Author Topic: CH47 Chinook  (Read 288982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline toglmonster

  • New Member
  • **
  • 589
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 43
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #75 on: February 13, 2009, 01:09:31 »
-Just responding to the last part of MANIAC779 post. -

-Your right-

-Let's hope it stays just talk-

maniac779

  • Guest
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #76 on: February 13, 2009, 12:24:26 »
-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.

Offline KJK

    is enjoying summer.

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 117,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #77 on: February 13, 2009, 13:40:25 »
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:

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 216,722
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,422
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #78 on: February 13, 2009, 14:12:27 »
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.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #79 on: February 13, 2009, 14:27:36 »
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.

Offline mover1

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 758
  • I wasn't looking at anybodys birthmark man........
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #80 on: February 13, 2009, 14:36:27 »
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.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,802
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,400
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #81 on: February 13, 2009, 14:43:42 »
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?
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,930
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #82 on: February 13, 2009, 17:18:34 »
...it was a CLS driven decision to rid the CF of our Hooks in the first place...

Well, Comd FMC, but yeah... ;)

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 71,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #83 on: February 13, 2009, 18:22:44 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 71,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #84 on: May 03, 2009, 14:30:35 »
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
« Last Edit: May 03, 2009, 19:48:16 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,948
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #85 on: May 21, 2009, 10:06:37 »
DND Looks to Buy Fewer Choppers
Josh Pringle Wednesday, May 20, 2009
 Article Link

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
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 71,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #86 on: May 21, 2009, 15:37:59 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 71,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #87 on: May 28, 2009, 15:58:57 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #88 on: August 10, 2009, 09:16:34 »
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 ?

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,441
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #89 on: August 10, 2009, 09:21:33 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,441
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #91 on: August 10, 2009, 10:45:31 »
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

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 71,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #92 on: August 11, 2009, 12:48:39 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline DocBacon

    has nothing to say, move along...

  • New Member
  • **
  • 900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #93 on: August 13, 2009, 22:11:37 »
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.
I'm not laughing with you...

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 216,722
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,422
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #94 on: August 13, 2009, 22:52:20 »
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?

Offline HercFE

  • Guest
  • *
  • 3,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #95 on: August 14, 2009, 08:30:27 »
No word yet on were they will be based? Last word a year ago or so was possibly Bagotville.
IF it's not broken, don't fix it.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 216,722
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,422
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #96 on: August 14, 2009, 08:43:59 »
Nope. Just speculation.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 71,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #97 on: August 14, 2009, 09:18:34 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,441
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #98 on: August 14, 2009, 09:59:53 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline SARgirl

  • Member
  • ****
  • 8,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 121
$1.15 billion U.S. for 15 choppers: Canadian Forces
« Reply #99 on: August 18, 2009, 11:54:38 »
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.
That Others May Live!
"Every survival kit should include a sense of humor."  ~ Author Unknown ~