CH47 Chinook

[HB_Pencil]

Well, speaking merely as someone who's spent a lifetime in uniform, and not as some cubicle-dwelling bureaucrat or "consultant" whose lifestyle is presumably enhanced by having acquisition programmes drag on and on and on....I see the Chinook program as a brilliant success story.

Its a bit humorous.... all this from you because I had the temerity to question the decision to acquire one capability some were not sold upon.

But hey, what do I know? Apparently I'm a F-35 cheerleading, cubicle dwelling, evil consultant trying to screw the forces.

How quickly people forget that just a few years ago we were screaming for the need for heavy-lift helicopters.  You seem to forget that we were up crap creek without a paddle a couple of years ago because of our inability to re-supp our forces by ground in Afghanistan.  For a country so heavily reliant on vehicles that slurp up tonnes of guys for mobility would it not be wise to buy a chopper that can carry enough resources to sustain us? 

Helicopters aren't just about us being able to move GIBs, if that were the case we would just buy more Griffons.  CH147's are far more capable in the sustainment battle then any other chopper out there.  They can carry more and they have a triple hook system.  The triple-hook system stabilizes large external loads, such as 155mm howitzers, allowing them to be carried at speeds up to 140 knots (260 km/hr) – or twice as fast as single-suspension loads. Multiple external loads (fuel blivets for example) can be delivered to three separate destinations in a single sortie.

Again, I'm not "forgetting anything." What I stated  reflected the thoughts of some within DND in 2007 and 2008. They occurred with a full view what was going on in Afghanistan. It wasn't like they were oblivious to requirements on the ground, but they were also looking at other considerations that might be important.

As someone pointed out above, its really academic at this point and its a good capability.

Could EH-101's carry our M777 155mm Howitzer's into position at altitude?  Honest question.  Not trying to bust your chops.  I didn't think they could which was one of the reasons why the Chinook was selected as it did a job that was absolutely required.


Matthew. 

According to what I've heard the Merlin can carry the M777 at normal altitudes for an operationally useful distance, but certainly not with the range that the chinook can. That's a significant limitation of going to medium lift.

 

[Jammer]

Yes...but just the gun...no gun crew or ammo, much the same way a Griffon can carry an LG-1 gun...just.

CH-147...gun+ crew and pers kit+ammo for a good fire mission over a healthy range.

 

[Baz]

I am personally familiar enough with Baz's work and project experience to assure you that he is neither a cubicle dweller nor a consultant.

Well, to be far, I am an office dweller right now, an a *shudder* NATO one at that...

I do get to do a bit of software work on the side now and then.

 

[George Wallace]

According to what I've heard the Merlin can carry the M777 at normal altitudes for an operationally useful distance, but certainly not with the range that the chinook can. That's a significant limitation of going to medium lift.

If you look at Afghanistan, "normal altitudes" were not the case.  Even the Griffons have altitude problems which in turn affect the payloads they can carry.  It is not a good idea to purchase equipment that meets the minimum requirements, and then be forced to purchase again to meet the maximum, or rent from other nations equipment or support.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well, to be far, I am an office dweller right now, an a *shudder* NATO one at that...

I do get to do a bit of software work on the side now and then.

Software work? What? You? When? 

 

[tomahawk6]

Yeah...because EVERYONE knows that..... :facepalm:

I was referring to the 2 hubs of the chinook being self evident.

 

[Good2Golf]

H-47s have operated from a number of various larger naval platforms (I've seen them on as small as a OHP-class DDG), but as SKT notes, they are not fully marinized as any MH-class ship borne helo is, so secondary considerations regarding corrosion control and other factors related to such an environment would have to be considered to determine how much a Chinook might be employed in a littoral area of operations.  Could our Chinook operate off a Berlin (or whatever we'll call the our AOR) class ship, without doubt, but likely in a littoral concept like humanitarian assistance in Haiti, where main operations would more than likely be land-based.  I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be able to stow in an AOR or FFG hangar, blades folder or not... The aft pylon/rotor is close to two-stories tall.

Not sure if I'm remembering the USN-US Army project name properly, but I think it was something like JSHIP - joint-service helicopter interoperability project. I recall seeing a matrix of all the US Army's helicopter as test against the USN's helo-capable fleets.

Regards
G2G

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good2Golf:

a Berlin (or whatever we'll call the our AOR) class ship

Well, we might call them the KITCHENERS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_to_Kitchener_name_change

Or, perhaps, to be more naval, the FISHERS:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/fisher.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SeaKingTacco]

H-47s have operated from a number of various larger naval platforms (I've seen them on as small as a OHP-class DDG), but as SKT notes, they are not fully marinized as any MH-class ship borne helo is, so secondary considerations regarding corrosion control and other factors related to such an environment would have to be considered to determine how much a Chinook might be employed in a littoral area of operations.  Could our Chinook operate off a Berlin (or whatever we'll call the our AOR) class ship, without doubt, but likely in a littoral concept like humanitarian assistance in Haiti, where main operations would more than likely be land-based.  I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be able to stow in an AOR or FFG hangar, blades folder or not... The aft pylon/rotor is close to two-stories tall.

