as per your post.

I hadn't heard the contract was amended.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Haletown on October 26, 2011, 12:27:46

and finally . . .  druuuuuuuuuuuuum roll please . .  . the first of our 16 new aircraft makes it onto the production line.

http://tinyurl.com/65qxzk4

"Oct 21/11: Associate Minister of National Defence Julain Fantino is present in Ridley Park, PA to officially launch final assembly of the 1st CH-147F. The project is described as on-schedule and within budget (but see Oct 28/10 entry).

The first CH-147F is set to come off the assembly line for tests and evaluation flights in June 2012. In June 2013, the new squadron at CFB Petawawa is scheduled to receive the first deliveries"




Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Hamish Seggie on October 27, 2011, 00:48:58
Can anyone tell me what 3 Chinooks were doing flying over my house in Winnipeg yesterday? Damn I love that sound......

I live near 17 Wing. I do beleive they had to be US Army.....
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: rnkelly on October 27, 2011, 01:26:34
 Pennsylvania Army National Guard new F models.  They're just heading home after participating in Ex Maple Resolve in Wainwright.
Title: CH47 Chinook
Post by: greydak on January 06, 2012, 22:59:57
When would the techs stat being posted to Pet, before the choppers arrive?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on January 07, 2012, 01:55:44
When would the techs stat being posted to Pet, before the choppers arrive?

Highly likely.


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HeavyHooker on January 07, 2012, 14:20:20
No word on any posting messages as of yet.  I do know that it is on the table to be discussed at the FE STA conference this upcoming week however.  Hopefully the CMs have some news.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on January 07, 2012, 19:46:30
A few posting messages are already out for particular cases.


Regards
G2G
Title: Some maintainers selected
Post by: milnews.ca on January 31, 2012, 07:58:22
Quote
Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. companies have been picked by Boeing to provide in-service support for 15 Boeing CH-47 helicopters used by the Canadian military.

"Boeing is working with companies across Canada to ensure the right infrastructure is in place to support the Canadian Forces' CH-147F (the Canadian designation for the helicopters) fleet," said Jim O'Neill, vice president and general manager, Boeing Integrated Logistics.

"We will support the operational readiness of these Chinooks while managing overall life-cycle cost and providing long-term opportunities for the Canadian aerospace industry and workforce."

The companies chosen for the first of three work packages were L-3 Communications MAS, which will supply technical publications; Raytheon Canada Limited, which will provide supply chain support; and L-3 Electronic Systems, which will provide logistics support analysis.

Boeing said it will begin delivering the helicopters next year. They are being built at a company facility in Pennsylvania ....
UPI, 31 Jan 12 (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/01/31/Boeing-awards-Chinook-service-support-work/UPI-83501328008302/)

Boeing news release attached.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Scoobs on March 27, 2012, 01:10:06
I've sat back and watched two recent stories state clear falsehoods about the Chinook program.  Below is a story from Matthew Fisher.  Matthew is a highly educated journalist in regards to military matters, which frankly, is rare in Canada.  I know this from personally speaking with Matthew while deployed to KAF.  The link to the story is below:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/mobile/iphone/news/top-stories/SOMNIA/6360700/story.html

Unfortunately, what Matthew states about the Chinook program is wrong as he is, unfortunately, perpetuating myths about the Chinook.  The costs have not doubled.  The a/c is not behind schedule to be delivered.  The a/c was never to be a "re-build of used Army airframes".  The problem is that the old Auditor General (AG) confused the Maritime Helicopter Program (MHP) with the Chinook and thus very wrongly stated that the Chinook program is "3 years behind schedule".  The program is on schedule for delivery of the first a/c in June 2013.

Costs.  The same old AG assumed that the costs had doubled when in fact she once again became confused.  She combined the cost for acquiring the a/c AND the cost of supporting the a/c.  Thus, it appeared that the cost had doubled, when in fact, these costs were always clearly stated.  Too bad the AG and most journalists can't read.

Re-build of old US Army airframes?  Not sure where this one came from, but in general, the CF do NOT buy re-builds of old airframes.  The D model Chinook was bought (x4) as a stop gap measure to immediately support our troops in KAF.  The intention was to ALWAYS to buy new F model Chinooks.

To any journalists reading this post, check your facts, and stop passing on this incorrect info about the Chinook.  The AG screwed up and no one (it seems) ever corrected her. 

Overall, Matthew's story is well balanced and it clearly points out the silliness surrounding purchasing any major equipment in the CF, but I just had to correct these mistakes.  I feel better now, had to get that off my chest.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: aesop081 on March 27, 2012, 05:35:40
Re-build of old US Army airframes?  Not sure where this one came from,

The AG might have gotten that impression from the US Army where the CH-47F contract consisted of both new-built 47F and re-manufactured D-models upgraded to F.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on March 27, 2012, 10:27:46
The AG in her report (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#hd4b) was quite correct that the project deliveries will have been delayed three years from the original intended timeline; a trickle-down effect of the contract with Boeing being signed three years later (2009 vice 2006) than originally foreseen.

(see timelines here (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#ex5))

The original timelines of the MHLH project advance contract award notice (ACAN) in early 2006 stated a 2010 delivery of the first aircraft, based on a delivery 36 months after contract award originally anticipated to be signed in mid 2007.  The contract was actually signed in July of 2009.  The first aircraft will be delivered this summer, still 36 months after contract award.  The aircraft (and a sister ship) will immediately enter a year-long flight test program, and the first operational, Canadianized aircraft will be delivered in the summer of 2013, per the AG's timeline noted above. 

The AG's report contains no mention of D-model rebuilds delaying the program, this is an inaccuracy reported by Mr. Fisher.  Ms. Fraser and her staff were quite aware of the differences between the interim six D-model Chinooks being procured based on the Manley Report recommendations, and of the long-term new-build aircraft based on the F-model Chinook of the MHLH project.

Mr. Fisher fell prey, as did many other reporters, to a hasty analysis of various planning estimates that could lead the uninitiated (or those who might deliberately want to add drama with comparatives) to the incorrect conclusion that acquisition costs more than doubled.  This is not accurate since the 2006 figure in Treasury Board documents included ONLY the capital acquisition costs.  The 2006 estimate for capital acquisition costs was $2.022B.  The 2009 budgeted and contracted amount was $2.313B, a 14% increase.  These amounts are clearly presented in the AG's report at Exhibit 6.6 - Estimated costs for MHLH presented in Treasury Board submissions (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#ex6). (figures below are copied from Exhibit 6.6)


                                                        Preliminary Project Approval    Effective Project Approval
                                                                     June 2006                       November 2009
(In millions of Canadian dollars)*

Capital costs   

Medium- to heavy-lift helicopters                           1,025                             1,245
Initial set-up (engineering, spares, training)              457                                496
Project management                                                  48                                122
Contingency and escalation/inflation                         430                                 232
Infrastructure                                                           62                                 218
Total capital costs                                                 2,022                              2,313

Personnel, operating, and maintenance costs   
Contracted in-service support                              not included                     2,573
National Defence personnel                                 not included                not included
National Defence operating costs                         not included                not included
Total personnel, operating, and maintenance costs     —                             2,573

Total costs                                                                  2,022                     4,886   ( <-the source of the 'more than doubled' phrase)
* Figures have been rounded.
Source: Key approval documents—unaudited figures


In 2006, the specific contracted in-service support costs had not been formalized yet, and could not be presented, as those costings were still being developed by the project team and Boeing.

Could a reporter say "the costs more than doubled" in an apples to oranges comparison?  Yes, they could (and did).   But if they were to do so, one would expect a professional also to note to the reader that the earlier costs did not include the maintenance costs to maintain the Chinooks for 20 years.  To my knowledge, not a single reporter has done so.


What is often missed (ignored?) by many is that DND was up front with its cost estimates from the very beginning, estimating a total project cost that was in fact $2B higher than the eventual Cabinet-authorized budget.  Ms. Fraser and her team identified it in the report's paragraph 6.67:

Quote
6.67 Early in the project, National Defence recognized in principle the elements needed, in addition to the helicopters, to provide full operating capability, such as personnel, training, infrastructure, operations, and long-term in-service support. In seeking Cabinet approval in principle for the acquisition in June 2006, National Defence had estimated the total long-term project costs to be $6.9 billion.

The thing is, the media doesn't like to report "DND TO DELIVER HELICOPTERS FOR 2 BILLION LESS THAN THEY ASKED FOR."


Now, to be totally accurate with an analysis of the total project costing, one can't say that DND saved $2 billion -- one must also ask themselves what DND's Personnel and Operating costs would be during the in-service period of the Chinook - remember, they were also 'not included' in the original 'preliminary project approval' document.  DND has lots of room for its operating costs to end up being lower than its original estimates -- $2 billion (the difference between the $6.9B estimate and the $4.9B acquisition and maintenance costs) over 20 years is $100 million annually for salaries and fuel for the Chinook fleet. 

Rough order-of-magnitude costing would look at say, 500 personnel directly or indirectly involved in Chinook operations.  I don't know how much a DND average per person cost is, but let's use a conservative average of $100,000 to include salary, pension, administration, HR cots, etc... so that's 500 x $100,000 = $50 million annually for the "P" of P, O & M.  Now how about the Operations?  Let's say the fleet will fly a per aircraft yearly flying rate (YFR) similar to the Griffons.  Prorated for the 15 Chinooks, that would be between 5000 and 7000 hours annually.  Let's be conservative, and take the larger number, so 7000 hours flown, multiplied by 1,400 L/hr burned by a Chinook, multiplied by a conservative $1.50/L for kerosene = $14,700,000 annually.  So...we add $50 million for people and $14.7 million for direct operating costs, add on say $5 million a year to run the squadron facility...that puts us at $69.7 million annually, compared to DND's original estimate of $100 million annually for P&O costs. 

Thus, over 20 years, it's reasonable to estimate that the pers and operating costs would be 20 x 69.7M = $1.394 billion.

Add that figure to the $4.886 billion figure for capital acquisition and in-service support costs and we have:

$4.886B + $1.394B = $6.280B

So, in 2005, DND estimated the Chinook would cost $6.9B over a 20-year service life.  Using approved budgets and some rough estimation, it is entirely reasonable that DND would actually spend $6.3B.  That actually looks like a projected savings over the Chinooks's service life of $600 million from the original estimate...or $30 million / year underspent.

My  :2c:


Regards
G2G

 


 
Title: Update from the Boeing Info-machine
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2012, 16:29:20
Quote
The new Boeing CH-147F Medium-to-Heavy-Lift Helicopter for Canada is progressing ahead of schedule after making its first flight on June 24.

"Boeing and the Canadian Department of National Defence are focused on delivering the next generation of advanced vertical-lift aircraft to meet the needs of the Canadian military today and well into the future," said Leanne Caret, Boeing Vertical Lift vice president and H-47 Programs manager.

The inaugural flight lasted more than 80 minutes and confirmed the initial airworthiness of the aircraft, including its new electrical system and advanced Common Avionics Architecture System cockpit, which reduces pilot workload. After the Chinook's third flight on June 25, Boeing also completed the Limited Acceptance Test Procedure to validate aircraft performance and systems. The aircraft will continue to progress through ground and flight test activities in the coming months and soon will be joined by the second CH-147F, which is scheduled to roll off the production line later this month.

The Canadian H-47 Chinook, designated CH-147F by the Canadian Forces, provides advanced features that include a newly designed, modernized airframe with a long-range fuel system, upgraded electrical system, and enhanced fully integrated Common Avionics Architecture System cockpit and Digital Automatic Flight Control System. The aircraft also has improved survivability features, including a Directional Infrared Countermeasures system, internal ballistic protection, and crashworthy, armored pilot and co-pilot seats.

The Canadian government awarded Boeing a contract for 15 Medium-to-Heavy-Lift Helicopters and in-service support in June 2009. Aircraft deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2013 ....
Boeing news release, 11 Jul 12 (http://bit.ly/NoAcnt)

Company photo attached

- mod edit to correct link -
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on July 11, 2012, 18:57:45
I can see the RCAF aircrew in their new Chinook mooning the Seaking  aircrews when they fly past them.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 12, 2012, 01:38:59
She's a beauty!  ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: NavyShooter on July 12, 2012, 21:49:11
Sweet...a procurement process that's actually working! 

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on August 14, 2012, 14:04:27
Now, once they are all purchased an pilots trained will they be able to do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 19, 2012, 09:59:42
Nice, Kirkhill.

But I think the Army will want them only when these little buzzers can start to deliver M777 Howitzers to them in the field.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on October 12, 2012, 16:38:42
Some great articles on the past, present and future of Army/RCAF Air in the current edition of the "Air Force" magazine.  Vol.36/NO.2.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: milnews.ca on November 28, 2012, 17:46:34
Bump with an update ....
Quote
.... Chronology of Events

Current status:  On schedule

(....)

•September 24, 2012: A second Canadian Chinook F-model helicopter began the Test and Evaluation phase of the program and completed its first test flight.

Current Status

•This project is currently on budget and on schedule.
•Two Chinook F-model helicopters will continue with the Test and Evaluation phase of the program over the next year with a combined crew of Boeing and CF test pilots

Next Steps

•Following the conclusion of a year-long flight test program led by Boeing, the first F-model Chinook is scheduled to arrive on schedule at a new facility located at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ontario, in June 2013.
•Aircraft will be delivered at a rate of approximately one aircraft per month, with all aircraft being delivered over a 12-month period. The helicopters are expected to reach Initial Operational Capability, as planned, in 2014.
•A contract amendment to provide 20 years of in-service support for the helicopters is currently being developed with the Boeing Company. The negotiations are expected to conclude in May 2013.  A contract amendment to provide 20 years of in-service support for the helicopters is currently being developed with the Boeing Company. The negotiations are expected to conclude in May 2013.
•Boeing will also provide Industrial and Regional Benefits equal to the value of the 20 year in-service support amendment.  In addition, Boeing will be required to provide Direct Industrial and Regional Benefits work equal to 75 per cent of the value of the in-service support amendment, which is subject to the Government’s Global Value Chain policy enhancement.  More information on the Global Value Chain policy enhancement can be found at Industry Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefits website at www.ic.gc.ca/irb (http://www.ic.gc.ca/irb) ....


