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

CH47 Chinook

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,715
Points
1,160
On the flip side, land forces logistics has always been underserved, and the CH-147F was specifically procured to resolve the CAF's deficiency in this regard.  The CH-147Ds (6) were specific to the AFG theatre, in response to the Manley Report's stated capability requirements for the operation.  CH-147F fulfilled an operational requirement for the CAF in general, the institutional identification (2004) of which formally pre-dated the change in Canada's mission from a constabulary/rebuilding role to a combat role to the south in early-2006.  Regarding reconnaissance and attack capabilities, Canada made its choice as to how such capabilities would be delivered, and the degree to which aviation would play a part in their provision.  A mission-specific suite of sensor and weapons (INGRESS - Interoperable Griffon Reconnaissance Escort Surveillance System) for the Griffon was as far as reconnaissance and attack got in the past.  Sorry Loachman, but it's likely that any future recce and 'attack' aviation capability will be similar in nature (capability-wise) to INGRESS, should Canada decide to procure such capability.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Good2Golf said:
Sorry Loachman, but it's likely that any future recce and 'attack' aviation capability will be similar in nature (capability-wise) to INGRESS, should Canada decide to procure such capability.

Yes, I know, and we will continue to have a significant capability lack that may someday bite us.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,715
Points
1,160
Loachman said:
Yes, I know, and we will continue to have a significant capability lack that may someday bite us.

Yup, LM; sadly that dream died when CFLH was shut down by DLA.  If the Army didn't want the capability back then, the Air Force sure wouldn't ever pitch the capability again.  The best it will get will be a CFUTTH replacement that kind of, sort of, does something-ish like a heavily watered-down ARH capability.  :-\

Regards
G2G
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
CFLH was killed off along with all of the other programme victims of the Mulroney "peace dividend" cuts of 1989. Actually, it survived for an extra day, because somebody missed it in the initial slaughter.

It was going nowhere, though. That was apparent from Ray Henault's annual briefings: two years of "it'll be fully IFR certified, will have a glass cockpit to impress the girls at airshows, and will have multiple redundant computers". I asked about likely airframe, weapon, and sensor choices, and the reply was always "We haven't got that far yet, but it'll be fully IFR etcetera etcetera..."

OH58D had, however, been rejected as it "had no growth potential" and had no ability to carry senior officers around. Really. How many tank designs have we rejected because they lacked an internal passenger-carrying capability? That was seen as the prime Kiowa role, apparently. Recce, Air OP, FAC...? Not important at all.

The only real bright spot of the programme at that point was that "444 Squadron would get an additional twenty techs to look after the multiple redundant computer systems". One of our biggest shortcomings was the lack of bodies to act as sentries during deployments. This would have gone a long way to towards solving that.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,715
Points
1,160
Scope creep, IMO.  Once all the bobbles were added (weapons, not extra seats), it became CFNSLH*, and it was doomed.

:2c:

Had the CFLH, CFUTTH, CFNTH trio been supported both by FMC and AIRCOM at the time as the holistic package it was intended to be, aviation would have been a far more integrated and capable branch than it is today.  The 'peace dividend' was but an external factor.  Internal lack of common support was the prime factor in the planned trio's demise/non-execution.

Regards
G2G


* CFNSLH - CF 'not-so' light helicopter
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
57
Points
480
In my opinion the army considered "pipeline pilots" as something like lepers and refused to accept that they could ever learn to do AOP or recce tasks. This was, of course, without taking an objective look at what could achieve. Now this was not across the board and in 2 RCHA we got a lot out of 427 Squadron.

On the other hand, the dangerous cargo procedure and the red engine covers did little to endear the air force to the army.

