5 Aug 10: Hard Landing for CAN Chinook in K'Har Province

[SeanNewman]

I would not have mentioned money had anyone been killed or seriously wounded, but since it would appear that there were only minor injuries, this will be an extremely expensive month for the CF in terms of losses.

First a CF18 is destroyed, and now we just spent almost $300 million I believe on these six CH47s / 6 = $50 million loss.

Of course the fact that lives were not lost is the real story, but losing a Chinook budget-wise is like losing a Company's worth of LAVs...just...gone.

 

[REDinstaller]

and now we just spent almost $300 million I believe on these six CH47s / 6 = $50 million loss.

Minus what the support portion of the contract cost, on some contracts the support portion can be 25-50% of the overall cost.

 

[Good2Golf]

$292M to put the whole capability in place and maintain until end-of-mission, including initial training, re-currency training, aircraft, ancillary systems, spare parts, tools, consumables, etc... all go into the overall cost.  The airframes themselves were not $50M.

As with other systems/hulls/vehicles/etc..., if a system can be repaired, it is; if not, it is a cost of doing business.  My flight instructor on jets would always tell me as we armed the ejection sets preparing to taxi for take off, "Remember, this aircraft is already paid for.  If it stops working, we keep the ejection seats and give the rest back to the taxpayer."  It was a way of reminding ourselves that people are the most important, and that mechanical things can be replaced (or not, if so decided).

In this case, after getting likely thousands of troops off the road and millions of pounds of cargo out to the soldiers, the machine got the crew and passengers safely down on the ground.  Money well spent IMO! 

Cheers
G2G

 

[Jammer]

Who really cares about the cost.
Military eqpt is meant to go into harms way, and loss is inevitable.
It can be replaced, lives can't.

 

[armyvern]

Who really cares about the cost.
Military eqpt is meant to go into harms way, and loss is inevitable.
It can be replaced, lives can't.

True that.

Glad to hear that all made it out of this one alive.

 

[The Bread Guy]

In this case, after getting likely thousands of troops off the road and millions of pounds of cargo out to the soldiers, the machine got the crew and passengers safely down on the ground.  Money well spent IMO! 

Here here!  And also glad, like the others, that only hardware was lost on this one.

 

[OldSolduer]

Who really cares about the cost.
Military eqpt is meant to go into harms way, and loss is inevitable.
It can be replaced, lives can't.

Well said. Thank you for summing up my feelings.

I'm glad the troops got out alive.

 

[midget-boyd91]

While I agree that the cost is irrelevant, and that having all the men and women survive this is absolutely priceless......

I also understand what Petamocto is saying; For a small airforce, with a very few number of these aircraft the loss of even just one can give a real blow to the capabilities of a (relatively) small wing. Even just one of these aircraft is a (relatively) large chunk of a budget for a small military.

That being said, I'll go back to saying that it doesn't matter what the cost was, because the money spent on the equipment and training the crew is always worth it when it saves the lives of those on board.

 

[REDinstaller]

And it keep counless of trucks off the IED laden road and routes further protecting our soldier.

 

[tomahawk6]

While I agree that the cost is irrelevant, and that having all the men and women survive this is absolutely priceless......

I also understand what Petamocto is saying; For a small airforce, with a very few number of these aircraft the loss of even just one can give a real blow to the capabilities of a (relatively) small wing. Even just one of these aircraft is a (relatively) large chunk of a budget for a small military.

That being said, I'll go back to saying that it doesn't matter what the cost was, because the money spent on the equipment and training the crew is always worth it when it saves the lives of those on board.

This batch of Chinooks will not be going to Canada when the mission ends. They will probably be left for the Afghans.

 

[Good2Golf]

This batch of Chinooks will not be going to Canada when the mission ends. They will probably be left for the Afghans.

The CH147D fleet can still provide the capability it was procured to provide.  There will, however, be greater pressure on the remaining aircraft, but still within the achievable.  Point is valid that one less machine = 17% fleet size reduction, so that is a greater relative impact than say, one LAV III at a time.  However, for the period the aircraft we knew it would be operating, and for the risks we knew we were accepting getting back into the heavy lift business directly into a theatre of war, the crews and machines have greatly exceeded all guarded exectations.

T6, I'd wager that the Afghan Flying Corps sticks with the Mi-8/17, and that someone else buys and operates the relatively complex/expensive Chinook.

Cheers
G2G

 

[REDinstaller]

Or they will get traded back to Boeing as a cost reduction on the CH147Fs.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest on the fate of the Chinooks as of a couple of weeks ago.....
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/57659/post-956858.html#msg956858

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 ....

 

[tomahawk6]

The CH147D fleet can still provide the capability it was procured to provide.  There will, however, be greater pressure on the remaining aircraft, but still within the achievable.  Point is valid that one less machine = 17% fleet size reduction, so that is a greater relative impact than say, one LAV III at a time.  However, for the period the aircraft we knew it would be operating, and for the risks we knew we were accepting getting back into the heavy lift business directly into a theatre of war, the crews and machines have greatly exceeded all guarded exectations.

T6, I'd wager that the Afghan Flying Corps sticks with the Mi-8/17, and that someone else buys and operates the relatively complex/expensive Chinook.

Cheers
G2G

I had forgotten that they might be swapped back to Boeing.

 

[Good2Golf]

The actual detail of how the aircraft would be sold is more up to the US Dept. of State, in keeping with ITAR policies and all.  The Minister is referring to one of a number of possible options.  Technically, the aircraft are fully owned by the Govt of Canada, with the associated restriction that any agency the GoC wishes to sell the aircraft to after our use, requires USG/DoS approval.  That's how all FMS agreements work when it comes to ITAR-controlled systems.

Other options include selling back to the USG (from which we originally purchased them) or selling to another US-approved nation.

Cheers
G2G

 

[REDinstaller]

Boeing would strip the airframe down and rebuild them into F models. The initial availabilty of airframes is what first delayed the introduction of the F series in US service.

 

[Good2Golf]

Boeing would strip the airframe down and rebuild them into F models. The initial availabilty of airframes is what first delayed the introduction of the F series in US service.

Actually it wasn't.  It was the deliberate delay of the F build line by Congress to effect the rebuild of all MH-47E's and D's to MH-47G configuration.

G2G

 

[REDinstaller]

I thought i read at one point that many of the upgrades to the F and G models would only progess as previous airframes came available for upgrade.

 

[Good2Golf]

You are right, T18A, in that initial plans called for substantial use of D-model airframes, but now, the F has a new-build airframe.  It's called 'monolithic-machining", meaning it's stringers and bulkheads are machined/milled from solid pieces of metal, as opposed to riveted structures.  It makes for a much tighter airframe.  All the dynamic gear from the D's was kept (engines, rotors, shafts, transmissions, etc...) but the D's frame is recycled.  The dynamic parts are then mounted onto the newly-constructed airframe, and in concert with the upgraded digital avionics, make an 'F'.  Aside from a few prototype F's, the G's were actually the first production Chinook to use the US Army's Common Aviation Architecture System (CAAS), the digital avionics that are shared between Chinook, BlackHawk, Little Bird and Lakota helicopters.

Cheers
G2G

 

[REDinstaller]

And hasn't the RAF sidelined the MH's they bought due to Avionics issues?