Rest of the latest Fact Sheet attached if this link (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4529) doesn't work for you.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: milnews.ca on February 05, 2013, 21:54:25
Latest Fact Sheet from the Info-machine (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4529) (scan also attached if link doesn't work).....
Quote
.... Next Steps
  • Following the conclusion of a year-long flight test program led by Boeing, the first F-model Chinook is scheduled to arrive on schedule at a new facility located at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ontario, in June 2013.
  • Aircraft will be delivered at a rate of approximately one aircraft per month, with all aircraft being delivered over a 12-month period. The helicopters are expected to reach Initial Operational Capability, as planned, in 2014.
  • A contract amendment to provide 20 years of in-service support for the helicopters is currently being developed with the Boeing Company. The negotiations are expected to conclude in May 2013.  A contract amendment to provide 20 years of in-service support for the helicopters is currently being developed with the Boeing Company. The negotiations are expected to conclude in May 2013.
  • Boeing will also provide Industrial and Regional Benefits equal to the value of the 20 year in-service support amendment.  In addition, Boeing will be required to provide Direct Industrial and Regional Benefits work equal to 75 per cent of the value of the in-service support amendment, which is subject to the Government’s Global Value Chain policy enhancement.  More information on the Global Value Chain policy enhancement can be found at Industry Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefits website at www.ic.gc.ca/irb (http://www.ic.gc.ca/irb)
   
( .... )
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Fraz on June 25, 2013, 17:03:06
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/media-advisory-delivery-of-canadas-first-ch-147f-chinook-helicopter-1805719.htm
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 25, 2013, 20:43:58
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/media-advisory-delivery-of-canadas-first-ch-147f-chinook-helicopter-1805719.htm

We should have never let the original ones go.....
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on June 27, 2013, 10:10:16
Canadian Skies contributing editor Ken Pole was on the scene when the first of 15 new Boeing CH-147F Chinooks arrived in Ottawa just a short while ago. Here, a groundcrew member gives the shiny new Chinook a thumbs up as it is rolled into the hangar minutes after arriving. The helicopter was flown to Canada by a Boeing crew, and will officially be handed over to the Royal Canadian Air Force on June 27, after which it will be flown to its home at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ont. Ken Pole Photo

  ;D ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on June 27, 2013, 11:58:34
How to run a procurement program.......Funny things seem to work when the Liberals have not been involved.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 27, 2013, 13:14:21
How to run a procurement program.......Funny things seem to work when the Liberals have not been involved.


I'm sorry, you cannot blame it all on the Liberals.

Things began to get difficult around 1960 ~ the costs of modern, sophisticated military equipment (ships, weapons and electronics, armoured vehicles and, especially, aircraft) rose at rates which were far, far in excess of either a) the general rate of inflation or b) the rates at which government revenues increased. Both the Diefenbaker and Pearson governments wrestled with the problem; Mr. Hellyer's unification/integration experiment was just one attempt at finding ways to get "more bang for the buck." M. Trudeau addressed the issue quite simply: he slashed and burned. Mr Mulroney expressed sympathy and support but he was unable to find more, new money for defence and he was disinclined to cut other programmes to fund the military. M. Chrétien didn't like the military any more than M. Trudeau had but events forced his hand. Mr Haprer may like the military but he, like Mr Mulroney faces a bare fiscal cupboard.

One area where all PMs, all the way back to St Laurent, have tried to get more value is in procurement. First, in the 1950s (St Laurent) it involved building ships (the St Laurent class) and aircraft (CF-86 Sabres and CF-100 Canucks) in Canada then, in the 1960s (Diefenbaker and Pearson) it was shared, multi-national programmes, and then 1970s (Trudeau) it was industrial benefits or offsets. In the 1980s (Trudeau and Mulroney) it was fudged requirements and delayed deliveries to "lowball" budgets and stretch payments over longer and longer times. Neither M. Chrétien nor Mr Harper have tackled the inherent dishonesty and waste in the Trudeau/Mulroney approach. Why not? Because it "works" from a purely political perspective ~ new military hardware is announced, over and over and over again, but few dollars are ever spent.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on June 27, 2013, 13:24:08
I was thinking about the last Liberal era. Ok lets look at who had the most successful procurement programs record?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Robert0288 on June 27, 2013, 13:28:29
CTV news clip: "http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.1343982"
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 27, 2013, 14:13:31
I was thinking about the last Liberal era. Ok lets look at who had the most successful procurement programs record?


Our "golden age" was a mix of St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson; Canada built a modern, for its day, Navy, Army and Air Force from about 1950 through 1970. The plans were all made in M. St Laurent's time but the projects - ships, army systems and aircraft - stretched through both the Diefenbaker and Pearson governments. I would call the CP-140 progamme, which was a Trudeau era programme, the very tail end of the "rebuild" because it replaced that last major World War II system - Lancasters flying ASW missions.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: je suis prest on June 27, 2013, 14:23:46
Actually I believe the CP-140 replaced the Argus and Neptune, not the Lancaster - although there were Lancs in service until the early sixties.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 27, 2013, 14:40:12
The Aurora's only replaced the Argus. It was to replace the Argus and the Trackers, but those last ones survived by being switched from ASW to ASUW sovereignty and surveillance patrol, often in support of pollution control and fisheries patrols.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on June 27, 2013, 14:49:44
Actually I believe the CP-140 replaced the Argus and Neptune, not the Lancaster - although there were Lancs in service until the early sixties.

You are correct. The Lancasters were used to gather photographic data to map the north. In 1963 the Army ran a two brigade exercise in Gagetown as part of its anti-tank study. The scheme wasn't very long, but it was intense, hence its name - TRIBULATION. I was on it and remember getting my butt reamed by the CO for being unshaven at 1000 hrs after having done five or six battery moves between first light and when he caught me. Ayway, at designated points the controllers would order "Stand Fast" and everyone would freeze. We did not really freeze, we dropped in our tracks and everyone excepted radio sentries, etc slept. Anyway, then a Lancaster would appear, heralded by the magnificent drone of its four Merlins, and photograph the exercise area for later use by the operstional research folks. As far as I know that was almost the last appearance of the Lancaster.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 27, 2013, 14:53:26
Actually I believe the CP-140 replaced the Argus and Neptune, not the Lancaster - although there were Lancs in service until the early sixties.


Yes, you're quite right. So it was the army's major tracked vehicle projects M113, M109 etc, purchased in the 1960s, that completed the post war transformation of the CF.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 27, 2013, 14:56:52
Actually my bad in part here.

I just checked again and it appears that 404 Squadron in Greenwood flew the last Neptune's for training until they were replaced directly by the Auroras and Arcturus. Only 405 and 407 Squadrons, replaced all their Neptune's with Argus' first and then their Argus with Auroras and Arcturus.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HB_Pencil on June 27, 2013, 15:23:30
How to run a procurement program.......Funny things seem to work when the Liberals have not been involved.

I wouldn't consider the Chinook model acquisition. First, there was little in the way of operational analysis or detailed requirement to purchase a heavy lift helicopter. Its a Hillier driven purchase, and it shows.  There were other options available that might have suited our needs better... we could have gone to Merlin for example. Instead we're going to shoulder operating a small fleet without any pressing requirement for them... its somewhat reminiscent of the situation when we got rid of them the first time.

Then we took a relatively inexpensive off the shelf purchase and gold plated it in order to make it useful. This meant adding additional fuel tanks instead of an internal fuel bladder commonly used in Afghanistan. That decision basically increased the unit cost by 50~70%.




Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: George Wallace on June 27, 2013, 15:47:53
I wouldn't consider the Chinook model acquisition. First, there was little in the way of operational analysis or detailed requirement to purchase a heavy lift helicopter. Its a Hillier driven purchase, and it shows.  There were other options available that might have suited our needs better... we could have gone to Merlin for example. Instead we're going to shoulder operating a small fleet without any pressing requirement for them... its somewhat reminiscent of the situation when we got rid of them the first time.

Was there any other aircraft avail that could meet the requirements?  Were there any other aircraft avail that could meet the requirements and have crews and technicians trained up in a timely manner?   Was there another aircraft that had a reliable supply chain for spare and replacement parts?   Was there another aircraft avail that could be fitted with the sensitive equip that our neighbour to the South is kind enough to let us access, but no others?

You made the comment; "Somewhat reminiscent of the situation when we got rid of them", which luckily for us, still left us with some qualified crew and technicians still in the CF and capable to fly and maintain them. 

 
Then we took a relatively inexpensive off the shelf purchase and gold plated it in order to make it useful. This meant adding additional fuel tanks instead of an internal fuel bladder commonly used in Afghanistan. That decision basically increased the unit cost by 50~70%.

Do we want an inflight refueller or a troop/cargo lift aircraft?  Seems to me that additional external tanks allows us to operate our aircraft over longer distances ( so often seen in CANADA ) and carry a full compliment of troops or cargo without having to be retrofitted for every mission. 

By the way; do I smell a "hate on for Hillier" in your comments above and a sense that he was not acting in the best interest of our troops in Afghanistan?  Afghanistan called for some fast and furious decision making.  The Chinook was one of them.  I suppose now, you would like to damn the decision to purchase Leopard 2 tanks as well.   ::)
What other "Hillier decisions" do you want to condemn?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 27, 2013, 17:05:58
George....General Rick advocated getting rid of tanks. His choice was the MGS to have Bdes more in line with US Stryker BCTs.

The tanks made it to us in Afg because we had no large DFS. It was determined by the Gen Walt and the Army Comd that there was still very much a place for MBTs in the force , besides. I liked seeing them blow up bad guys.

HB: The EH-101 is not a heavy lift helo: Canada specifiacally requires that capacity as stated.

The original fleet of CH-147Cs were 9 spread over 3 Sqns across the country. We will now have 18 all centeredi in one Sqn, therefore eliminating a split supply chain.

Why do you think there is no requirement for them? Clearly you have no knowledge of how they can be employed.

The Cormorant fleet is less than the Chinook fleet and they are spread all over the country...supply chain split.

The CH-147F is not gold plated. It is actually the same version used by the US Army SOF community but without the in flight refuelling probe.

Do a little research HB, otherwise you come off looking quite ridiculous.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on June 27, 2013, 17:31:22
I suspect that the need for the Chinooks (and C-17's, C130J) will find us because we have them. Future missions, UN or otherwise are going to happen because we have 3 capable fleets of new aircraft with significant capability.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 27, 2013, 18:16:44
I wouldn't consider the Chinook model acquisition. First, there was little in the way of operational analysis or detailed requirement to purchase a heavy lift helicopter. Its a Hillier driven purchase, and it shows.  There were other options available that might have suited our needs better... we could have gone to Merlin for example. Instead we're going to shoulder operating a small fleet without any pressing requirement for them... its somewhat reminiscent of the situation when we got rid of them the first time.

Then we took a relatively inexpensive off the shelf purchase and gold plated it in order to make it useful. This meant adding additional fuel tanks instead of an internal fuel bladder commonly used in Afghanistan. That decision basically increased the unit cost by 50~70%.
I flew  in some of our original Chinooks. They were a capable proven platform, that could do a number of things. Also consider
the fact that during th Falklands war one Chinook set a recorde for tonnage hauled by a helicopter in 24 hours.

I'd say the Chinook was a wise choice.

But I am infantry....so what do I know?

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on June 27, 2013, 18:18:50
Actually my bad in part here.

I just checked again and it appears that 404 Squadron in Greenwood flew the last Neptune's for training until they were replaced directly by the Auroras and Arcturus. Only 405 and 407 Squadrons, replaced all their Neptune's with Argus' first and then their Argus with Auroras and Arcturus.

Neptune 24120 of the RCAF's Maritime Air Command served from 30 March, 1955 until the entirety of the 25 Aircraft fleet was struck off strength on 31 July, 1968. Neptunes initially equipped 404 and 405 Maritime Patrol Squadrons operating out of RCAF Station Greenwood, Nova Scotia and the Maitime Proving and Evaluation Unit also out of Greenwood and later out of RCAF Station Summerside, P.E.I. Once the Canadair Argus started becoming available for squadron use, the Neptunes were sent to equip 407 Maritime Patrol Squadron on the west coast while the Argus was being used to equip the east coast squadrons. Eventually this process of upgrading led to 407 Squadron also being equipped with the new Argus and the RCAF retiring their Neptune fleet altogether.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/neptune-eng.asp
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on June 27, 2013, 18:25:34
George....General Rick advocated getting rid of tanks. His choice was the MGS to have Bdes more in line with US Stryker BCTs.

I believe that the government-approved choice was them or nothing. I doubt that they would have been his first choice otherwise.


The original fleet of CH-147Cs were 9 spread over 3 Sqns across the country. We will now have 18 all centeredi in one Sqn, therefore eliminating a split supply chain.

We never had nine. The original purchase was eight. The first crashed en route from the factory, and all on board were killed.

Another burned with the loss of three lives and serious injuries to the three survivors when its rear rotor blades struck a wooden light pole while it was taxiing towards a fuel point up north many years ago.

They were located in two places, Ottawa and Edmonton, and originally with one Squadron (450 Squadron). 450 Squadron's western det subsequently became 447 Squadron. There was never a third Chinook Squadron in the CF.

We will now have 18 all centeredi in one Sqn,

Fifteen.

Why do you think there is no requirement for them?

By earlier and more realistic doctrine, there was a continual need at Brigade level for light helicopters for reconnaissance and fire direction and an occasional requirement for utility and attack. There was a continual requirement for utility and attack at Div level, and an occasional requirement for medium transport (Chinook). The continual requirement for medium transport came in at Corps level.

So.....

This is largely an Afghanistanism as far as I am concerned. Their usefulness in a more traditional peer-versus-peer conflict would be much reduced.

However, given the size of this Country and many of the things that we do, there is a need for these things regardless.

We will once again write doctrine to suit our equipment rather than buy equipment to suit our doctrine.

And there will be plans made to fight the next war like the last one.

Do a little research HB, otherwise you come off looking quite ridiculous.

Ummmmmmmm..........
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HB_Pencil on June 27, 2013, 19:12:11
Was there any other aircraft avail that could meet the requirements?

There was consideration given within the DND on alternatives, because this was a costly purchase and there were alternatives available. The  requirements were basically set to be only heavy lift (CH-47) at Hillier's request. That killed any possibility of looking at alternative force structures.

Were there any other aircraft avail that could meet the requirements and have crews and technicians trained up in a timely manner? Was there another aircraft that had a reliable supply chain for spare and replacement parts?

Merlin is a AW-101 derivative, which we already operate in the Comorant. So it would have been easier to get technicians for that helicopter than for a type we didn't operate anymore. And the supplier relationship already exists. The other option was to go with the H-92, which was less capable of the two.

Do we want an inflight refueller or a troop/cargo lift aircraft?  Seems to me that additional external tanks allows us to operate our aircraft over longer distances ( so often seen in CANADA ) and carry a full compliment of troops or cargo without having to be retrofitted for every mission. 

I completely agree that having those bells and whistles are useful, but when you're paying nearly double the basic model flyaway cost, there must be grounds to question the utility it provides at that cost.... especially when there is an alternative that can provide some or most of the capability required at a lower costs.

By the way; do I smell a "hate on for Hillier" in your comments above and a sense that he was not acting in the best interest of our troops in Afghanistan?  Afghanistan called for some fast and furious decision making.  The Chinook was one of them.  I suppose now, you would like to damn the decision to purchase Leopard 2 tanks as well.   ::)
What other "Hillier decisions" do you want to condemn?