There also was a marked lack of cooperation in training aircrew. When I was in the individual training shop at FMC 77-80, every six months or so Scott Clements (yes, the future Commander Air Command) and I had to argue long and hard to get FMC to not zero load LOFT 1 Courses because the student load was below the minimum. This was because the flow from wings through the tac hel training program was only so large, but the Armoured School, who ran LOFT1 had not considered that when they designed the course. They then refused to redesign the course, so we fought the fight over and over again.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and deservedly so. However I do feel too many senior army officers who had been AOP or Recce pilots still had their noses out of joint over loosing aviation. Perhaps not knowingly, but at least some of them might not have lost too much sleep if the tac hel world had failed. Others, and not just ex-aviators, were turned off by the prospect of buying helicopters for the air force, when the army was short of all sorts of equipment.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
281
Points
910
Scoobs said:
We always had the problem of explaining to the Army folks that a helicopter is not a tank or Iltus.  You can't just buy parts and plop them in the desert, leave them there, and then go grab them when you need them.  It's way more complicated than that.

You can't do it with tanks or iltis either. Any of us that have done it, or restored hangar queens, to service, are well aware of the complications. Not everyone in the Army is a knuckle dragger.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,715
Points
1,160
Karel Doorman said:
Sorry a bit late,but it will be 20 in total for the Dutch Air Force.(14 new ones ,6 upgraded ones.

Come on Canada ,buy at least as much as us. ;)(just kidding)

gr,walter

When you guys get MH-47G Block 2s or CH-147F-NLs, let us know.  That said, your new F's are kind of cute, even with the tiny fuel tanks, and your avionics aren't nearly as bad as the Brits'...  ;)

Cheers
G2G

h73mzeyv0clglei3g66s.jpg

2450382.jpg
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
13
Points
180
Good2Golf said:
When you guys get MH-47G Block 2s or CH-147F-NLs, let us know.  That said, your new F's are kind of cute, even with the tiny fuel tanks, and your avionics aren't nearly as bad as the Brits'...  ;)

Cheers
G2G

h73mzeyv0clglei3g66s.jpg

2450382.jpg

Haha,G2G"kind of cute",lol ;D

from what i could find,first deliverly will be in 2019(so takes a while to see these "cute" copters) >:D

here's how they will be outfitted:

Dutch CH-47F-NLs
CAAS MH-47 CAAS? No.
(click to view full)
One major difference in the multi-role CH-47F(NL) compared to the US Army Ch-47F will be the cockpits. Dutch CH-47Fs will use Honeywell’s Avionics Control and Management System (ACMS) Block-6 cockpit avionics suite, rather than Rockwell Collins newly developed CAAS standard for the USA’s Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters. At present, the Dutch CH-47D Chinooks use ACMS Block-5 cockpits, which have proven themselves in Dutch service on national and international missions. The ACMS Block-6 will be easier for the Dutch to integrate and operate than a new system like CAAS. From a European point of view, it’s also significant that ACMS is also in process to fulfill European airspace requirements via certification against European Civilian/Military Air Regulations.

The current ACMS Block-5 simulator, operated by CAE Benson, will be adapted to host also the ACMS Block-6 training.

Other equipment in the CH-47F(NL) will include an array of gear that will make the new helicopters well suited to special operations roles:

Robertson Extended Range Fuel System (ERFS)
Pall Engine Air Particle Separators (EAPS) for harsh or dusty environments
Integrated Wescam MX-15HDi Forward Looking Infra Red (FLIR) turret with laser illuminator
Terma (CHASE) and Northrop Grumman (AAR-54 RWR) Air Defense Systems
Hoist and fast roping capabilities
FN Herstal’s M3M .50 cal/ 12.7mm machine guns.
Provisions for a Permali/Plasan ballistic protection system
Simula crashworthy cockpit crew seats.
Secure communications suite including Satcom, HF, UHF and VHF radios
Weather radar and Digital maps to improve navigation, integrated with ACMS
Digital AFCS to improve flight control capabilities
There are also some hardware provisions for a future upgrade like a Helmet Mounted Display. All systems are being integrated in the helicopter during production at the Boeing facility.

gr,walter

ps,cost will be 838 million euros, for the 14 new ones.(according to our mindef)
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,715
Points
1,160
Yes, Walter.  In my opinion ACMS is definitely much better than the BAE avionics fitment in the RAF HC.4/5/6s.  CH-147F CAAS and MH-47G CAAS are nearly identical, pages are different for the different sub-systems (EO/IR for example; Wescam 15HDi on 147F, FLIR Systems on 47G; and the 47G's TFR which the 147F doesn't have).  I'd be interested to know what electrical system the RNLAF decided on, whether it was based on the US Army's standard CH-47F system, or the CH-147F's re-designed solid-state distribution system (that the MH-47G Block 2 adopted).  I didn't see AAQ-24(V) DIRCM on the list, will the 47F-NLs have that to augment the AAR-54 MWS?

