Chapeski said:but isn't the Lab fairly similar to fly compared to the Chinook?
Bearpaw said:Acquiring 6 refurbished CH-47D for about $90 million seems to be a very good deal if there is a reasonable amount
of lifetime remaining for them after refurbishment. It may even be worthwhile getting more if all checks out.
Wondering about the cost of the 16 new F-models--the cited article implies that a deluxe new F-model
costs about $40 million/airframe(I assume for the airframe only). Our proposed contract for 16 new F-models with support,...
is for $4.7 billion----> about $290+ million/airframe.
$250 million "supporting" costs for EACH airframe seems more than a bit excessive.
With limited funds available, we should be trying to get the most advantageous deal possible.
Perhaps so many pigs are being slaughtered for the Boeing pork-barrel that our cost of bacon should soon
jump more than a little bit!
Perhaps someone more familiar with the cost per flying hour of these two models of helicopter could
contrast the two proposed purchases.
Bearpaw said:A Google search yielded the following information about the CH-47F program in the US---Dated Jan. 21, 2004
Department of Defense
Office of the Inspector General -- Audit
Acquisition of the CH-47F Improved Cargo Helicopter - Report No. D-2004-046(PDF) - Project No. D2003AE-0069.000
The "web" synopsis of the report has the following statement:
"The Army estimated the cost of the CH-47F Program at $13.6 billion for 301 CH-47F aircraft, including $156.2 million for research, development, test, and evaluation; $5.4 billion for procurement; and $8.0 billion for operations and support."
$13.6 billion/301 = $45.2 million per airframe (which includes support---the US Army probably has fairly extensive support)
Since this was 4 years ago, exchange rates, inflation,.... assume that today's cost of this contract would be about $100 million/airframe.
For Canada---we are getting 16 airframes plus support and have to build infrastructure---hangars, parts depots,....
at a per airframe cost of $293+ million.
I would not be so concerned if we were getting 50 or 60 airframes but these numbers simply do not add up.
I wonder how many airframes the US could afford at those prices----it seems a bit like the torpedo deal a few years back when
we received a "refund" for the excessive prices charged.
On another site:
http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Support-Helicopters/CH-47F-Chinook_a000504003.aspx
there is more interesting figures on the US CH-47F program.
George Wallace said:Bagotville?
That seems a little out of the way. They would use up quite a bit of flying hours getting to a task, before even conducting a task. Seems like a more centralized location would be better, or to divvy up the numbers between the Bdes and a OP Commitment.
newfin said:Here's a positive development:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/02/10/pf-4838866.html
Canadian pilots have already been training on CH-47s in the U.S. and Australia in anticipation of the Tory government's long-promised $4.7 billion purchase of 16 brand new Chinooks.
There's a post a couple of pages back regarding the decision to get rid of the old fleet.OldSolduer said:OK two questions:
1. Who made the decision to get rid of the Chinooks we had? I apologize if I insulted anyone.
I remember flying in those choppers years ago. I was in the very back and we flew with the ramp down.....AWESOME sight!!
2. How long will it take to gain the necessary skills for pilots to fly the Chinooks?![]()
Mountainview.peaches said:You can't base the whole AF in Trenton. Trenton has a full ramp as it is, & no hanger space. Hanger space is the driving force, & Bagotville has plenty. Do not forget politics, of all the new aircraft the CF is buying, none to date are based in Quebec. Quebec only has Grifs & F18's......