I don't have a hate on for Hillier in the least... Hiller did what he had to do in his situation. Absolutely he got critical equipment into the field in a timely manner and I commend him for that. He was also instrumental in improving the forces However that doesn't mean I have to love or agree with every one of his decisions. His get things done approach works well in some circumstances, but not others where careful analysis and consideration could have yielded better results.

Want an alternate scenario? Lets consider going with the Merlin. We get a helicopter with 50~60% of the capacity, but at about half of the upfront cost. So  we're less capable in the field with smaller medium lift helicopters, but we double our operational fleet size and standardize around one common airframe with all the advantages that go with it. And they were seen as being significant.

Is that realistic? I don't know because the analysis was never fully considered. And that's what I'm interested in for case. Saying it must be a heavy lift helicopter of X type and no other basically locked us into a choice we're now paying for and will have to sustain on a potentially shrinking budget.

Why is considering this important? During the 1990s we saw our combat capability get gutted due to budget cutbacks, just like with the US Army right now. If we go through additional cutbacks, this capability will be a big target because of its high operational costs. I completely understand the operational need for it... and I agree the Chinook is a phenomenal capability. However if Canada goes through another round of defence cutbacks in the future, this will be one of the capabilities that will be considered. Had it been put on a more affordable basis its risk would be significantly less.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on June 27, 2013, 19:18:36
Given the challenges in identifying PY offsets for the relatively small squadron in Petawawa, I doubt there would have been the appetite to find sufficient positions to support a larger fleet - what would the CAF stop doing to fly even more helicopters?

There's already a huge delta between PY demand and PY availability in the medium term; buying more medium helicopters would have worsened that gap.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Ditch on June 27, 2013, 19:25:54
Given the challenges in identifying PY offsets for the relatively small squadron in Petawawa
(Emphasis mine)
15 tails is by no means small.  I would wager that 450 Sqn would top out one of the larger RCAF squadrons in current existence.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on June 27, 2013, 20:44:11
(Emphasis mine)
15 tails is by no means small.  I would wager that 450 Sqn would top out one of the larger RCAF squadrons in current existence.

Small in PY demand, not number of tails.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 28, 2013, 11:14:27
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXNO7vqp.jpg&hash=06ed165373dbc358429cfa07ac53f7e2)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUtfEBdo.jpg&hash=8a5d346785b1fd0577937146700e470f)
Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay (R) shakes hands with a pilot from the Royal Canadian Air Force during the unveiling of new CH-147F Chinook helicopters in Ottawa June 27, 2013.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3anqfu7.jpg&hash=1eeddb2ec798940be92684b6cbaa5f3a)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 28, 2013, 11:32:14
There was consideration given within the DND on alternatives, because this was a costly purchase and there were alternatives available. The  requirements were basically set to be only heavy lift (CH-47) at Hillier's request. That killed any possibility of looking at alternative force structures.

Merlin is a AW-101 derivative, which we already operate in the Comorant. So it would have been easier to get technicians for that helicopter than for a type we didn't operate anymore. And the supplier relationship already exists. The other option was to go with the H-92, which was less capable of the two.

I completely agree that having those bells and whistles are useful, but when you're paying nearly double the basic model flyaway cost, there must be grounds to question the utility it provides at that cost.... especially when there is an alternative that can provide some or most of the capability required at a lower costs.

I don't have a hate on for Hillier in the least... Hiller did what he had to do in his situation. Absolutely he got critical equipment into the field in a timely manner and I commend him for that. He was also instrumental in improving the forces However that doesn't mean I have to love or agree with every one of his decisions. His get things done approach works well in some circumstances, but not others where careful analysis and consideration could have yielded better results.

Want an alternate scenario? Lets consider going with the Merlin. We get a helicopter with 50~60% of the capacity, but at about half of the upfront cost. So  we're less capable in the field with smaller medium lift helicopters, but we double our operational fleet size and standardize around one common airframe with all the advantages that go with it. And they were seen as being significant.

Is that realistic? I don't know because the analysis was never fully considered. And that's what I'm interested in for case. Saying it must be a heavy lift helicopter of X type and no other basically locked us into a choice we're now paying for and will have to sustain on a potentially shrinking budget.

Why is considering this important? During the 1990s we saw our combat capability get gutted due to budget cutbacks, just like with the US Army right now. If we go through additional cutbacks, this capability will be a big target because of its high operational costs. I completely understand the operational need for it... and I agree the Chinook is a phenomenal capability. However if Canada goes through another round of defence cutbacks in the future, this will be one of the capabilities that will be considered. Had it been put on a more affordable basis its risk would be significantly less.


It's all "what if" now HB.
We're getting them now and I'm sure they'll follow the tradition of most RCAF aircraft of being in very high demand most of the time. The clerks at 450 Sqn are going to be processing a lot of TS claims...:)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: captloadie on June 28, 2013, 11:46:35
They might want to change the caption on the second picture. I don't know of any current RCAF pilots who wear green berets.

I wonder if the bedazzle look will come back into style, with the rivet job on the CH-47's as the driving force.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 28, 2013, 11:54:43
There was consideration given within the DND on alternatives, because this was a costly purchase and there were alternatives available. The  requirements were basically set to be only heavy lift (CH-47) at Hillier's request. That killed any possibility of looking at alternative force structures.

Merlin is a AW-101 derivative, which we already operate in the Comorant. So it would have been easier to get technicians for that helicopter than for a type we didn't operate anymore. And the supplier relationship already exists. The other option was to go with the H-92, which was less capable of the two.

I completely agree that having those bells and whistles are useful, but when you're paying nearly double the basic model flyaway cost, there must be grounds to question the utility it provides at that cost.... especially when there is an alternative that can provide some or most of the capability required at a lower costs.

I don't have a hate on for Hillier in the least... Hiller did what he had to do in his situation. Absolutely he got critical equipment into the field in a timely manner and I commend him for that. He was also instrumental in improving the forces However that doesn't mean I have to love or agree with every one of his decisions. His get things done approach works well in some circumstances, but not others where careful analysis and consideration could have yielded better results.

Want an alternate scenario? Lets consider going with the Merlin. We get a helicopter with 50~60% of the capacity, but at about half of the upfront cost. So  we're less capable in the field with smaller medium lift helicopters, but we double our operational fleet size and standardize around one common airframe with all the advantages that go with it. And they were seen as being significant.

Is that realistic? I don't know because the analysis was never fully considered. And that's what I'm interested in for case. Saying it must be a heavy lift helicopter of X type and no other basically locked us into a choice we're now paying for and will have to sustain on a potentially shrinking budget.

Why is considering this important? During the 1990s we saw our combat capability get gutted due to budget cutbacks, just like with the US Army right now. If we go through additional cutbacks, this capability will be a big target because of its high operational costs. I completely understand the operational need for it... and I agree the Chinook is a phenomenal capability. However if Canada goes through another round of defence cutbacks in the future, this will be one of the capabilities that will be considered. Had it been put on a more affordable basis its risk would be significantly less.

Could EH-101's carry our M777 155mm Howitzer's into position at altitude?  Honest question.  Not trying to bust your chops.  I didn't think they could which was one of the reasons why the Chinook was selected as it did a job that was absolutely required.


Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on June 28, 2013, 12:22:16
The caption should have read "aircrew" vice "pilots."  The MCpl with the green beret is the loadmaster and as a traffic technician who could be uniformed either as land or air uniform, he happens to wear the land DEU. 

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on June 28, 2013, 12:59:39
They might want to change the caption on the second picture. I don't know of any current RCAF pilots who wear green berets.


Was going to say the same thing.  The guy with the goofy smile is the pilot. (And also my brother from another mother, lol.)

So happy for all of those who get to play with the new helo!  I know said pilot has really been looking forward to it.  Not many people get to introduce a new fleet twice in their careers.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on June 28, 2013, 14:03:28
I would be worried if there was not crap-eating grins all around at this event!  :nod:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 29, 2013, 02:11:47
There was consideration given within the DND on alternatives, because this was a costly purchase and there were alternatives available. The  requirements were basically set to be only heavy lift (CH-47) at Hillier's request. That killed any possibility of looking at alternative force structures.

Merlin is a AW-101 derivative, which we already operate in the Comorant. So it would have been easier to get technicians for that helicopter than for a type we didn't operate anymore. And the supplier relationship already exists. The other option was to go with the H-92, which was less capable of the two.

I completely agree that having those bells and whistles are useful, but when you're paying nearly double the basic model flyaway cost, there must be grounds to question the utility it provides at that cost.... especially when there is an alternative that can provide some or most of the capability required at a lower costs.

I don't have a hate on for Hillier in the least... Hiller did what he had to do in his situation. Absolutely he got critical equipment into the field in a timely manner and I commend him for that. He was also instrumental in improving the forces However that doesn't mean I have to love or agree with every one of his decisions. His get things done approach works well in some circumstances, but not others where careful analysis and consideration could have yielded better results.

Want an alternate scenario? Lets consider going with the Merlin. We get a helicopter with 50~60% of the capacity, but at about half of the upfront cost. So  we're less capable in the field with smaller medium lift helicopters, but we double our operational fleet size and standardize around one common airframe with all the advantages that go with it. And they were seen as being significant.

Is that realistic? I don't know because the analysis was never fully considered. And that's what I'm interested in for case. Saying it must be a heavy lift helicopter of X type and no other basically locked us into a choice we're now paying for and will have to sustain on a potentially shrinking budget.

Why is considering this important? During the 1990s we saw our combat capability get gutted due to budget cutbacks, just like with the US Army right now. If we go through additional cutbacks, this capability will be a big target because of its high operational costs. I completely understand the operational need for it... and I agree the Chinook is a phenomenal capability. However if Canada goes through another round of defence cutbacks in the future, this will be one of the capabilities that will be considered. Had it been put on a more affordable basis its risk would be significantly less.

How quickly people forget that just a few years ago we were screaming for the need for heavy-lift helicopters.  You seem to forget that we were up crap creek without a paddle a couple of years ago because of our inability to re-supp our forces by ground in Afghanistan.  For a country so heavily reliant on vehicles that slurp up tonnes of guys for mobility would it not be wise to buy a chopper that can carry enough resources to sustain us? 

Helicopters aren't just about us being able to move GIBs, if that were the case we would just buy more Griffons.  CH147's are far more capable in the sustainment battle then any other chopper out there.  They can carry more and they have a triple hook system.  The triple-hook system stabilizes large external loads, such as 155mm howitzers, allowing them to be carried at speeds up to 140 knots (260 km/hr) – or twice as fast as single-suspension loads. Multiple external loads (fuel blivets for example) can be delivered to three separate destinations in a single sortie.

   (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinook-helicopter.com%2Fsling_loads%2FCargo_Net_Unknown_a.jpg&hash=6a8e737a845cdba0cb57486edcf7cea9)

This chopper could run 3 diff re-supps in one mission

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinook-helicopter.com%2Fchinook%2FStan_Graves%2FCH-47D_slinging_blivets_near_M198_Master.jpg&hash=f49e3409dc19e6cf182c54f556ba7f59)

6x3,500lb fuel blivets under this helicopter.  So you are tracking that is 3000 Gallons (11,356 litres) of fuel.  A LAV takes what?  500 Litres for a full tank?  Right there you have enough fuel for 22 LAV's. 

We don't have attack helicopters so it might be prudent that we are able to carry loads at a far greater speed then other helicopters can.  As well, we our forces might be operating over a very large area (ala Kandahar Province, Afghanistan) so it might be worth it then that can have a chopper bring three different loads to three different destinations.

Apologies for coming across as an ******* but these Helicopters are value added to our forces and are one of the few purchases we genuinely really need.  I would happily scrap the CCV and get us a few more of these bad boys!  Also, like someone else mentioned, these helicopters provide us with a specialized capability that "OTHERS" don't have. 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baz on June 29, 2013, 02:57:15
It is true Perhaps not all the options were considered...

consider this post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,32526.msg245878.html#msg245878

and this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USMC-101210-M-1842C-182.jpg
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on June 29, 2013, 11:54:57
It would be hard to say "not all options were considered" if you were not part of the project team.  Perhaps the team included the CH-53K and the Mi-26 and Mi-17 variants, as well as the EH-101.  Perhaps the CH-53K program delivering helicopters to the USMC in 2018 with IOC in 2019 CH-53K program back on track (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/ch-53k-programme-back-on-track-report-cl/) meant that any other nation would have to wait into the early 2020's to receive such aircraft?  Perhaps the 50% cost premium of a CH-53K over a CH-147F was not considered worth the incremental lift capacity? As it stands, the first of four pre-production test articles will be delivered in the Fall of 2016, to support delivery of the first production aircraft in 2018. http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/ch-53k-operational-test-helicopter-contract-issued/ (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/ch-53k-operational-test-helicopter-contract-issued/)  Having seen CH-53E and MH-53G in action, there is no doubt that they are very capable heavy-lift helicopter, but the premium on resources that their fully-marinized, shipboard capability demands would likely strain the available resources beyond acceptable levels.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baz on June 29, 2013, 12:33:57
You are absolutely correct G2G... I modified my post to also say perhaps.

History will prove whether it was a wise choice, or whether it was particularly appropriate in AFG due to the high hot and heavy and air dominance we enjoyed (and the 53, nor the V-22, will be particularly great without air dominance, that's when you want to start splitting things up into smaller aircraft).

Unfortunately, we can't afford to have many different variants, and couldn't crew them even if we could, to be able to pick the right aircraft for every mission.

I'm not distracting from this project, it has delivered a capable airplane quite quickly.  I was just making a counterpoint to all those that are implying it was the only choice.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on June 29, 2013, 13:40:41
....this project, it has delivered a capable airplane quite quickly.
Well, speaking merely as someone who's spent a lifetime in uniform, and not as some cubicle-dwelling bureaucrat or "consultant" whose lifestyle is presumably enhanced by having acquisition programmes drag on and on and on....I see the Chinook program as a brilliant success story.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 29, 2013, 13:43:20
Now for the question of the day...directed to the Tac Hel/Sea King gang out there. Will it be able to work off the new AORs? If so, that would be a game changer for a whole lot of different deployment scenarios.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2013, 13:53:05
Well, speaking merely as someone who's spent a lifetime in uniform, and not as some cubicle-dwelling bureaucrat or "consultant" whose lifestyle is presumably enhanced by having acquisition programmes drag on and on and on....I see the Chinook program as a brilliant success story.

I am personally familiar enough with Baz's work and project experience to assure you that he is neither a cubicle dweller nor a consultant. He is extremely familiar with project management and has delivered some of the RCAF's (if not the CFs) most successful and cost effective (admittedly smaller scale) projects in recent memory. His opinion carries weight with me.

