Canada asks for Chinook design changes; military expert worry about delay

[FoverF]

Nothing more expensive than losing a war.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It will cost us what it cost us.  Maybe, if we had not have short-sightedly sold the capability in the 90s in the first place, it would be cheaper and quicker.  But who am I to argue defence policy with the NDP....

 

[geo]

SeakingTacco
If you look at most NATO countries, they have all, at one time or another operated in a short sighted manner.
Look at the 100 Leo2s we've picked up from the Dutch (who yes did purchase our CH47s).
The Dutch are also trying to sell off some of the Pz2000 SPs they haven't even taken delivery of.... go figure.
The UK is being criticized almost every day for shortchanging their troops will all sorts of gear... go figure.

Thankfuly, under the current 9and last?) CDS, we appear to have begun getting our $h!t together .... but we still have a ways to go.

 

[beenthere]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2338662820080423 The latest.

 

[OldSolduer]

I suppose the line up to get a ride on those Chinooks extends from Winnipeg to Edmonton!
Question, looking to the future. Will a Chinook or two be available to train some PRes soldiers on how to get in it, out and ride in it?
I know that it will take some time.

 

[beenthere]

They're sort of lean on spare engines. Two for Six helicopters.
OldSolduer: It's easy to build a simulator for PRes passengers. Just take a sea container and build bench seats on either side. If you want to really enhance the simulation cut some round window holes, pour hydraulic fluid on the floor, mount it on truck springs and install a stereo system with some really big speakers. The guys who are waiting for their turn for a ride can bounce the container on it's springs and play heavy metal music at full volume on the stereo system. It'll be just like the real thing. ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

A real blast, March 22, from Dianne  DeMille, editor, Canadian  American  Strategic  Review  ( CASR ):

Our  defence  minister,  Peter  Mackay,  slinks  home with  some  'tails'  between  his  legs
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-mackay-hooked-1.htm

According  to a  report in  Jane's Defence Weekly, the Canadian government  has agreed  to buy  six used Chinooks – 'D models' –  from the US Army. The six  ex-US Army  helicopters in question were selected  by the vendor. This is a little like walking into a used car lot and asking the salesman to pick out six  'previously-owned'  vehicles  for your fleet.

In effect, our Minister of  National  Defence has managed to negotiate an inferior deal for the same model of  used CH-47Ds available through the US Army’s CHAPS program ( the Cargo Helicopter Alternate Procurement Strategy). Instead, we are dealing with the US Government.

The US Army is not in a position to provide support services of any kind for this purchase – no training, no maintenance personnel, and,  most importantly,  no parts supply line. Canada will have to, once again,  prevail upon our closest allies – the Netherlands, Australia, and the UK  –  to help us out with anything that they can spare from their own over-stretched supply lines and spare parts intended for their small fleets of Chinooks in Southern Afghanistan. [1]

All the money in the defence cookie jar has been spent on aircraft with 'No Political Sizzle'

Why was Canada  left in this humiliating position?  Because  Prime Minister  Stephen Harper gave in to the vanity of  Air Staff planners and spent our nation's surplus on the aircraft that they  wanted  most  –  there is simply no time  –  and certainly no money  –  left  to  buy  the transport  helicopters  which are an  immediate  military  necessity  in  Southern  Afghanistan...

What is it about powerful  politicians and  their  inability to  'Just Say No'  to the petulant foot stamping and  haughty, turned-up noses of  Air Staff ? The Air Force is certainly not going to lease Russian Mil helicopters for the sake of our soldiers on the ground.  Oh no, that would be beneath them – especially with alluring new-aircraft scents wafting through the air. Our NATO allies operate or lease Mi-17s  – even the United States –  even the CIA.  What is the problem?..

...Do  Air Staff  planners show any indication of actually wanting  to buy helicopters?  Fixed-wing aircraft get bought, but the 25-year project  to replace Sea Kings still hasn't borne fruit. And,  despite constant complaints about CH-146 Griffons as military helicopters, there's been no moves to 'liquidate' these assets on a healthy civilian market for this type. Do helicopters simply get in the way of 'real' aircraft?..

What Air Staff  wants,  Air Staff  gets  –  And even frugal,  neo-con Prime Ministers submit

The Air Force got their C-17 Globemaster III  ACAN first.  Then they got the C-130J Hercules. What if  Air  Staff has just lost interest in the new CH-47F Chinook? What if  they believe that it would be better to put the purchase 'on the back burner' until their grumpy Prime Minister  is once again 'in the vein' to spend billions of dollars on aircraft for our undeployable Air Force?

When are the elected officials of this country going to wake up and see that Air Staff planners have never,  will never, put the interests of  this country before their own vanity?  Bureaucrats in uniform awaiting plummy industry jobs need to be brought sharply to heel.  They've sworn their lives to their  Sovereign  –  that collective  'sovereign'  is,  in fact,  the citizens of  Canada.

I wonder if Ms  DeMille realizes that CAS Angus Watt is a helicopter pilot:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/orgdocs/CAS_bio_e.asp

Mark
Ottawa

 

[beenthere]

Who are these people?

 

[geo]

SFU.... should be STFU... Shut the Fu Up.

The 6 previously owned CH47s are just that, previously owned & would have been returned to Boeing for upgrades, the way all Chinooks go... So they're "used".... that is all that is available AND nothing new is available before ... beyond 2011

 

[Zoomie]

SFU is being made to look quite the fool by continuing to sponsor CASR: DND 101.

I just submitted a letter of complaint to the President of SFU's Office - anyone else equally fed up with the tripe coming out of Ms. DeMille and her cohorts should do the same.

