• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Is it the CH-47D/F Chinook?

MH-47E/G Special Operations Chinook?

Or the HH-47 CSAR-X (Combat Search and Rescue) Helicopter?

HH47.jpg
CH-47DF_DVD-1100-2_300x375.jpg
 
From what little I know, a bit of a blend.
 
left one look a lot like the HH-47 CSAR-X right one i don't know for sure..

cheers


http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/hh47/index.html

the picture is from boeing site
 
Are we getting infight refeuling?  I would think not but I don't know anything.  :)
 
No contract till the end of 2008; I smell pork problems (from the C-130J contract announcement):
http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372519

3. Medium- to Heavy-Lift Helicopters (Chinooks)

Procurement process


In July 2006, PWGSC issued an Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) on MERX, the government’s electronic tendering service.

An ACAN signals the government’s intention to award a contract to a specific supplier for a specific requirement. Other suppliers then have an opportunity (at minimum 15 days) to submit a Statement of Capabilities clearly demonstrating how they can meet the mandatory requirements set out by the government.

This method of procurement fosters competition by giving suppliers the opportunity to respond to the government’s requirements before a contract is awarded. It is typically used when the government believes there is only one supplier or product capable of meeting its needs. It is also open and transparent by letting suppliers know the government’s intention well in advance of any contract award.

Schedule

A Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued to Boeing by the spring of 2008. Contract award is expected by the end of 2008. Under the RFP, Boeing will be required to meet all of the high-level mandatory requirements including delivery of first aircraft 36 months after a contract is awarded. The last aircraft will be delivered within 60 months of contract award.

Trade agreements

This requirement was excluded from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization – Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO – AGP) and the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).

Mark
Ottawa
 
Helicopter shortage still hovers over forces
National Post, Jan. 30
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=272344

In recent weeks, the federal government has approached European allies and major U.S. manufacturers for four to six aircraft [emphasis added], on a lease or loan basis, but has had no luck.

The government plans later this year to award a sole-sourced contract for 16 new CH-47 Chinook helicopters to the U.S. defence contractor Boeing, but because the first of those helicopters is not due to arrive until 2011, the military wants a temporary solution to the lack of air support in order to lessen the exposure of Canadian troops to deadly roadside bombs.

The Manley commission has called on the government to secure medium-lift helicopters by next year as a condition for continuing the Canadian Forces combat mission in Afghanistan.

Now there is growing frustration within Defence Department headquarters over the delay in getting helicopters. Many are second-guessing a decision two years ago to pass on buying second-hand U.S. army Chinooks, while others are growing increasingly frustrated with the air force's position to hold out for the new fleet of customized Chinooks, instead of trying to find less deluxe versions that could be retrofitted for the battlefield in the coming year.

"They are looking into options," said a senior defence industry insider. "To accelerate the Chinooks or [by] going to other manufacturers to see what they have available or what can be made available."

Late last year, the government asked Germany if it could lend Canada four of its CH-53 transports. Germany was unable to do without any of the 18 specially retrofitted aircraft it currently rotates through Afghanistan because they are already being heavily used.

Germany offered less deluxe CH-53s that Canada could have had retrofitted with special filters to cope with southern Afghanistan's dusty climate as well as other features to protect the choppers from ground fire.

Upgrading the helicopters for Afghanistan could take anywhere from several months to a year.

Canada also approached Sikorsky Aircraft, the American company that makes the CH-53, but was told every aircraft the company has produced is now being used.

Some Defence Department insiders say the best option for getting a few new helicopters within the next year is to persuade Boeing to allow Canada to jump the queue on its current busy assembly line...

A Defence Department source blamed delays on the air force's desire to get a highly customized new fleet of the CH-47, instead of settling for a few "bare bones" versions of the helicopters in the short term.

"With the right amount of high-level political and military representation in Washington, we should be able to secure four to six airframes initially. Given that the Americans want us to stay in the south, they should be persuaded that giving up a few slots in the production line is a small price to pay to keep an important and trusted ally in the game," said the source...