Just sayin.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 29, 2013, 13:57:46
How about the C-17 buy... our former COS at 1 Can Div said that one was pretty much a no brainer...(we'll take those four...right off the line).
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2013, 14:01:27
Now for the question of the day...directed to the Tac Hel/Sea King gang out there. Will it be able to work off the new AORs? If so, that would be a game changer for a whole lot of different deployment scenarios.

I don't know much about the hangar layout out on the new AORs, nor do I know what size helo the flight deck is being stressed for (beyond the obvious 26-28k for a fully loaded Cyclone).  I am also unaware of how difficult it is is to fold the blades on our new Chinooks.

Generally speaking, army helos do not do well on a ship over a long deployment because saltwater corrosion can start to do some damage fairly quickly.  That said, a tandem rotor helo can often do quite well operating from a ship because it is not really impacted by an unfavourable wind envelope that a tail rotor equipped helicopter might be.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 29, 2013, 14:09:32
The Brits and the Italians regularly deploy thier Chinooks on 'phibs, and they seem to do well.

I don't see them being based on the AORs...just the capablity to land on them to provide fwd re supply for ashore forces. Haiti or Somalia scenarios are what came to mind
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on June 29, 2013, 14:10:00
I am personally familiar enough with Baz's work and project experience to assure you that he is neither a cubicle dweller nor a consultant. He is extremely familiar with project management and has delivered some of the RCAF's (if not the CFs) most successful and cost effective (admittedly smaller scale) projects in recent memory. His opinion carries weight with me.

Just sayin.
Yes, thank you; I'm agreeing with him.

Perhaps I should have posted one of the hand-wringing posts for clarity:
Quote
How to run a procurement program......
I wouldn't consider the Chinook model acquisition.

But thanks for playin' along.   ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 29, 2013, 14:29:35
Interesting that the MND actually stated about the Cyclone..."if and when it is delivered"....doesn't sound promising.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 29, 2013, 15:18:25
I don't know much about the hangar layout out on the new AORs, nor do I know what size helo the flight deck is being stressed for (beyond the obvious 26-28k for a fully loaded Cyclone).  I am also unaware of how difficult it is is to fold the blades on our new Chinooks.

Generally speaking, army helos do not do well on a ship over a long deployment because saltwater corrosion can start to do some damage fairly quickly.  That said, a tandem rotor helo can often do quite well operating from a ship because it is not really impacted by an unfavourable wind envelope that a tail rotor equipped helicopter might be.

3 manual folding blades per hub[2 per aircraft] duh. :nod:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: h3tacco on June 29, 2013, 15:31:32
(beyond the obvious 26-28k for a fully loaded Cyclone). 

Not to derail the conversation but AUW is up to 29,300 lbs but probably will not increase anymore.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 29, 2013, 15:37:41
3 manual folding blades per hub[2 per aircraft] duh. :nod:

Yeah...because EVERYONE knows that..... :facepalm:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HB_Pencil on June 29, 2013, 15:44:22
Well, speaking merely as someone who's spent a lifetime in uniform, and not as some cubicle-dwelling bureaucrat or "consultant" whose lifestyle is presumably enhanced by having acquisition programmes drag on and on and on....I see the Chinook program as a brilliant success story.

Its a bit humorous.... all this from you because I had the temerity to question the decision to acquire one capability some were not sold upon.

But hey, what do I know? Apparently I'm a F-35 cheerleading, cubicle dwelling, evil consultant trying to screw the forces.


How quickly people forget that just a few years ago we were screaming for the need for heavy-lift helicopters.  You seem to forget that we were up crap creek without a paddle a couple of years ago because of our inability to re-supp our forces by ground in Afghanistan.  For a country so heavily reliant on vehicles that slurp up tonnes of guys for mobility would it not be wise to buy a chopper that can carry enough resources to sustain us? 

Helicopters aren't just about us being able to move GIBs, if that were the case we would just buy more Griffons.  CH147's are far more capable in the sustainment battle then any other chopper out there.  They can carry more and they have a triple hook system.  The triple-hook system stabilizes large external loads, such as 155mm howitzers, allowing them to be carried at speeds up to 140 knots (260 km/hr) – or twice as fast as single-suspension loads. Multiple external loads (fuel blivets for example) can be delivered to three separate destinations in a single sortie.

Again, I'm not "forgetting anything." What I stated  reflected the thoughts of some within DND in 2007 and 2008. They occurred with a full view what was going on in Afghanistan. It wasn't like they were oblivious to requirements on the ground, but they were also looking at other considerations that might be important.

As someone pointed out above, its really academic at this point and its a good capability.


Could EH-101's carry our M777 155mm Howitzer's into position at altitude?  Honest question.  Not trying to bust your chops.  I didn't think they could which was one of the reasons why the Chinook was selected as it did a job that was absolutely required.


Matthew.  :salute:

According to what I've heard the Merlin can carry the M777 at normal altitudes for an operationally useful distance, but certainly not with the range that the chinook can. That's a significant limitation of going to medium lift.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 29, 2013, 15:47:59
Yes...but just the gun...no gun crew or ammo, much the same way a Griffon can carry an LG-1 gun...just.

CH-147...gun+ crew and pers kit+ammo for a good fire mission over a healthy range.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baz on June 29, 2013, 15:51:26
I am personally familiar enough with Baz's work and project experience to assure you that he is neither a cubicle dweller nor a consultant.

Well, to be far, I am an office dweller right now, an a *shudder* NATO one at that...

I do get to do a bit of software work on the side now and then.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: George Wallace on June 29, 2013, 17:34:46
According to what I've heard the Merlin can carry the M777 at normal altitudes for an operationally useful distance, but certainly not with the range that the chinook can. That's a significant limitation of going to medium lift.

If you look at Afghanistan, "normal altitudes" were not the case.  Even the Griffons have altitude problems which in turn affect the payloads they can carry.  It is not a good idea to purchase equipment that meets the minimum requirements, and then be forced to purchase again to meet the maximum, or rent from other nations equipment or support.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2013, 18:02:55
Well, to be far, I am an office dweller right now, an a *shudder* NATO one at that...

I do get to do a bit of software work on the side now and then.

Software work? What? You? When?   ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 29, 2013, 18:42:12
Yeah...because EVERYONE knows that..... :facepalm:

I was referring to the 2 hubs of the chinook being self evident.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on June 29, 2013, 19:50:31
H-47s have operated from a number of various larger naval platforms (I've seen them on as small as a OHP-class DDG), but as SKT notes, they are not fully marinized as any MH-class ship borne helo is, so secondary considerations regarding corrosion control and other factors related to such an environment would have to be considered to determine how much a Chinook might be employed in a littoral area of operations.  Could our Chinook operate off a Berlin (or whatever we'll call the our AOR) class ship, without doubt, but likely in a littoral concept like humanitarian assistance in Haiti, where main operations would more than likely be land-based.  I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be able to stow in an AOR or FFG hangar, blades folder or not... The aft pylon/rotor is close to two-stories tall.

Not sure if I'm remembering the USN-US Army project name properly, but I think it was something like JSHIP - joint-service helicopter interoperability project. I recall seeing a matrix of all the US Army's helicopter as test against the USN's helo-capable fleets.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 29, 2013, 20:29:28
Good2Golf:

Quote
a Berlin (or whatever we'll call the our AOR) class ship

Well, we might call them the KITCHENERS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_to_Kitchener_name_change

Or, perhaps, to be more naval, the FISHERS:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/fisher.htm

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2013, 20:47:14
H-47s have operated from a number of various larger naval platforms (I've seen them on as small as a OHP-class DDG), but as SKT notes, they are not fully marinized as any MH-class ship borne helo is, so secondary considerations regarding corrosion control and other factors related to such an environment would have to be considered to determine how much a Chinook might be employed in a littoral area of operations.  Could our Chinook operate off a Berlin (or whatever we'll call the our AOR) class ship, without doubt, but likely in a littoral concept like humanitarian assistance in Haiti, where main operations would more than likely be land-based.  I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be able to stow in an AOR or FFG hangar, blades folder or not... The aft pylon/rotor is close to two-stories tall.

Not sure if I'm remembering the USN-US Army project name properly, but I think it was something like JSHIP - joint-service helicopter interoperability project. I recall seeing a matrix of all the US Army's helicopter as test against the USN's helo-capable fleets.

Regards
G2G

I can check HOSTACs next week on the DWAN to see if the Chinook is listed.

(HOSTACS= the ship/helo operational interface matrix)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on June 29, 2013, 21:32:12
I can check HOSTACs next week on the DWAN to see if the Chinook is listed.

(HOSTACS= the ship/helo operational interface matrix)

Found it SKT: JOINT SHIPBOARD HELICOPTER INTEGRATION PROCESS
(JSHIP) (http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2000/jte/00jship.html)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationspectator.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FCH-47-Chinook-helicopter-013.preview.jpg&hash=b3547d1ff3832d58623a21d024ee3702)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 30, 2013, 00:03:51
Thanks G2G. Should be interesting reading.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on June 30, 2013, 09:51:40
But hey, what do I know? Apparently I'm a F-35 cheerleading, cubicle dwelling, evil consultant trying to screw the forces.
Honestly I neither know, nor care, what you do for a living, although some things can be reasonably presumed from your posts -- naturally, as one moves further from the 'meat' of your posts, the presumptions become more tenuous.

For example, I can pretty confidently presume that you work on the F-35 program. Moving further, I'd figure that you're some sort of engineer. Based on the way you blithely dismiss the views of posters with obvious military flight experience, I'd guess that you've never actually spent a moment in uniform and possibly even feel superior to all people military. 

See how that progression of assurance works?


What I do know, with certainty, is that:

a) the 'Army aviation' world is now accepting deliveries of a very good operational aircraft to meet their needs;

b) the 'fighter world' is not;

yet c) YOU think the CH-47 procurement system should be shunned while the F-35 program is....well.....worthy of cheer-leading.


But hey, I'm just an Army guy, who's only seen pictures of slide rules, who is quite happy to see positive, timely outcomes despite dithering bureaucracies.  While I can't speak for them, I also suspect that there are more than a couple of CF-18 people who wish that they had Chinook project management people on their team.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 30, 2013, 10:04:18
is there a "like/booyah" button or something for that Journeyman? Well stated.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 30, 2013, 10:10:49
Honestly I neither know, nor care, what you do for a living, although some things can be reasonably presumed from your posts -- naturally, as one moves further from the 'meat' of your posts, the presumptions become more tenuous.

For example, I can pretty confidently presume that you work on the F-35 program. Moving further, I'd figure that you're some sort of engineer. Based on the way you blithely dismiss the views of posters with obvious military flight experience, I'd guess that you've never actually spent a moment in uniform and possibly even feel superior to all people military. 

See how that progression of assurance works?


What I do know, with certainty, is that:

a) the 'Army aviation' world is now accepting deliveries of a very good operational aircraft to meet their needs;

b) the 'fighter world' is not;

yet c) YOU think the CH-47 procurement system should be shunned while the F-35 program is....well.....worthy of cheer-leading.


But hey, I'm just an Army guy, who's only seen pictures of slide rules, who is quite happy to see positive, timely outcomes despite dithering bureaucracies.  While I can't speak for them, I also suspect that there are more than a couple of CF-18 people who wish that they had Chinook project management people on their team.

 :pop:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 30, 2013, 10:19:36
...

But hey, I'm just an Army guy, who's only seen pictures of slide rules, who is quite happy to see positive, timely outcomes despite dithering bureaucracies.  While I can't speak for them, I also suspect that there are more than a couple of CF-18 people who wish that they had Chinook project management people on their team.


I'm not so sure just how "good" the project management was. Successful? Yes, indisputably, but maybe, in large part, because, as the AG noted ""For the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter, there was an absence of timely meetings, challenge, and approvals by senior boards at all key decision points in the acquisition process and before seeking Treasury Board approvals." In other words someone - almost everyone in DND and at the cabinet table - agreed that the CH-147 project was "go,' and the normal, stifling bureaucratic oversight was unnecessary and that money would not "slip to the right" as it so often does when DND's senior management is allowed to exercise its power.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 30, 2013, 10:21:25
Like I said before...have a look at how the C-17 acquisition was handled....seems like that worked out pretty good.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 30, 2013, 10:31:43
Like I said before...have a look at how the C-17 acquisition was handled....seems like that worked out pretty good.


I agree and, in both cases, I think, the operational requirement originated in the office of the MND. Oh, it's true that the CF said we want strategic transports and heavy lift helicopters, but the MND of the day, Gordon O'Connor, drove the process. I think O'Connor did two things right:

     1. He secured cabinet support first and then he went and told DND to fast track it;

     2. He, and Peter MacKay, kept their cabinet colleagues, especially the President of the Treasury Board and PWGSC's minister, "on side" throughout the process.

The poor old F-35 has been allowed to become a political orphan. It doesn't really matter how good, or not so good, it might be, it lacks a political "cheering section" and that makes it constantly vulnerable.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 30, 2013, 10:41:10
My prediction:

The F-35 will never see RCAF roundels. It is barely even accepted by the US military.

My bet:

F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Journeyman on June 30, 2013, 10:54:19
My prediction...
Take it to the F-35 thread; this one's a success story.    :stirpot:

     ;)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on June 30, 2013, 10:56:14
i've been there...waaaay to much nonsense going on there.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on June 30, 2013, 11:01:31

I agree and, in both cases, I think, the operational requirement originated in the office of the MND. Oh, it's true that the CF said we want strategic transports and heavy lift helicopters, but the MND of the day, Gordon O'Connor, drove the process. I think O'Connor did two things right:

     1. He secured cabinet support first and then he went and told DND to fast track it;

     2. He, and Peter MacKay, kept their cabinet colleagues, especially the President of the Treasury Board and PWGSC's minister, "on side" throughout the process.

The poor old F-35 has been allowed to become a political orphan. It doesn't really matter how good, or not so good, it might be, it lacks a political "cheering section" and that makes it constantly vulnerable.


But....

I thought the argument against the Conservatives in general and MacKay in particular were that they were deemed to be overly accepting of the F-35 and were essentially "cheerleading".   

With respect, I believe that the biggest difference between the F35 and the CH147/C17 (and the JSS-AOR) projects is the Liberals withdrew their support of the F35 project in order to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives.   A political football game ensued.

All of the projects were launched by the Liberals, in particular Paul Martin.  It can be debated whether this was the result of Conservative pressure; Martin-Manley vs Trudeau-Chretien differentiation; public outcry (at least public support) or effective military salesmanship.  It is likely, in my view, a combination of those stars aligning.

The Age of Aquarius may now have passed and the F35 is the victim of timing.