Straks,
G2G
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
652
Points
1,060
Good2Golf said:
Yes, Walter.  In my opinion ACMS is definitely much better than the BAE avionics fitment in the RAF HC.4/5/6s.  CH-147F CAAS and MH-47G CAAS are nearly identical, pages are different for the different sub-systems (EO/IR for example; Wescam 15HDi on 147F, FLIR Systems on 47G; and the 47G's TFR which the 147F doesn't have).  I'd be interested to know what electrical system the RNLAF decided on, whether it was based on the US Army's standard CH-47F system, or the CH-147F's re-designed solid-state distribution system (that the MH-47G Block 2 adopted).  I didn't see AAQ-24(V) DIRCM on the list, will the 47F-NLs have that to augment the AAR-54 MWS?

Straks,
G2G

Was that English?!  :eek:
 

observor 69

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3
Points
430
You guys need to get your hands on the latest issue of the RCAFA Airforce Magazine Vol 39/No 3.
Features a very comprehensive  interview with the Co of 450 Squadron covering all aspects of the progress of the Sqdn.
Plus some nice photos of the CH-147 Foxtrot.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
652
Points
1,060
Good2Golf said:
Like you Jimmies are any better, PC!  ;)

Cheers
G2G
I use it as Conduct after capture training. 6 straight hours of HF theory and they'll stop asking what I do in the CAF. [emoji48]
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,715
Points
1,160
PuckChaser said:
I use it as Conduct after capture training. 6 straight hours of HF theory and they'll stop asking what I do in the CAF. [emoji48]

HF is an under appreciated art.  :nod:  Fortunately, the aircraft (a.k.a. ground plane) can be orientated in flight, and can give some pretty good SNR to the ARC-220's performance, wherever you want the reception to go/skip/hop/jump/bounce/pass... ;D

G2G
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
735
Points
1,060
Would you two boys play nice so that the kids at the back can keep up?
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Ah yes, HF theory.

But HF practice is even funnier some times.

In 1982, we are at anchor for the night in Plummer Sound, B.C., with our trusty Harris 500 watts HF (this is a Gate vessel) and trying to call on Vancouver Military, 40 Km away. No such luck. After I don't know how many tries, a clear a s bell voice comes over the circuit to ask if they can relay our message: It's US Coast-Guard Radio San Diego !!! So we pass our traffic, which is our noon position report and we get a big "Say again latitude???" 

You got to love skip and hop ;D.

 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,715
Points
1,160
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Ah yes, HF theory.

But HF practice is even funnier some times.

In 1982, we are at anchor for the night in Plummer Sound, B.C., with our trusty Harris 500 watts HF (this is a Gate vessel) and trying to call on Vancouver Military, 40 Km away. No such luck. After I don't know how many tries, a clear a s bell voice comes over the circuit to ask if they can relay our message: It's US Coast-Guard Radio San Diego !!! So we pass our traffic, which is our noon position report and we get a big "Say again latitude???" 

You got to love skip and hop ;D.

[more slight tangents]

OGBD, funny you mention that...a "few" years ago, I was flying about 60nm south of Goose Bay, and no joy contacting Goose on UHF, VHF, FM or HF...pulled out an old school "time of day/lunar cycle/sunspot/etc..." cheat sheet from my checklist, and did a rough calculation of hop, and took a chance...pointed the aircraft perpendicular to direct the antenna's pattern in the intended direction and hit pay dirt first go, HF relayed through EDMONTON MILITARY, back to GOOSE MILITARY (even though I tried GOOSE MIL on HF earlier).  I have also seen skip on low-end (30's-40's MHz) VHF-FM as well, usually from Central America military installations...funny to hear the rad op/net controller (trying to) crap on the Gringo hablay-ing in Inglese to get off his net... ;D
 
Top