Working out the distribution of regional industrial benefits is also certainly a reason for the contract delay, as they were with the C-130J contract.

From a Jan 23. Toronto Star story:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/296597

Canada could...negotiate with Washington to snag some CH-47 Chinooks off the production line where they are now being made for the United States army, said Mark Kronenberg, vice-president of international business development for Boeing's defence business.

"There's going to have to be some government-to-government discussions. ... It's always in the realm of the doable when governments get together," he said in an interview.

Ottawa did a similar deal with Washington that allowed Canada's air force to take quick delivery of C-17 transport jets last year...

Mark
Ottawa
 
It would take a long time to get the show up and running. The whole operation has to start from scratch and there is a vast difference between what's coming down the tube--CH-47s and the current helicopters.
 
Too bad. We need those chopper now in Afghanistan, why can't they just get them of the shelf like the C17's.
 
MarkOttawa said:
Helicopter shortage still hovers over forces
National Post, Jan. 30
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=272344

Working out the distribution of regional industrial benefits is also certainly a reason for the contract delay, as they were with the C-130J contract.

From a Jan 23. Toronto Star story:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/Canada could...negotiate with Washington to snag some CH-47 Chinooks off the production line where they are now being made for the United States army, said Mark Kronenberg, vice-president of international business development for Boeing's defence business.

"There's going to have to be some government-to-government discussions. ... It's always in the realm of the doable when governments get together," he said in an interview.

Ottawa did a similar deal with Washington that allowed Canada's air force to take quick delivery of C-17 transport jets last year...

Mark
Ottawa
And we're still hearing the screaming from those poor,poor aerospace types in Quebec , Manitoba. B.C.  Ontario ,N.B. etc etc........ad nauseum about how they never got as much pork as they're entitled to with every Defence Contract issued.
 
          What I don't understand is that there was an offer according to the above article( reply 25 )  to buy some second hand chinooks till our new ones become available  and I presume that it was turned down .  Well than why the heck doesn't the Canadian Government  just go back to our US Allies and ask for the same deal ?
 
Further to my previous post. To acquire Chinooks and get a unit up and running with trained and qualified personnel takes considerable time and effort. To put a new unit into an operational area with crews that have nothing more than the minimum qualifications to operate the aircraft would be more than questionable.
I was one of the people who was around the last time that we got Chinooks and there was a huge learning curve. The squadrons had operated the CH-113A (CH- 46) before getting the Chinook and dispite them both being from the same family--Boeing tandem rotor there was little in common. Both the Chinook and the 113A are ages away from helicopters like the Twin Huey and Griffon in terms of sophisticated systems and the new generations of Chinooks are a whole lot farther along than the old ones in the same respect.
We had snags that kept very experienced (but not on the Chinook) technicians completely baffled for days. We had integral systems techs at that time who's specialty was all of the systems where electronics interfaced with hydraulic and other systems and they had a full time job just discovering how everything worked. I don't believe that there's such a trade any more and someone else has to do their job along with other things. Who ever these people are they will have to learn the whole thing all over again and that isn't going to happen fast as usually the snag is something that isn't covered in any of the maintenance books that come with the aircraft. The same things apply to airframe and engine techs but the story is too long to get into here.
As for the people who are going to operate them the leap from little helicopters to Chinooks is a big one. The Chinook is big and heavy and it can destroy big things on the ground with rotorwash like you have never even dreamed of and when you are sitting in the front of it you will have something like the total legnth of a Griffon---rotors and all somewhere out behind you in a place that you can't see.
On one of our first operations which was in Frobisher Bay I watched a Chinook with a full load of 45 gallon drums of fuel take off from a loading area and it was hurling  48 x 48 pallets around like they were a deck of cards. All of the bystanders were on the run as they were raining out of the air and one of them--a loadie received a concussion.
Flight Engineers were never seen without a stack of books that they were trying to decipher as everyone was asking them to find out why something didn't work and when they left home base they had an inventory of spare parts that a Griffon couldn't lift on a cold day at sea level--and cases of oil and hydraulic fluid. I still long for the smell of hydraulic fluid.  I was usually wearing at least a couple of cans of it from something that had burst open and sprayed it on me.
I'm not trying to discourage anyone with my recollections of the Chinook as it's a great helicopter. Fantastic. I'm just using my experiences to pass on to you that it's a whole world away from anything that is familiar and that there's going to be a lot to learn about it before it can be used. Too bad that I'm just an old retired guy. I'd love to be there.