Having said that, I think Jammer is overly pessimistic.  The Liberals will beat up on the Conservatives for mismanaging the file and complain about buying too many or too few while spending too much or too little money.  At the same time I can't see Trudeau alienating Montreal and the Canadian aerospace industry by pulling a Chretien and cancelling the programme.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HB_Pencil on June 30, 2013, 15:38:05
Frankly Journeyman, you can insult me, paint cariactures of me all you want if it makes you feel better. I deal with what I know and can prove.

If you look at Afghanistan, "normal altitudes" were not the case.  Even the Griffons have altitude problems which in turn affect the payloads they can carry.  It is not a good idea to purchase equipment that meets the minimum requirements, and then be forced to purchase again to meet the maximum, or rent from other nations equipment or support.

Absolutely... that's a concern and I'm not disputing that the Chinook probably represents the best heavy lift we can purchase. But high alt and hot weather isn't the most common situation. The question is whether this is worth the money... and if reasonable alternatives can be found. 

Maybe I should clarify what I'm getting at here because there seems to be a fair bit of confusion.

I responded to a claim that this was a model procurement project, to be emulated. I disagree. I don't think it was a disaster. Its definitely delivered an excellent capability. But this project, which is intended to purchase a capability for the Canadian forces for decades in the future, was basically forced through in a process that was generally reserved by Hillier to get equipment to the warfighter that needed it in the field.

Why is that a problem? To make the system "useful," Canada had to pay for upgrades that likely doubled the unit cost of each unit. We decided on adding in a bunch of off the shelf modifications that had never been combined on one CH-47F model. The closest one is the US Special Operations Command MH-47G, but there are additional modifications the RCAF wanted. According to the 2010 Auditor general report  (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#hd4b)the actual CH-47 purchase cost $83 million per unit flyaway (page 6.6- I suspect this includes the engineering costs for the modifications)

So the math to get this is a bit complicated... and I'm not 100% sure but it should be right. If I take the DoD's SAR Cost on page 18 (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/CH-47F%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf) for 2011 its $20.77 million in 2005 dollars, which I inflated to $24.15 million for 2012.Now the US special operations command price to modify a CH-47 to the MH-47G (http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/DoD-Budget/MH-47-DoD-Budget-SOCOM.html) standard (with almost all of the equipment we have on it) is 17.09 million dollars per aircraft for the 8 refurbished ones they purchased between 2011 and 2013. You get that by removing the airframe costs... because we bought new helicopters. Adding new airframes at 24.15 to 17.09 yields 41.24 million dollars. Now we add 1.09 million for the US Military's Non-recurring R&D Cost (http://www.dsca.osd.mil/samm/ESAMM/A01/T08.htm) for the CH-47 airframe and 43,000 for theTA-55-GA. The process (minus the engines) seems to have gone through DCMS rather than FMS so that fee's waived.

In conclusion to purchase the Socom's MH-47G off the shelf, would have cost us $42.38 million dollars, versus $83 million for what we paid for our CH-47Fs. To put that another way... we bought a model of CH-47 that Cost double what The US Special Operations Command spent on their version that has almost all of the same things, and nearly three times the cost of the Baseline CH-47 model.  Consideration of alternatives, which people are braying for in other programs, was rejected. It was Chinook or nothing.

Absolutely the outcome was good in this case.... but its not a process that I'd emulate. What if there was a cost overrun? (then again $82 vs $42 million is a pretty big increase) or the program's capability did not meet specifications? In this project, we bought a very expensive capability that will cost alot to support over the long term. Should that not have been evaluated over other options? People thought so... within DND and even the Auditor General.

Another way of looking at it is to compare it to the CC-177. It differs significantly from the Chinook in two regards.  First, the AF was pushing for strategic lift for quite some time. There was a fair bit of consideration given towards purchasing a capability like the C-17 since the 1990s and the closing of the Lahr. It was pretty clear for 15 years that the CF needed that capability to meet its commitments in Europe and Africa. Second, the opportunity was there to get aircraft at reasonable cost and they did not require major modifications. That's a key difference between the two programs.

So that's it. Call me all the names you want, but that's my problem with the process. When the gold plating brings the cost up 100%, then I get concerns.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HB_Pencil on June 30, 2013, 15:48:04

I'm not so sure just how "good" the project management was. Successful? Yes, indisputably, but maybe, in large part, because, as the AG noted ""For the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter, there was an absence of timely meetings, challenge, and approvals by senior boards at all key decision points in the acquisition process and before seeking Treasury Board approvals." In other words someone - almost everyone in DND and at the cabinet table - agreed that the CH-147 project was "go,' and the normal, stifling bureaucratic oversight was unnecessary and that money would not "slip to the right" as it so often does when DND's senior management is allowed to exercise its power.

That's precisely what I'm getting at. I  have no doubt that this is an excellent helicopter; we basically bought the US special forces version. Its the management of it that I have issue with.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on June 30, 2013, 16:00:07
There are more costs to SOCOM's G-model upgrades than you have included.  You should add on the digitized AFCS that they are converting their current 61 aircraft fleet and you should also include the costs that they will be undertaking to retrofit an upgraded electrical system to all aircraft. 

The Auditor General's major concern was that a project definition proceeded, DND should have revised the ACAN to the 2009 status. DND ha agreed that thi approach WOs have been appropriate, as well as to have included a more detailed component estimate.

It is interesting to note, however, that the end-state costs are predicted to be $200M less than the original 2005 D-Class estimate (now called ROM-cost).  In 2005, DND estimated the full 20-year cost as $6.9B.  Current contracted costs (acqusition $1.25B, infra/FSim/init provisionig and project mgmt - $1.05B = $2.3B) plus 20-year in-service support (incl deep Maint/spares/eng sp, $2.7B) and $1.7B O&M = $6.7B.

Seems that even with the extended timelines encountered during initial definition, the auditor's numbers even predict costs below the original estimate.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HB_Pencil on June 30, 2013, 16:07:20
There are more costs to SOCOM's G-model upgrades than you have included.  You should add on the digitized AFCS that they are converting their current 61 aircraft fleet and you should also include the costs that they will be undertaking to retrofit an upgraded electrical system to all aircraft. 

The fleet I looked at were the eight new build ones they recently procured to bring the fleet to 68 or 69... I believe it included the digitized AFCS, as the P-1 I linked states these aircraft are to the latest MH-47G standard.

I should say that this analysis is by no means perfect and would fluctuate significantly in reality: it could easily go 10 million either way. I had to extrapolate for a few things... the modifications were on CH-47F airframes without engines. I just substituted the CH-47F's flyaway in there to calculate the overall costs.

They aren't precisely equal considerations either. The Canadian CH-47 is a flyaway cost + engineering costs (as far as I can tell from the Auditor general's reports). The MH-47Gs is Flyaway + DoD fees (but we wouldn't pay for RDT&E). I also think that the entire process would have to go through FMS rather than DCMS, and that would add several million in administration fees.


Sorry for the excessive edits... I just wanted to put all of the considerations out there to make clear what I did.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on June 30, 2013, 16:57:51
You're using outdated information from when the 8 aircraft were still going to be re manufactured from old D and E models.  Congress' new authorization is for completely new build aircraft, so there is no upgrade cost to an older airframe. Many of us would be very interested to see an official reference that these new build MH-47G cost ~$42M each.

When I look at a program like CH-53K with an airframe acqusition price of $133M each (see links to my earlier posting regarding what was, or was not looked at during the MHLH definition phase) I am challenged to imagine how a marginally smaller, and certainly no less complex/capable machine like an MH-47G could less than a third the equivalent unit cost.  The Canadian raw airframe numbers, at 2/3 cost of a CH-53K, are not out of line with the capability.

Perhaps your seven-year inflation model as applied on an eight-year old program reference is not as sound as you might think.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 30, 2013, 17:50:29
That's precisely what I'm getting at. I  have no doubt that this is an excellent helicopter; we basically bought the US special forces version. Its the management of it that I have issue with.


My problem isn't with the CH-47 project team; they had an "open field," so to speak, so they picked up the ball and ran with it. My problem is with the "normal," stifling bureaucratic processes that grew up in the 1980s - when I was closely involved in procurement - and which, as far as I can tell, have gotten worse and worse.

There were, by design, supposed to be two "hand-offs" in most projects: from the project sponsors (the requirements guys and gals who are supposed to a) define the operational requirement in sufficient details to give the engineers both clarity and some flexibility, and b secure adequate funding in the right time-frame) to the engineers and then from the engineers in DND to the procurement folks in PWGSC. Of course in a PMO it was thought that we might get everyone under one roof and make things work better even though Cyril Northcote Parkinson warned us that bigger is not always better.

It appears to me that we fumble too often: starting with the requirements guys and gals who decide that they can and should specify down to a level of exactness that makes the procurement, de facto sole source; followed by the engineers who forget that they are there to find the best, practical (which often means available) 'solution' to the operational requirements and the approved funding, not reinvent the wheel; and then by the PWGSC folks who forget that they are supposed to negotiate contracts that buy what the DND engineers specified for the available money and within the approved time-frames.

Some major projects were that were ongoing in the 1980s were reasonably well managed ~ not perfectly, by any stretch of the imagination but, roughly, on time and with only 10% or so so cost overruns; others were somewhat less successful, in one case, perhaps, because they were too "grand" to start with and because the requirements staff could never get a grip on the whole thing.

What bothered us then (us being the people at the centre of the process) and still seems, to me - from far outside the "system," to be a problem is that procurement is a political football. Now we can, as me must, live with being kicked around by cabinet, but when we kick ourselves around, when we allow service chiefs, for example, to stab one another in the back (by interfering in singe service procurements) at all those "meetings, challenge, and approvals by senior boards" that the AG regretted the Chinook project missed, then we are failing and our "system" needs an overhaul. Finally, DND appears to be being "kicked around" by both Industry Canada and PWGSC in what I'm guessing is inside the Greenbelt, internal to the CPC, politics and that means the whole of the defence procurement system needs a makeover.

I think that both the C-17 and CH-47 projects were successful precisely because they were done "outside" of the existing government project management straight jacket which, I suspect, has a large "featherbedding" component to it.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 30, 2013, 21:36:26
The US Army in Alaska has been flying the F model for over a year now.It is well suited to the high altitude missions that it is tasked with from rescuing folks from Mt McKinley to regular support missions.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fch-47-chinook-920-13.jpg%3Fw%3D920%26amp%3Bh%3D609&hash=e78fc648254ea5d2e05f345250e188f2)

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/91773/fort-wainwright-receives-new-chinook-ch-47f-helicopters#.UdDOBj773to

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska - Fort Wainwright’s 1st Battalion, 52nd Aviation Regiment, 16th Combat Aviation Brigade, known as the "Flying Dragons," received nine new CH-47F Chinook helicopters in April to upgrade the unit’s capabilities.

 The unit will train on the new aircraft over several months.

 "The CH-47F Chinook is the world's premier heavy-lift cargo helicopter and continues to evolve through the use of newly-updated state-of-the-art technology,” 1-52nd Aviation commander, Lt. Col. John Knightstep said.

 “This will ensure that the United States military will have the most capable aircraft of this type to meet the needs of the war fighter today and well into the future,” Knightstep said. “The improvements to the CH-47F increase our pilots' ability to effectively support the ground commander in the most demanding and dangerous of conditions."

 Commander of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 52nd Aviation Regiment, Capt. Jason McCoy, said with their new technology and integrated computer systems, the Chinooks can do such things as self-adjust and maintain a hover in a one-foot radius.

 “They have a moving map; it’s almost like a GPS system. You can zoom in and it will show you exactly where you want to go,” McCoy said. “And in hover mode it can take into account winds and adjust to hold in that spot.”

“This really helps with high altitudes, flying in the mountains. You can see where guys are at on the ground, circle around, put them in the GPS and come right back to them.” McCoy said. “With the hover of the one-foot radius it’s easy for us to lower the hoist and pick them up - good to go.”

 The new model’s major changes are visible in the cockpit area, where many of the older model’s gauges have been replaced with digital displays.

 “The improvements allow for more situational awareness while flying, it’s all digital up front, all computerized and the pilots can focus more on what’s outside the cockpit and what is around them and not worry about what’s going on inside,” said McCoy. “It’s almost like auto pilot.”

 McCoy is one of the first pilots in Alaska that has completed the training and is fully certified to fly the new models. After a few more months of training, his fellow Chinook pilots and crews will also be taking to the air in their brand new helicopters.


Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on July 01, 2013, 00:42:36
Bully for them.

 What does that have to do with this discussion?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 01, 2013, 01:09:09
Someone made the comment that the Chinook was unable to operate in high altitudes. Even the older models could do that.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on July 01, 2013, 01:22:05
 :facepalm: Someone who's never had the pleasure of flying over the Hindu Kush in them no doubt.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 01, 2013, 04:14:03
There are not alot of choices for medium lift helo's,unless you buy a Russian chopper.The Chinook beats the CH-53 in most categories.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: HB_Pencil on July 01, 2013, 04:50:27
You're using outdated information from when the 8 aircraft were still going to be re manufactured from old D and E models.  Congress' new authorization is for completely new build aircraft, so there is no upgrade cost to an older airframe. Many of us would be very interested to see an official reference that these new build MH-47G cost ~$42M each.

When I look at a program like CH-53K with an airframe acqusition price of $133M each (see links to my earlier posting regarding what was, or was not looked at during the MHLH definition phase) I am challenged to imagine how a marginally smaller, and certainly no less complex/capable machine like an MH-47G could less than a third the equivalent unit cost.  The Canadian raw airframe numbers, at 2/3 cost of a CH-53K, are not out of line with the capability.

Perhaps your seven-year inflation model as applied on an eight-year old program reference is not as sound as you might think.

As I linked to the above post, I utilized the December 2011 Selected Acquisition report to Congress... the newest one available to the public on the CH-47F program. 2005 is the cost's baseline year so I had to use a cost inflator there: US programs generally use Baseline years in order to make apples to apples comparisons. I cited basically the official source  on the MH-47G with the SOCOM budget document. If you look at the link, those aircraft are stated to be new-build ones. It does not include engines and other equipment... so that variant has $26 million (Canadian CH-47F's engines were about 4 million for a set.) So there's 30 million... I can't see it being more than 40 million. But to be safe, I removed MH-47G's the airframe costs and added the CH-47F's cost. Its quite possible that the actual MH-47G's cost is less than that.

Also, the CH-53K's reoccurring flyaway cost  (http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/CH-53K%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf) (page 16) is $66 million in 2006 dollars for the 2019, declining to $56 million in 2020, and less after that. There isn't a DSCA levy yet, but its probably not more than 2.0 million per aircraft + the FMS fee.