Not sure if I'm remembering the USN-US Army project name properly, but I think it was something like JSHIP - joint-service helicopter interoperability project. I recall seeing a matrix of all the US Army's helicopter as test against the USN's helo-capable fleets.

Regards
G2G

I can check HOSTACs next week on the DWAN to see if the Chinook is listed.

(HOSTACS= the ship/helo operational interface matrix)

 

[Good2Golf]

I can check HOSTACs next week on the DWAN to see if the Chinook is listed.

(HOSTACS= the ship/helo operational interface matrix)

Found it SKT: JOINT SHIPBOARD HELICOPTER INTEGRATION PROCESS
(JSHIP)

 

[Jammer]

Thanks G2G. Should be interesting reading.

 

[Journeyman]

But hey, what do I know? Apparently I'm a F-35 cheerleading, cubicle dwelling, evil consultant trying to screw the forces.

Honestly I neither know, nor care, what you do for a living, although some things can be reasonably presumed from your posts -- naturally, as one moves further from the 'meat' of your posts, the presumptions become more tenuous.

For example, I can pretty confidently presume that you work on the F-35 program. Moving further, I'd figure that you're some sort of engineer. Based on the way you blithely dismiss the views of posters with obvious military flight experience, I'd guess that you've never actually spent a moment in uniform and possibly even feel superior to all people military. 

See how that progression of assurance works?


What I do know, with certainty, is that:

a) the 'Army aviation' world is now accepting deliveries of a very good operational aircraft to meet their needs;

b) the 'fighter world' is not;

yet c) YOU think the CH-47 procurement system should be shunned while the F-35 program is....well.....worthy of cheer-leading.


But hey, I'm just an Army guy, who's only seen pictures of slide rules, who is quite happy to see positive, timely outcomes despite dithering bureaucracies.  While I can't speak for them, I also suspect that there are more than a couple of CF-18 people who wish that they had Chinook project management people on their team.

 

[Jammer]

is there a "like/booyah" button or something for that Journeyman? Well stated.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Honestly I neither know, nor care, what you do for a living, although some things can be reasonably presumed from your posts -- naturally, as one moves further from the 'meat' of your posts, the presumptions become more tenuous.

For example, I can pretty confidently presume that you work on the F-35 program. Moving further, I'd figure that you're some sort of engineer. Based on the way you blithely dismiss the views of posters with obvious military flight experience, I'd guess that you've never actually spent a moment in uniform and possibly even feel superior to all people military. 

See how that progression of assurance works?


What I do know, with certainty, is that:

a) the 'Army aviation' world is now accepting deliveries of a very good operational aircraft to meet their needs;

b) the 'fighter world' is not;

yet c) YOU think the CH-47 procurement system should be shunned while the F-35 program is....well.....worthy of cheer-leading.


But hey, I'm just an Army guy, who's only seen pictures of slide rules, who is quite happy to see positive, timely outcomes despite dithering bureaucracies.  While I can't speak for them, I also suspect that there are more than a couple of CF-18 people who wish that they had Chinook project management people on their team.

op:

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

But hey, I'm just an Army guy, who's only seen pictures of slide rules, who is quite happy to see positive, timely outcomes despite dithering bureaucracies.  While I can't speak for them, I also suspect that there are more than a couple of CF-18 people who wish that they had Chinook project management people on their team.

I'm not so sure just how "good" the project management was. Successful? Yes, indisputably, but maybe, in large part, because, as the AG noted ""For the medium- to heavy-lift helicopter, there was an absence of timely meetings, challenge, and approvals by senior boards at all key decision points in the acquisition process and before seeking Treasury Board approvals." In other words someone - almost everyone in DND and at the cabinet table - agreed that the CH-147 project was "go,' and the normal, stifling bureaucratic oversight was unnecessary and that money would not "slip to the right" as it so often does when DND's senior management is allowed to exercise its power.

 

[Jammer]

Like I said before...have a look at how the C-17 acquisition was handled....seems like that worked out pretty good.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Like I said before...have a look at how the C-17 acquisition was handled....seems like that worked out pretty good.

I agree and, in both cases, I think, the operational requirement originated in the office of the MND. Oh, it's true that the CF said we want strategic transports and heavy lift helicopters, but the MND of the day, Gordon O'Connor, drove the process. I think O'Connor did two things right:

    1. He secured cabinet support first and then he went and told DND to fast track it;

    2. He, and Peter MacKay, kept their cabinet colleagues, especially the President of the Treasury Board and PWGSC's minister, "on side" throughout the process.

The poor old F-35 has been allowed to become a political orphan. It doesn't really matter how good, or not so good, it might be, it lacks a political "cheering section" and that makes it constantly vulnerable.

 

[Jammer]

My prediction:

The F-35 will never see RCAF roundels. It is barely even accepted by the US military.

My bet:

F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet.

 

[Journeyman]

My prediction...

Take it to the F-35 thread; this one's a success story.    :stirpot:

   

 

[Jammer]

i've been there...waaaay to much nonsense going on there.