 

[newfin]

I know a lot of you on this site are not happy with CASR but I sure do not want to see it shut down.  Yes, they can be opinionated at times  AND they might draw incorrect conclusions from what others might think.  However, that site is a great source of info on the Canadian Armed Forces.  There is not another site I have seen that comes anywhere as close as they do for being comprehensive.  And on top of all that they do offer their opinions and solutons to problems concerning the CAF and Canada's security.  It's hard to find anything in the media that does not contain errors or inaccuracies of some sort.

 

[MarkOttawa]

CH-47Ds are a Foreign Military Sale; here's the text of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's notification to Congress.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.36167296.1209039165.Xf3Z338AAAEAAEMMDpsAAAAY&manuel_call_prod=93592&manuel_call_mod=release&modele=jdc_inter

I find the following interesting:

The Government of Canada has requested a possible sale of...Quality Assurance Team support, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support...

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Canada and in the theater of operations for an unspecified amount of time [emphasis added]...

So that's part of the way we'll deal with maintenance while Canadian Air Force ground crew are trained.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MedCorps]

Mark hit on a good point.  When you read the US FMS (Foreign Military Sale) Notice it shows some interesting things...

1) The FMS notice does not seem to be related to the CHAPS program that is mentioned in this thread. It covers six used US CH-47D's with two extra Allied Signal T55 turbine engines and some in-service support. The CHAPS program (as I understand it) is looking at CH-47F++ models and would not arrive into the hands of Canada for years.  This FMS Notice makes delivery of the six CH-47D's possible very, very quickly (like by September of this year).

2) The FMS notice has 30 pairs of NVG's (AN/AVS-6(V)1 or AN/ANS-7(V)1) as part of the potential sale.  This provides some options with respect to potential project cost containment as the AN/AVS-6(V)1 is lass expensive then the AN/ANS-7(V)1.  It is also my understanding (based on reading only) that the AN/AVS-6(V)1 is a substandard piece of kit due to 'halo effect'.  We can only hope that the project office will not cheap out and go with the better option.  In fact it would have been nice to see the FMS only have  one of the two sets of NVG on it. 

3) The FMS notice has four (but not six) M240H spade-grip machine guns included. One would guess that with 6 choppers you would buy six machine guns.  So... one could speculate only four are going into combat and two will be used for training, we have two extra C6's laying around that we can use without buying US ones, the role of two of the CH47D's will not require machine gun armament, or that they might be fitted with the M134D miniguns that are the subject of other threads and a recent MERX notice. 

Some food for thought... not a chopper guy, just have some interest in the topic personally and professionally.  Look forward to the expert's thoughts.

Cheers Mark for finding the FMS Notice.

MC

 

[Sf2]

AVS-6 is the google
ANS-7 is the HUD

So there isn't any choice in the matter which goggle is to be used.

 

[beenthere]

CH-47Ds are a Foreign Military Sale; here's the text of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's notification to Congress.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.36167296.1209039165.Xf3Z338AAAEAAEMMDpsAAAAY&manuel_call_prod=93592&manuel_call_mod=release&modele=jdc_inter

I find the following interesting:

So that's part of the way we'll deal with maintenance while Canadian Air Force ground crew are trained.

Mark
Ottawa

The notification is interesting but brief. Now if someone could fatten the story up with some details we'd all be able to do some speculation.

 

[geo]

Heh...
Heard that our pilots, mechs and aircrew are doing flight training & / or refresher training in vairous countries who currently use the CH47Ds - intent being that we will take delivery of the 6 slightly used Chinooks in XXXXXX for immediate use over there.

 

[GnrJetTech]

If it was that simple, this wouldn't be an issue.

It is that simple...think of it like buying a car. Not everyone requires all the bells and whistles so they order a 'personalized' version of the model that fits their requirements and lifestyle.
You may not want a/c, and a sunroof in Yellowknife or studded tires in southern Ontario.

This is the same thing Canada has done for years depending on the operational requirement and the future outlook of operations for that piece of kit.
Their insight to the future sucks sometimes, but I think their intentions are genuine.

short example. CF-18 vs. F-18 (something I am more familiar with)- In the U.S the Dual F-18 rear seat is occupied by a 'Tactical Officer' therefore the rear seat cockpit encompasses way more options and
controlability than a CF-18, which we use in a training capacity where the rear seat is set up more like a student monitoring station.

Why spend the extra money on equiptment and options we don't need? Why should we?

Lets 'Canadianize' it for our lifestyle and particular operational requirements. It takes a little longer but these are the options WE asked for.

JMHO

 

[MedCorps]

By the sounds of things we are going to do both.

Pick up a few used CH-47D's from the USA on a short notice buy and the procure CH-47F (complete with Canadian mods) as part of the CHAP program.  The CHAP program will take some time before delivery can occur.

Cheers,

MC

 

[aesop081]

short example. CF-18 vs. F-18 (something I am more familiar with)- In the U.S the Dual F-18 rear seat is occupied by a 'Tactical Officer' therefore the rear seat cockpit encompasses way more options and
controlability than a CF-18, which we use in a training capacity where the rear seat is set up more like a student monitoring station.

Well......not quite

F/A-18B is a trainer just like our 2-seat CF-18s

The F/A-18D rear seat is for a tactical officer same as the F/A-18F

 

[GnrJetTech]

Well......not quite

F/A-18B is a trainer just like our 2-seat CF-18s

The F/A-18D rear seat is for a tactical officer same as the F/A-18F

You get the idea... :