Why is the cost of the Canadian CH-47H so high? Canada incurred $360 million in engineering costs that added $24 million per aircraft. For whatever reason the MH-47G version was not purchase; the modification package that Canada wanted was not available or it required further work. All of the modifications were already developed... just it had not been integrated together onto the airframe.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on July 01, 2013, 09:29:46
By referencing American documents, you're wasting your time. US and Canadian procurments processes are very different.

The F model is virtually a brand new iteration of the Chinook...not a modified D...I say again...NOT a modified D airframe.
 
HB....not many of us here are aerospace engineers, or project managers so you're really beating a dead horse.

Who cares?

Should they be sent back for a fleet of JetRangers? Your looking for an argument after the fact and there's none there.

I don't think you're ever going have a need to ride in them anyway. For us who will...we're happy to have them.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 01, 2013, 09:39:43
Sorry I evidently misread the thread,thinking that there was an argument against procuring the aircraft.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Jammer on July 01, 2013, 09:44:49
Yeah....HB lost sharpness....meh..
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on July 01, 2013, 11:11:36
I did indeed read the SAR, not only for 2011, but for previous years involving the programs in question.   Making use of page 12 of the SAR, that uses 2011 Then-Year (TY) dollars as well as the 2005 $BY figures, is the more appropriate way to inflate figures as TY dollars use the USG's own inflation model, not your own.  Arithmetic using page 12 (full program and airframe deliveries) provides one with an full airframe cost of $26.8M per aircraft, not your $24.15M.  Something you didn't do was analyze the full cost of GFE to the CH-47F program.  Yes, you mentioned the engines, but you used DSCA's non-recurring cost entirely out of context.  A Lycoming T55-GA-714A is NOT just $42,412 for an FMS customer such as Canada...it cost a lot more than a fully loaded Toyota Camry.  Those are amortized aggregate sunk costs to DoD.  Also, don't forget all the other USG GFE that isn't included in the airframe production costs.  Radios, Avionics, Nav systems, EW and protective eqpt, etc...

If we used those DSCA figures (http://www.dsca.osd.mil/samm/ESAMM/A01/T08.htm) as you have done, then you're right, we paid too much for our Chinooks. In fact, we should sell them and get some of those $20.8M CV-22B special ops Ospreys!!!

While we're at it, we could also pick up some F-35As for $11.8M and F135-PW-100 engines for $1.1M each...$12.9M per F35?  What a deal!  That sounds a lot better than what the media says we'll be paying... 

It goes without saying that there is a danger in using monetary figures out of context...   


Anyway, if you had wanted to delve deeper into how Canadian Chinook costs related to other related Chinook fleets, I'm curious as to why you didn't look at any of the foreign military sale cases listed on page 19 of the very 2011 SAR to which you referred, at least to give some relative perspective?  This would have given you a much more realistic figure for how much a baseline CH-47F costs to a international customer?  UAE, $37.4M.  Turkey, $42.0M.  Australia, $35.6M.  These are all for standard cargo CH-47Fs that would not be suited to providing the capability that Cabinet authorized DND to procure.   Add on the capabilities that Canada has, as well as all the RDT&E and other initial parts and systems provisioning that is included with our Chinooks, and it is not unreasonable to see the unit equivalent prices associated with the CH-147F.   

As for my previous comments regarding the CH-53K unit cost of $133M per copy, I used the 2011 SAR on CH-53K, specifically page 11 (http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/CH-53K%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf), and divided total program costs of $26,626.8M by 200 airframes = $133.134M/per ac.  That is the exact same methodology as the OAG used to determine the $83M/ac cost ($1,245M / 15 ac) in the Fall 2010 report - so we're talking Macintoshes to Granny Smiths (i.e. both apples, just different taste). 

When the 2012 or 2013 SAR is released for the MH-47G, you will no doubt be able to see how much the new-build MH-47Gs will cost.  There were no new-build MH-47Gs included in the 2011 SAR, only rebuild equivalents from previous D and E-model MHs.  PM Cargo, MG Crosby, is on public record (2012 and 2013 Quad-A public presentations) that the new-build MH-47Gs will be leveraged using the CH-47F's machined monolithic airframes, just as the Canadian CH-147F was, and that those MH-47Gs may very well use the advanced technology that the CH-147F does.  Those program costs have yet to be provided publicly by DoD, but when they do, you will find that the same methodology as that I used in the preceding paragraph for the CH-53K, will stand one in good stead for determining the true overall costs, which as we can see, are notably higher than when other figures are cherry-picked out of the source document's context.

In the end, the project will deliver 15 state-of-the-art heavy-lift helicopters that will serve Canada well for at least the next fifth of a century.  If will also do so at a cost 1/5 of a billion dollars less ($6.7B (http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=13966)) than the original 2006 estimate of $6.9B noted in OAG report (para 6.67) (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#hd5i).

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: AirDet on July 16, 2013, 20:58:53
Sorry I evidently misread the thread,thinking that there was an argument against procuring the aircraft.

That makes two of us. The Chin Hook is a proven workhorse like the Seaking. All we need now is an attack helo to round out our capabilities
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: UnwiseCritic on July 16, 2013, 22:46:48
That makes two of us. The Chin Hook is a proven workhorse like the Seaking. All we need now is an attack helo to round out our capabilities

Yes, will we get. No. If we do it will be ten years too late... Even Australia has attack helicopters.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: CBH99 on July 17, 2013, 02:02:03
The Australians also manage their defence budget a LOT differently/more effectively than we do.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Dimsum on July 17, 2013, 02:18:17
The Australians also manage their defence budget a LOT differently/more effectively than we do.

Yes, and that's because they know they're the major "Western" power in that side of the world.  The Americans, even the ones in Japan, can't be guaranteed to send help in time.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2013, 09:26:31
With Marines rotating into Darwin,help is ALOT closer.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on July 17, 2013, 09:51:13
We are getting off the track, and maybe this discussion re Australia can go elsewhere, but visualize a map projection centred on the centre of Australia. You are a long way from any allies except New Zealand, which is in virtually the same boat. The Aussies got a real scare in 1942 with the Japanese on their northern flank in New Guinea, Timor and the Solomons. Their active service army was overseas as was the bulk of their navy and airforce and the Brits were reluctant to return them home. In fact 9 Division in the Middle East was sent to defend Ceylon, not Australia. This made sense if one was viewing the strategic situation from London, but it sure didn't from the perspective of Cranberra.

With that in mind, the Australian approach makes a lot of sense.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on July 17, 2013, 11:06:20
Just spoke to a guy yesterday getting their new aircraft papers in order, A Cessna Caravan, just over 3 million, 300,000 for the floats alone!!! That's a production aircraft and accessory, aircraft are just darn expensive!
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Scott Oikle on January 23, 2014, 15:24:04
Yup a thousand mile range.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on April 01, 2014, 10:51:09
The Chinook project was cancelled this morning. All aircraft already delivered will be returned to Boeing for downgrading to regular F-model standard.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SeaKingTacco on April 01, 2014, 11:02:12
I heard that they were going to the MH Sqns, to be converted in to ASW aircraft.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on April 01, 2014, 11:20:50
I heard that they were going to the MH Sqns, to be converted in to ASW aircraft.

It's a great day to be MH!   ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on April 01, 2014, 11:39:50
Na, the Griffion did so well in Afghanistan, that PWGCS announced that we will be buying more of them and replacing all the Chinooks with Griffions, but only enough spare parts for 1/2 the fleet and no cross over training funds are to be had.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 13, 2014, 13:30:19
The Chinook project was cancelled this morning. All aircraft already delivered will be returned to Boeing for downgrading to regular F-model standard.

Funny we haven't hear more about this?

In related news; Spotted one coming home from Bath on Friday afternoon. Heading east-west probably to CFB Trenton.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: dapaterson on April 13, 2014, 13:36:33
Funny we haven't hear more about this?

I'd look at the date of that post...
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 13, 2014, 13:57:04
I'd look at the date of that post...

I know.   :facepalm:

It just came to me. Brain still not switched-on -  to much beer last night.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: RubberTree on April 13, 2014, 19:22:11
But you are correct, there was one flying around Trenton on Friday afternoon for a couple of hours.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on April 16, 2014, 17:22:06
And it's hanging around there for a bit, but you'll not see it flying.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on July 04, 2014, 12:05:35
a rather negative article on the completion of a fairy decently done contract


http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/eight-year-odyssey-to-buy-battlefield-helicopters-comes-to-an-end-265751551.html


PETAWAWA, Ont. - New military helicopters that were ordered eight years ago to fill an urgent need over the battlefields of Kandahar have finally all been delivered — three years after the end of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson was on hand today as the last of 15 Chinook helicopters touched down at its home base in Garrison Petawawa, Ont., about 170 kilometres northwest of Ottawa.

The choppers were initially ordered in the summer of 2006 by one of Nicholson's predecessors, Gordon O'Connor, as the army was being further drawn into a nasty guerilla war with the Taliban.

The helicopters were considered essential to keep soldiers off the bomb-sown roads of Kandahar province.

The Harper government made them the subject of a sole-source contract with U.S. defence giant Boeing, but getting them through the air force and defence bureaucracy proved to be frustrating.

It took a recommendation from the Manley commission to force the purchase of six older, used CH-47Ds for use in Afghanistan at a cost of $292 million — helicopters that were eventually junked after the war.

The entire program — both acquisition and long-term support — cost $5 billion in total.

As part of the industrial offsets, Boeing has committed to spend $2.95-billion in Canada.

Despite the delays and setbacks, Nicholson said the occasion was cause for celebration.

"The delivery of the 15th and final Chinook helicopter demonstrates our government's strong commitment to providing our men and women in uniform with the right equipment to perform their jobs," he said in a statement.

"The Canadian Chinook F-model — designed especially for Canada's demanding operational and environmental requirements — will provide increased mobility and flexibility to the Royal Canadian Air Force as they protect Canadians, and Canadian interests, at home and abroad."

The air force did fly Chinooks for decades, but they were sold off to the Dutch in the early 1990s by the Mulroney government in a cost-cutting exercise that was part of its so-called peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.

Ironically, Canadian troops hitched rides on those same helicopters in Afghanistan before they got their own.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on July 04, 2014, 21:22:17
Fact check fail - contract signed in June of 2009, not 2006.  That means the procurement went from contract award to full fleet delivery in five years, not eight. 

Perhaps the author meant to refer to the initial stand up of the project in late 2005/early 2006, following the programmatic steps of requirement identification leading to capability definition, after which contract award leading to system development and implementation?  Or maybe the reporter just got their facts wrong.  The contract award in 2009 is a matter of public record.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on July 04, 2014, 21:31:14
Lets not get facts in the way of a smear piece on the Tories. After all, I'm positive they didn't go and get some D models to fly around until the F models were ready, almost a year after contract award. Oh wait....
Title: Dutch acquiring 14 more CH47F Chinook helos
Post by: S.M.A. on September 09, 2015, 17:40:15
For Chinook watchers:

Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dutch-to-acquire-14-more-ch-47f-rotorcraft-416489/)

Quote
Dutch to acquire 14 more CH-47F rotorcraft
 
08 SEPTEMBER, 2015 BY: ANNO GRAVEMAKER
The Dutch defence ministry is to acquire 14 new Boeing CH-47F transport helicopters, in an expansion of its existing rotorcraft capabilities.

Recognising the Chinook’s importance in missions such as deploying quick reaction forces and humanitarian assistance, the Dutch air force has decided to retire its 10 ageing CH-47Ds – which were delivered from 1995 – and upgrade its existing six F-model examples, which entered use from 2013.



(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 12, 2015, 13:30:33
For total 18 Dutch Foxtrots--RCAF with only 15.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: SeaKingTacco on September 12, 2015, 15:06:15
It will be interesting to see if they opt for the Canadian modifications. If they do, IIRC, we get paid.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Underway on September 12, 2015, 15:15:37
It will be interesting to see if they opt for the Canadian modifications. If they do, IIRC, we get paid.

There's a few different Can Mods to the F, so any one of those and we do get paid for IP or sumsuch...  Does that count against the overall cost of the project???  Doubtful anyone would calculate it in.  Too much work.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on September 13, 2015, 05:20:20
Direct offset against in-service contract costs.  It is calculated.  Modification to USSOCOM's eight new MH-47Gs based on CH-147F configuration (particularly the new electrical system) are also calculated and offset.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: RaceAddict on December 05, 2015, 18:13:41
Saw a -47 overhead for the first time today... flying west over Ste-Therese/Boisbriand (north of Montreal). Pretty surprised, as I rarely seen much of anything from the Canadian Forces around here.

Would I be correct in guessing it had something to do with the refugee situation, etc?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on December 05, 2015, 19:04:38
Likely but not, training hours on new helicopters means they'll go lots of places you won't see them.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Strike on December 05, 2015, 21:48:14
Saw a -47 overhead for the first time today... flying west over Ste-Therese/Boisbriand (north of Montreal). Pretty surprised, as I rarely seen much of anything from the Canadian Forces around here.

Would I be correct in guessing it had something to do with the refugee situation, etc?

Probably coming back from doing testing in Greenwood if my memory serves.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: RaceAddict on December 06, 2015, 00:43:17
Probably coming back from doing testing in Greenwood if my memory serves.

526 nm (give or take) in a straight line, and that line goes just a few miles north of my house... so yeah, probably that.

Cheers.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 06, 2015, 11:15:04
Can't see why you'd fly 50 Km North of Montreal to come back from Greenwood. Greenwood would entail going South of Montreal.

On the other hand, anything in straight lines between Quebec City to Ottawa, Quebec City to Trenton, Bagotville to Ottawa or Bagotville to Trenton would go overhead of Ste-Therese area.

Such flights, even though out of the ordinary, would not be unexpected and could have multiple justifications behind them.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 06, 2015, 16:29:43
Greenwood, direct Petawawa, although there would be some adjustments along the way to avoid some sensitive areas, swings just North of Mirabel. 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: RaceAddict on December 06, 2015, 20:00:10
Greenwood, direct Petawawa, although there would be some adjustments along the way to avoid some sensitive areas, swings just North of Mirabel.

Looks that way according to this too: SkyVector (https://skyvector.com/?ll=44.516876595821394,-72.91406249333869&chart=301&zoom=11&fpl=%20CYZX%208U)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: daftandbarmy on December 07, 2015, 00:07:47
Saw a -47 overhead for the first time today... flying west over Ste-Therese/Boisbriand (north of Montreal). Pretty surprised, as I rarely seen much of anything from the Canadian Forces around here.

Would I be correct in guessing it had something to do with the refugee situation, etc?

Probably heading back to base after a party last night the old kite went U/S  ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 07, 2015, 14:50:25
It's new, not old, and it was indeed returning from icing trials in Greenwood.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 08, 2015, 09:23:57
It's new, not old, and it was indeed returning from icing trials in Greenwood.