 
Well, there's a solution in your last sentence. They could invite you 'Old retired guys' back in to save our asses!

"The shortest distance between 2 points, with all your stuff, is a Chinook"
 
Thats why I think they should have people at least training on them now.I've flown in a Chinook its a great heli.Too bad its taking to long to get things rolling.
 
The first A/C I worked on in the airforce was the Chinook. That was almost 19 years ago. It was a great A/C then and I bet a greater A/C now with the new versions. Back then it had an all up weight of 50 000 lbs, weighing in empty at 22 000Lbs. That left 28 000lbs of fuel and cargo (figures are close but maybe not exact). The Buffalo we fly now is lucky to haul 10 000 lbs of usefull cargo. The Chinook is by far, in my opinion, the most capable A/C the air force ever had, capable of lifting more than it's basic weight.
I hope one day to finish my career in the airforce they way it started, on Chinooks.
There are still some chinook pilots kicking around the airforce, and some old crusty FEs . I'm sure there is a pile of experience still to draw on, but don't wait to long.
 
daftandbarmy said:
If we did, we'd have to pay you all to come back on contract  ;)

I understand complexity issues that were mentioned however I think that if we can do it quickly for C17s we can get it done quickly for these birds too.
 
I would echo that.

We learned much from the introduction of Griffon, which was done in great haste, and there are a lot of people around who remember what was done wrong and have some pretty good ideas for preventing similar mistakes.

There aren't many left with experience on Old Chinook, but those that have it are well-placed. And New Chinook is going to be much different from Old Chinook, aside from general appearance, size, and rotorwash. What is inside the basic box has changed a lot.

We already have an Instructor Pilot (IP) gaining experience in the US.
 
We already have an Instructor Pilot (IP) gaining experience in the US.

Well thats a start hopefully they get more people trained soon.
 
The last Chinooks that we bought were also much different than the Old Chinook of that time but they came with many of the old problems and a whole lot of new ones.
One thing that became obvious was the inherent disconnect between Boeing and the U.S. Army in regard to technical problems. Generally speaking Boeing built the aircraft according to the contract terms but despite the technological advances that had been made over the years since the first Chinooks were built nothing was ever done to build a better product unless the improvement was initiated by the army and covered by a contract. Obviously no company is going to do uncontracted work but some of the things were so outstanding that it was hard to believe.
The U.S. Army  seemed to operate in a manner where they operated the equipment that they were issued and did little or nothing to change it unless a company was contracted to find a problem and another one was contracted to come up with a solution. Both the problem finding and solution finding contracts were dependant on money being approved and the results of these may or may not get attention depending on money being approved once again and more contracts drawn up.
Boeing wasn't in a position to advise us of what the U.S. Army doing other than a few general things that they were aware of and the U.S. Army only knew of issues that had gone to contract.
The sales people at Boeing were always around to flog all of the new innovative things that the company was conjuring up for future models but there was no one to tell us about the ones that we had.
We were sold a huge pile of crap that came with no support and left to sort it out on our own.
 
The KISS principle should apply to all procurement programs otherwise costs get out of hand. The more tweaks to the original design the more the system costs with the invariable delays in fielding.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/chinooknews/news_2008.pdf
 
Back
Top