I did not know Chinook pilots liked to participate in cake making contests.  [:D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: GR66 on December 08, 2015, 11:32:31
I did not know Chinook pilots liked to participate in cake making contests.  [:D

It's my favourite TV cooking show...."Chopp(er)ed"!
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MJP on December 08, 2015, 11:45:12
I did not know Chinook pilots liked to participate in cake making contests.  [:D

It isn't the pilots, the Chinook is an eating machine.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 08, 2015, 17:36:38
Auditions for "Cake Boss - Annappolis Valley Edition" :nod:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Dimsum on December 08, 2015, 20:18:25
Auditions for "Cake Boss - Annappolis Valley Edition" :nod:

Yes, there are some in the Annapolis Valley that could eat cake like a Boss.   >:D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: RaceAddict on December 10, 2015, 14:39:11
So what does someone have to do to get a ride in a CH-47F?

I've been making parts for them since 2010, so every air-frame flying in Canada (at the very least) has a few bits on it that have crossed my desk. :D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: OldTanker on December 10, 2015, 16:17:13
Not wanting to violate any OPSEC issues at all, but I'm wondering how the use and integration of the Chinooks is coming. Is 450 Sqn still doing acceptance and training or are the Chinooks being used by the brigades? Are they being used for troop movement or logistics? I'm just thinking back to the days when we had seven flying and have wondered how we would keep 15 gainfully employed. I'm sure they are an excellent resource to have, just an old soldier being curious and wondering what we are doing with them. Thanks if anyone can help.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Ludoc on December 10, 2015, 17:41:32
Not wanting to violate any OPSEC issues at all, but I'm wondering how the use and integration of the Chinooks is coming. Is 450 Sqn still doing acceptance and training or are the Chinooks being used by the brigades? Are they being used for troop movement or logistics? I'm just thinking back to the days when we had seven flying and have wondered how we would keep 15 gainfully employed. I'm sure they are an excellent resource to have, just an old soldier being curious and wondering what we are doing with them. Thanks if anyone can help.
Click here for an article about the Chinooks working with the guns (http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Shilo/EN/Newspapers/Documents/Stag%20Dec%203-15%20small.pdf)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 10, 2015, 20:22:37
450 Squadron's priority remains its own aircrew and groundcrew training. Until that progresses a bit more, there will be neither enough people to fly nor maintain more than a few machines at a time. Meanwhile, opportunities are planned to maximize the support that we can provide to as many people as possible.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: MJP on December 13, 2015, 11:46:46
Not wanting to violate any OPSEC issues at all, but I'm wondering how the use and integration of the Chinooks is coming. Is 450 Sqn still doing acceptance and training or are the Chinooks being used by the brigades? Are they being used for troop movement or logistics? I'm just thinking back to the days when we had seven flying and have wondered how we would keep 15 gainfully employed. I'm sure they are an excellent resource to have, just an old soldier being curious and wondering what we are doing with them. Thanks if anyone can help.

We had a few out at 1 CMBG a few weeks back and wll have some for this year's iteration of MAPLE RESOLVE.  They looked good!
Title: Australia mulls 3 more Chinooks
Post by: S.M.A. on December 24, 2015, 02:24:40
More Chinooks for Aussie Army aviation?

Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/12/23/australia-considers-more-chinooks/77801770/)

Quote
Australia Considers More Chinooks
By Nigel Pittaway 3:05 p.m. EST December 23, 2015

Melbourne, Australia — The Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA) notified US Congress on Dec. 18 of a potential Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program sale of three Boeing CH-47F Chinook helicopters to Australia.

The three Chinooks are in addition to seven delivered this year under Project Air 9000 Phase 5C and now in service with the Australian Army’s 5th Aviation Regiment in Townsville, northern Queensland.

The possible sale involves Major Defence Equipment (MDE), including three CH-47F Chinooks; six Honeywell T55-GA-714A engines; three Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below (FBCB2) Blue Force Tracking (BFT) systems; three Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS); three Honeywell H-764 Embedded GPS/INS systems, and three Infra-red Signature Suppression systems.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on December 25, 2015, 16:31:54
Seriously NATO should have a number of airframes, engines, transmission and blades built, all boxed and properly mothballed and stored in Nevada. Don't worry to much about top line avionics as that will always be changing. This will be part of the NATO war stock and as various nations helo's start getting lot's of hours, then they can trade them in for a new airframe with the older one going through the upgrade/zero hour/preservation process.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 25, 2015, 16:59:17
Wasteful and too labour-intensive.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on December 25, 2015, 19:04:33
Not when you need to replace combat losses in a hurry or ramp up in a hurry. Readiness comes with a price. Why do you think the Soviets kept everything, they would have just kept throwing everything at us till we ran out of ammo, tanks and aircraft. Even now a loss of a helicopter or a tank is a significant event, because there are so few of them. The airframe and drivetrains are the most labour intensive portion, you can run the helo on the bare minimum instruments. 
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 25, 2015, 20:10:09
There is a big difference between parking obsolete and surplus machines out in the desert sun and putting brand-new machines there.

Seals break down. Plastic parts deterorate. Mods do not get done. Money is spent for things that may never be used, and there is little enough money for things that we need that would be used. It takes months to carry out major inspections on machines in use; more work would be required for machines that had been parked for years, plus mods would most likely be required which would take more time, money and effort.

What about spare crews for these machines? Where do we park them until needed?

What do you mean by "instruments"? We have a variety of sensor and survivability equipment on board that also require maintenance.

It is better to use equipment that has been bought. It is kept in serviceable order, then, and is ready for use quickly.

A lot of what the Soviets kept was just for show. Most of it would never move under its own power again.

There is no merit in this, which is why nobody does it.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on December 25, 2015, 21:21:44
Not when you need to replace combat losses in a hurry or ramp up in a hurry. Readiness comes with a price. Why do you think the Soviets kept everything, they would have just kept throwing everything at us till we ran out of ammo, tanks and aircraft. Even now a loss of a helicopter or a tank is a significant event, because there are so few of them. The airframe and drivetrains are the most labour intensive portion, you can run the helo on the bare minimum instruments.

A B-52 is probably far more complex to inspect/certify than a Chinook, but here's a little bit of an idea on how long it takes to get one of those "boneyard" aircraft back into flying shape.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-ghost-rider-b-52-rises-from-the-grave-to-ride-aga-1686588702 (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-ghost-rider-b-52-rises-from-the-grave-to-ride-aga-1686588702)

Quote
Although "Type 1000" storage is the most ready state of storage for an aircraft that still will be stored for an unknown amount of time, many of the jet's systems were pulled, including much of its navigation equipment.

Type 1000   Aircraft stored in near-flyaway condition. Can be stored without re-preservation for a period of 4 years. Aircraft stored under this category may be downgraded to Type 2000.
Type 2000   Generally aircraft allocated for reclamation purposes. Aircraft stored under this category may be downgraded to Type 4000.
Type 3000   Flyable hold for 90 days or more, pending transfer, sale or disposition.
Type 4000   Minimal preservation. Generally aircraft stored in this category are awaiting disposal.

Even in Type 1000 storage, returning an aircraft to the air is no easy task. It took 70 days of constant work to get the Ghost Rider in a decent enough condition so that it could make its way to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. There, the 54-year-old jet would receive more of its missionized and navigational gear, much of it being cannibalized from the fire damaged 61-0049. In all, the process will cost around $13M according to the USAF.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on December 28, 2015, 12:00:08
There is a big difference between parking obsolete and surplus machines out in the desert sun and putting brand-new machines there.

Seals break down. Plastic parts deterorate. Mods do not get done. Money is spent for things that may never be used, and there is little enough money for things that we need that would be used. It takes months to carry out major inspections on machines in use; more work would be required for machines that had been parked for years, plus mods would most likely be required which would take more time, money and effort.

What about spare crews for these machines? Where do we park them until needed?

What do you mean by "instruments"? We have a variety of sensor and survivability equipment on board that also require maintenance.

It is better to use equipment that has been bought. It is kept in serviceable order, then, and is ready for use quickly.

A lot of what the Soviets kept was just for show. Most of it would never move under its own power again.

There is no merit in this, which is why nobody does it.

As I said airframe and major components all sealed in their containers. Basically what parts take the longest to construct and are the chokepoint to rapidly increasing your fleet as required. Just imagine if in a conflict or just before, you lost 3-6 Chinooks in one event, how are you going to replace that capacity in a hurry? Other than the US every NATO military is at the bare bones of what it needs, the loss of 1-2 aircraft is a significant crisis, where are you going to get the surge capacity for such a critical element as heavy lift helicopters? Even if the production line is open, you may be not first on the list. My idea may not be the best, but NATO needs to add more meat to the bone, having mothballed equipment that can be rapidly reset can help add that meat with less impact on the economic costs of maintaining equipment.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 28, 2015, 12:13:31
And how do we replace the crews?

How do we replace any personnel losses?

The only worthwhile option is to increase the number of active personnel and all associated required equipment. Buying stuff and packing it away "just in case" really does not make a lot of sense.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 28, 2015, 12:53:02
High-readiness storage would tie up capital funds without the immediate capability available, and as Loachman queries, the personnel are a far more valuable and hard-to-replace resource.  If things are so bad that we would need attrition aircraft to replace ours, we'd likely do what we did before, buy some used machines to fill in the gap in months, vice years, but it would still take more time than it seems the idea of reserve/depth/reconstition/reach-back is looking for. 

...and what about additional frigates if we lose one or two, and what about additional tanks and LAVs and support vehicles and a C-17...and...and...and...

In the end, it will likely be "run what ya brung" and nothing more.  Losses = less capacity.

:2c:

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on December 28, 2015, 13:34:57
The end game of every war, once all the toys and technology have disappeared.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.awakeningfighters.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fhand-to-hand-combat.jpg&hash=9efea27021f06528c4aea4b57e6637e6)

How badly do you want to win?  Or better how important is it that you don't lose?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on December 28, 2015, 13:37:04
In the end, it will likely be "run what ya brung" and nothing more.  Losses = less capacity.

I think every other Army/Navy/Air Force in the world is going to have the same issues, other than the US due to its boneyard, but those airframes are 2-3 months away at best. That's a long time in a near-peer environment.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: quadrapiper on December 28, 2015, 20:02:37
I think every other Army/Navy/Air Force in the world is going to have the same issues, other than the US due to its boneyard, but those airframes are 2-3 months away at best. That's a long time in a near-peer environment.
Expect "we" can discount those in any sort of serious fight; assuming the US flying forces would be losing the same sort of (and probably more) airframes as Canada.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 28, 2015, 22:15:21
It would make more sense to raid the civil aviation fleet, but that would bring a mishmash of types and would only solve the pure transport problem - the least-likely priority for us.

That's all that we currently have anyway, in either a cold weather scenario or a real shooting war.

Armed Griffons were alright in Afghanistan, but against an Inuit uprising or the Russians or Chinese, not so much.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Scoobs on December 29, 2015, 02:05:58
Inuit uprising?   :christmas happy:

Colin P,

I'm an Aerospace Engineer (AERE) that worked in the Chinook program.  In case you don't know what an AERE is, we're the guys that tell the pilots, "No helicopter for you!".  But seriously, the Officer Commanding Maintenance Flight at a Squadron is an AERE.  We also work in many other jobs, such as Project Offices, Technical Airworthiness Authorities, etc.  Basically, we're the guys that would have to look after the stuff that you propose to put in Nevada in, I assume, long term storage.

I'm not going to go in depth as to the many reasons why your plan is unrealistic, but I will say that it would be cheaper and more operationally effective to just buy more aircraft and keep them at 450 Sqn (with additional hangars being needed).  Then the question would be, where are you going to find more techs to maintain these additional aircraft?  See, just like the other posters stated, a simple statement like getting more parts, airframes, etc. isn't so simple after all.

We always had the problem of explaining to the Army folks that a helicopter is not a tank or Iltus.  You can't just buy parts and plop them in the desert, leave them there, and then go grab them when you need them.  It's way more complicated than that.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 29, 2015, 10:02:09
Inuit uprising?

Anywhere other than in a warm, dry environment.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on December 29, 2015, 11:14:23
Scoobs I would love to see a hanger with about 4-5 extra airframes per type undergoing long term storage/overhauls.  I proposed airframes and main components to reduce initial costs and to avoid some of the political issues. I was also thinking about the  VH-71s as basis for this idea.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 29, 2015, 11:55:28
Long-term storage is a waste of resources.

You can consider some of those Chinooks to be "spares". They are just in use in the meantime, as that keeps the fleet healthy.

We had to "war-stock"/"spare" Kiowas in 444 Squadron. They, too, were in constant use, for the same reason.

Consider tires. Now, many vehicles have compact spares, but many still have full-sized ones. Does it make sense to keep that spare fifth tire in one's trunk, never used, until one in use bursts, or to rotate all five to keep the wear even?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Colin P on December 29, 2015, 12:09:41
I would be more happy with that solution, but everything I have seen in my time was a 1 for 2 replacements. so i assume that what we have now is at best about 75% of what we need.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 29, 2015, 13:01:15
We bought eight Chinooks in 1975. One was lost - with all aboard - on its delivery flight and replaced by Boeing. Another was lost in a taxiing accident up north and burned with three lives lost and another three people badly burned.

We now have fifteen.

We did not have adequate doctrinal employment for the first batch. By the doctrine of the time, they were a corps-level resource, with an occasional requirement at division level.

Now we have twice as many, but at least we have several more divisions.

These were bought for Afghanistan. Had we never become involved there, we would never have bought them.

For conventional warfare, we have a much greater need for reconnaissance and attack - capabilities that we really lack.

So you should be happy - we did a two-for-one replacement, and have, doctrinally, 100% more than what we need, at least as far as Chinook is concerned.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 29, 2015, 13:22:36
On the flip side, land forces logistics has always been underserved, and the CH-147F was specifically procured to resolve the CAF's deficiency in this regard.  The CH-147Ds (6) were specific to the AFG theatre, in response to the Manley Report's stated capability requirements for the operation.  CH-147F fulfilled an operational requirement for the CAF in general, the institutional identification (2004) of which formally pre-dated the change in Canada's mission from a constabulary/rebuilding role to a combat role to the south in early-2006.  Regarding reconnaissance and attack capabilities, Canada made its choice as to how such capabilities would be delivered, and the degree to which aviation would play a part in their provision.  A mission-specific suite of sensor and weapons (INGRESS - Interoperable Griffon Reconnaissance Escort Surveillance System) for the Griffon was as far as reconnaissance and attack got in the past.  Sorry Loachman, but it's likely that any future recce and 'attack' aviation capability will be similar in nature (capability-wise) to INGRESS, should Canada decide to procure such capability.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 29, 2015, 13:39:32
Sorry Loachman, but it's likely that any future recce and 'attack' aviation capability will be similar in nature (capability-wise) to INGRESS, should Canada decide to procure such capability.

Yes, I know, and we will continue to have a significant capability lack that may someday bite us.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 29, 2015, 13:52:38
Yes, I know, and we will continue to have a significant capability lack that may someday bite us.

Yup, LM; sadly that dream died when CFLH was shut down by DLA.  If the Army didn't want the capability back then, the Air Force sure wouldn't ever pitch the capability again.  The best it will get will be a CFUTTH replacement that kind of, sort of, does something-ish like a heavily watered-down ARH capability.   :-\

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 29, 2015, 14:21:53
CFLH was killed off along with all of the other programme victims of the Mulroney "peace dividend" cuts of 1989. Actually, it survived for an extra day, because somebody missed it in the initial slaughter.

It was going nowhere, though. That was apparent from Ray Henault's annual briefings: two years of "it'll be fully IFR certified, will have a glass cockpit to impress the girls at airshows, and will have multiple redundant computers". I asked about likely airframe, weapon, and sensor choices, and the reply was always "We haven't got that far yet, but it'll be fully IFR etcetera etcetera..."

OH58D had, however, been rejected as it "had no growth potential" and had no ability to carry senior officers around. Really. How many tank designs have we rejected because they lacked an internal passenger-carrying capability? That was seen as the prime Kiowa role, apparently. Recce, Air OP, FAC...? Not important at all.

The only real bright spot of the programme at that point was that "444 Squadron would get an additional twenty techs to look after the multiple redundant computer systems". One of our biggest shortcomings was the lack of bodies to act as sentries during deployments. This would have gone a long way to towards solving that.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on December 29, 2015, 14:50:12
Scope creep, IMO.  Once all the bobbles were added (weapons, not extra seats), it became CFNSLH*, and it was doomed.

:2c:

Had the CFLH, CFUTTH, CFNTH trio been supported both by FMC and AIRCOM at the time as the holistic package it was intended to be, aviation would have been a far more integrated and capable branch than it is today.  The 'peace dividend' was but an external factor.  Internal lack of common support was the prime factor in the planned trio's demise/non-execution.

Regards
G2G


* CFNSLH - CF 'not-so' light helicopter
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Old Sweat on December 29, 2015, 16:11:44
In my opinion the army considered "pipeline pilots" as something like lepers and refused to accept that they could ever learn to do AOP or recce tasks. This was, of course, without taking an objective look at what could achieve. Now this was not across the board and in 2 RCHA we got a lot out of 427 Squadron.

On the other hand, the dangerous cargo procedure and the red engine covers did little to endear the air force to the army.

There also was a marked lack of cooperation in training aircrew. When I was in the individual training shop at FMC 77-80, every six months or so Scott Clements (yes, the future Commander Air Command) and I had to argue long and hard to get FMC to not zero load LOFT 1 Courses because the student load was below the minimum. This was because the flow from wings through the tac hel training program was only so large, but the Armoured School, who ran LOFT1 had not considered that when they designed the course. They then refused to redesign the course, so we fought the fight over and over again.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and deservedly so. However I do feel too many senior army officers who had been AOP or Recce pilots still had their noses out of joint over loosing aviation. Perhaps not knowingly, but at least some of them might not have lost too much sleep if the tac hel world had failed. Others, and not just ex-aviators, were turned off by the prospect of buying helicopters for the air force, when the army was short of all sorts of equipment.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Fishbone Jones on December 29, 2015, 21:13:11
We always had the problem of explaining to the Army folks that a helicopter is not a tank or Iltus.  You can't just buy parts and plop them in the desert, leave them there, and then go grab them when you need them.  It's way more complicated than that.

You can't do it with tanks or iltis either. Any of us that have done it, or restored hangar queens, to service, are well aware of the complications. Not everyone in the Army is a knuckle dragger.
Title: Re: Dutch acquiring 14 more CH47F Chinook helos
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 30, 2016, 08:59:35
For Chinook watchers:

Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dutch-to-acquire-14-more-ch-47f-rotorcraft-416489/)

Sorry a bit late,but it will be 20 in total for the Dutch Air Force.(14 new ones ,6 upgraded ones.

Come on Canada ,buy at least as much as us. ;)(just kidding)

gr,walter
Title: Re: Dutch acquiring 14 more CH47F Chinook helos
Post by: Good2Golf on January 30, 2016, 10:46:28
Sorry a bit late,but it will be 20 in total for the Dutch Air Force.(14 new ones ,6 upgraded ones.

Come on Canada ,buy at least as much as us. ;)(just kidding)

gr,walter

When you guys get MH-47G Block 2s or CH-147F-NLs, let us know.  That said, your new F's are kind of cute, even with the tiny fuel tanks, and your avionics aren't nearly as bad as the Brits'...  ;)

Cheers
G2G

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/h73mzeyv0clglei3g66s.jpg)
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Faviation-photos%2Fmiddle%2F2%2F8%2F3%2F2450382.jpg&hash=89ffeca0e8e00e9b7944265c84dcd6a5)
Title: Re: Dutch acquiring 14 more CH47F Chinook helos
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 30, 2016, 11:20:09
When you guys get MH-47G Block 2s or CH-147F-NLs, let us know.  That said, your new F's are kind of cute, even with the tiny fuel tanks, and your avionics aren't nearly as bad as the Brits'...  ;)

Cheers
G2G

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/h73mzeyv0clglei3g66s.jpg)
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Faviation-photos%2Fmiddle%2F2%2F8%2F3%2F2450382.jpg&hash=89ffeca0e8e00e9b7944265c84dcd6a5)

Haha,G2G"kind of cute",lol ;D

from what i could find,first deliverly will be in 2019(so takes a while to see these "cute" copters) >:D

here's how they will be outfitted:

Dutch CH-47F-NLs
CAAS MH-47 CAAS? No.
(click to view full)
One major difference in the multi-role CH-47F(NL) compared to the US Army Ch-47F will be the cockpits. Dutch CH-47Fs will use Honeywell’s Avionics Control and Management System (ACMS) Block-6 cockpit avionics suite, rather than Rockwell Collins newly developed CAAS standard for the USA’s Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters. At present, the Dutch CH-47D Chinooks use ACMS Block-5 cockpits, which have proven themselves in Dutch service on national and international missions. The ACMS Block-6 will be easier for the Dutch to integrate and operate than a new system like CAAS. From a European point of view, it’s also significant that ACMS is also in process to fulfill European airspace requirements via certification against European Civilian/Military Air Regulations.

The current ACMS Block-5 simulator, operated by CAE Benson, will be adapted to host also the ACMS Block-6 training.

Other equipment in the CH-47F(NL) will include an array of gear that will make the new helicopters well suited to special operations roles:

Robertson Extended Range Fuel System (ERFS)
Pall Engine Air Particle Separators (EAPS) for harsh or dusty environments
Integrated Wescam MX-15HDi Forward Looking Infra Red (FLIR) turret with laser illuminator
Terma (CHASE) and Northrop Grumman (AAR-54 RWR) Air Defense Systems
Hoist and fast roping capabilities
FN Herstal’s M3M .50 cal/ 12.7mm machine guns.
Provisions for a Permali/Plasan ballistic protection system
Simula crashworthy cockpit crew seats.
Secure communications suite including Satcom, HF, UHF and VHF radios
Weather radar and Digital maps to improve navigation, integrated with ACMS
Digital AFCS to improve flight control capabilities
There are also some hardware provisions for a future upgrade like a Helmet Mounted Display. All systems are being integrated in the helicopter during production at the Boeing facility.

gr,walter

ps,cost will be 838 million euros, for the 14 new ones.(according to our mindef)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on January 30, 2016, 15:14:23
Yes, Walter.  In my opinion ACMS is definitely much better than the BAE avionics fitment in the RAF HC.4/5/6s.  CH-147F CAAS and MH-47G CAAS are nearly identical, pages are different for the different sub-systems (EO/IR for example; Wescam 15HDi on 147F, FLIR Systems on 47G; and the 47G's TFR which the 147F doesn't have).  I'd be interested to know what electrical system the RNLAF decided on, whether it was based on the US Army's standard CH-47F system, or the CH-147F's re-designed solid-state distribution system (that the MH-47G Block 2 adopted).  I didn't see AAQ-24(V) DIRCM on the list, will the 47F-NLs have that to augment the AAR-54 MWS?

Straks,
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on January 30, 2016, 15:42:31
Yes, Walter.  In my opinion ACMS is definitely much better than the BAE avionics fitment in the RAF HC.4/5/6s.  CH-147F CAAS and MH-47G CAAS are nearly identical, pages are different for the different sub-systems (EO/IR for example; Wescam 15HDi on 147F, FLIR Systems on 47G; and the 47G's TFR which the 147F doesn't have).  I'd be interested to know what electrical system the RNLAF decided on, whether it was based on the US Army's standard CH-47F system, or the CH-147F's re-designed solid-state distribution system (that the MH-47G Block 2 adopted).  I didn't see AAQ-24(V) DIRCM on the list, will the 47F-NLs have that to augment the AAR-54 MWS?

Straks,
G2G

Was that English?!  :o
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on January 30, 2016, 21:49:16
Was that English?!  :o

Like you Jimmies are any better, PC!   ;)

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Baden Guy on January 30, 2016, 23:52:37
You guys need to get your hands on the latest issue of the RCAFA Airforce Magazine Vol 39/No 3.
Features a very comprehensive  interview with the Co of 450 Squadron covering all aspects of the progress of the Sqdn.
Plus some nice photos of the CH-147 Foxtrot.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Dimsum on January 31, 2016, 10:58:03
Was that English?!  :o

:rofl:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: PuckChaser on January 31, 2016, 12:17:11
Like you Jimmies are any better, PC!   ;)

Cheers
G2G
I use it as Conduct after capture training. 6 straight hours of HF theory and they'll stop asking what I do in the CAF.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on January 31, 2016, 12:32:28
I use it as Conduct after capture training. 6 straight hours of HF theory and they'll stop asking what I do in the CAF.

HF is an under appreciated art.  :nod:   Fortunately, the aircraft (a.k.a. ground plane) can be orientated in flight, and can give some pretty good SNR to the ARC-220's performance, wherever you want the reception to go/skip/hop/jump/bounce/pass... ;D

G2G
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on January 31, 2016, 12:59:55
Would you two boys play nice so that the kids at the back can keep up?
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 31, 2016, 13:04:41
Ah yes, HF theory.

But HF practice is even funnier some times.

In 1982, we are at anchor for the night in Plummer Sound, B.C., with our trusty Harris 500 watts HF (this is a Gate vessel) and trying to call on Vancouver Military, 40 Km away. No such luck. After I don't know how many tries, a clear a s bell voice comes over the circuit to ask if they can relay our message: It's US Coast-Guard Radio San Diego !!! So we pass our traffic, which is our noon position report and we get a big "Say again latitude???"   

You got to love skip and hop ;D.

Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on January 31, 2016, 13:41:00
Ah yes, HF theory.

But HF practice is even funnier some times.

In 1982, we are at anchor for the night in Plummer Sound, B.C., with our trusty Harris 500 watts HF (this is a Gate vessel) and trying to call on Vancouver Military, 40 Km away. No such luck. After I don't know how many tries, a clear a s bell voice comes over the circuit to ask if they can relay our message: It's US Coast-Guard Radio San Diego !!! So we pass our traffic, which is our noon position report and we get a big "Say again latitude???"   

You got to love skip and hop ;D.

[more slight tangents]

OGBD, funny you mention that...a "few" years ago, I was flying about 60nm south of Goose Bay, and no joy contacting Goose on UHF, VHF, FM or HF...pulled out an old school "time of day/lunar cycle/sunspot/etc..." cheat sheet from my checklist, and did a rough calculation of hop, and took a chance...pointed the aircraft perpendicular to direct the antenna's pattern in the intended direction and hit pay dirt first go, HF relayed through EDMONTON MILITARY, back to GOOSE MILITARY (even though I tried GOOSE MIL on HF earlier).  I have also seen skip on low-end (30's-40's MHz) VHF-FM as well, usually from Central America military installations...funny to hear the rad op/net controller (trying to) crap on the Gringo hablay-ing in Inglese to get off his net... ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on August 18, 2016, 12:18:02
And now, competing for the flying 10 tonne truck of the year award:

https://youtu.be/UxW8psYbeJY
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on August 18, 2016, 18:10:18
Looks like a flying colostomy bag... ;D
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on August 18, 2016, 19:07:28
Looks like a flying colostomy bag... ;D

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2016%2F08%2F06%2F13%2F36EE074200000578-3726727-A_parody_on_Twitter_showing_the_Flying_Bum_beneath_Kim_Kardashia-a-99_1470485813336.jpg&hash=35b8af70a2e404ceb5fb1db0b879fe8d)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: CBH99 on August 19, 2016, 04:29:44
That is actually pretty sci-fi looking!  It's neat to see how some aspects of the future are unfolding.  :)


*While both look like something out of a science fiction movie, I'm referring to the blimp.  Not Kim Kardashian's face.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on August 19, 2016, 11:49:30
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Thunderbird2.jpg)

Thunderbirds are Go!   [:D

I quit the Boys Brigade because it conflicted with my Thunderbirds watching.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 19, 2016, 12:12:24
Now THAT was worldwide logistical support  ;D

Could even carry a submarine!
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Good2Golf on August 20, 2016, 09:39:56
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Thunderbird2.jpg)

Thunderbirds are Go!   [:D

I quit the Boys Brigade because it conflicted with my Thunderbirds watching.

T2 was my favourite! :nod:
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Dimsum on August 20, 2016, 17:57:06
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Thunderbird2.jpg)

Thunderbirds are Go!   [:D

I quit the Boys Brigade because it conflicted with my Thunderbirds watching.

Please. 

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpre04.deviantart.net%2Fbcda%2Fth%2Fpre%2Ff%2F2015%2F024%2F9%2F3%2Fthunderbirds_2086_vehicles_by_haryopanji-d8f9jkf.png&hash=70122a3079331fb04d82500002929d31)
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on August 20, 2016, 18:45:02
Please not.

I am sorely tempted to abuse my powers and cleanse that post.
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Chris Pook on August 20, 2016, 19:01:29
Please. 

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpre04.deviantart.net%2Fbcda%2Fth%2Fpre%2Ff%2F2015%2F024%2F9%2F3%2Fthunderbirds_2086_vehicles_by_haryopanji-d8f9jkf.png&hash=70122a3079331fb04d82500002929d31)

Sacrilege! Heresy! Burn the witch!
Title: Re: CH47 Chinook
Post by: Loachman on December 11, 2016, 16:09:13
Back to Chinooks, finally...

A reporter whose articles will not be posted here has announced that CH147201 will be restored and displayed at the museum in Trenton and CH147206 will be restored and displayed at 450 Squadron's hangar in Petawawa.