• 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

They might want to change the caption on the second picture. I don't know of any current RCAF pilots who wear green berets.

I wonder if the bedazzle look will come back into style, with the rivet job on the CH-47's as the driving force.
 
HB_Pencil said:
There was consideration given within the DND on alternatives, because this was a costly purchase and there were alternatives available. The  requirements were basically set to be only heavy lift (CH-47) at Hillier's request. That killed any possibility of looking at alternative force structures.

Merlin is a AW-101 derivative, which we already operate in the Comorant. So it would have been easier to get technicians for that helicopter than for a type we didn't operate anymore. And the supplier relationship already exists. The other option was to go with the H-92, which was less capable of the two.

I completely agree that having those bells and whistles are useful, but when you're paying nearly double the basic model flyaway cost, there must be grounds to question the utility it provides at that cost.... especially when there is an alternative that can provide some or most of the capability required at a lower costs.

I don't have a hate on for Hillier in the least... Hiller did what he had to do in his situation. Absolutely he got critical equipment into the field in a timely manner and I commend him for that. He was also instrumental in improving the forces However that doesn't mean I have to love or agree with every one of his decisions. His get things done approach works well in some circumstances, but not others where careful analysis and consideration could have yielded better results.

Want an alternate scenario? Lets consider going with the Merlin. We get a helicopter with 50~60% of the capacity, but at about half of the upfront cost. So  we're less capable in the field with smaller medium lift helicopters, but we double our operational fleet size and standardize around one common airframe with all the advantages that go with it. And they were seen as being significant.

Is that realistic? I don't know because the analysis was never fully considered. And that's what I'm interested in for case. Saying it must be a heavy lift helicopter of X type and no other basically locked us into a choice we're now paying for and will have to sustain on a potentially shrinking budget.

Why is considering this important? During the 1990s we saw our combat capability get gutted due to budget cutbacks, just like with the US Army right now. If we go through additional cutbacks, this capability will be a big target because of its high operational costs. I completely understand the operational need for it... and I agree the Chinook is a phenomenal capability. However if Canada goes through another round of defence cutbacks in the future, this will be one of the capabilities that will be considered. Had it been put on a more affordable basis its risk would be significantly less.

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.  :salute:
 
The caption should have read "aircrew" vice "pilots."  The MCpl with the green beret is the loadmaster and as a traffic technician who could be uniformed either as land or air uniform, he happens to wear the land DEU. 

Regards
G2G
 
captloadie said:
They might want to change the caption on the second picture. I don't know of any current RCAF pilots who wear green berets.

Was going to say the same thing.  The guy with the goofy smile is the pilot. (And also my brother from another mother, lol.)

So happy for all of those who get to play with the new helo!  I know said pilot has really been looking forward to it.  Not many people get to introduce a new fleet twice in their careers.
 
HB_Pencil said:
There was consideration given within the DND on alternatives, because this was a costly purchase and there were alternatives available. The  requirements were basically set to be only heavy lift (CH-47) at Hillier's request. That killed any possibility of looking at alternative force structures.

Merlin is a AW-101 derivative, which we already operate in the Comorant. So it would have been easier to get technicians for that helicopter than for a type we didn't operate anymore. And the supplier relationship already exists. The other option was to go with the H-92, which was less capable of the two.

I completely agree that having those bells and whistles are useful, but when you're paying nearly double the basic model flyaway cost, there must be grounds to question the utility it provides at that cost.... especially when there is an alternative that can provide some or most of the capability required at a lower costs.

I don't have a hate on for Hillier in the least... Hiller did what he had to do in his situation. Absolutely he got critical equipment into the field in a timely manner and I commend him for that. He was also instrumental in improving the forces However that doesn't mean I have to love or agree with every one of his decisions. His get things done approach works well in some circumstances, but not others where careful analysis and consideration could have yielded better results.

Want an alternate scenario? Lets consider going with the Merlin. We get a helicopter with 50~60% of the capacity, but at about half of the upfront cost. So  we're less capable in the field with smaller medium lift helicopters, but we double our operational fleet size and standardize around one common airframe with all the advantages that go with it. And they were seen as being significant.

Is that realistic? I don't know because the analysis was never fully considered. And that's what I'm interested in for case. Saying it must be a heavy lift helicopter of X type and no other basically locked us into a choice we're now paying for and will have to sustain on a potentially shrinking budget.

Why is considering this important? During the 1990s we saw our combat capability get gutted due to budget cutbacks, just like with the US Army right now. If we go through additional cutbacks, this capability will be a big target because of its high operational costs. I completely understand the operational need for it... and I agree the Chinook is a phenomenal capability. However if Canada goes through another round of defence cutbacks in the future, this will be one of the capabilities that will be considered. Had it been put on a more affordable basis its risk would be significantly less.

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.

 
Cargo_Net_Unknown_a.jpg


This chopper could run 3 diff re-supps in one mission

CH-47D_slinging_blivets_near_M198_Master.jpg


6x3,500lb fuel blivets under this helicopter.  So you are tracking that is 3000 Gallons (11,356 litres) of fuel.  A LAV takes what?  500 Litres for a full tank?  Right there you have enough fuel for 22 LAV's. 

We don't have attack helicopters so it might be prudent that we are able to carry loads at a far greater speed then other helicopters can.  As well, we our forces might be operating over a very large area (ala Kandahar Province, Afghanistan) so it might be worth it then that can have a chopper bring three different loads to three different destinations.

Apologies for coming across as an ******* but these Helicopters are value added to our forces and are one of the few purchases we genuinely really need.  I would happily scrap the CCV and get us a few more of these bad boys!  Also, like someone else mentioned, these helicopters provide us with a specialized capability that "OTHERS" don't have. 
 
It is true Perhaps not all the options were considered...

consider this post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32526/post-245878.html#msg245878

and this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USMC-101210-M-1842C-182.jpg
 
It would be hard to say "not all options were considered" if you were not part of the project team.  Perhaps the team included the CH-53K and the Mi-26 and Mi-17 variants, as well as the EH-101.  Perhaps the CH-53K program delivering helicopters to the USMC in 2018 with IOC in 2019 CH-53K program back on track meant that any other nation would have to wait into the early 2020's to receive such aircraft?  Perhaps the 50% cost premium of a CH-53K over a CH-147F was not considered worth the incremental lift capacity? As it stands, the first of four pre-production test articles will be delivered in the Fall of 2016, to support delivery of the first production aircraft in 2018. http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/ch-53k-operational-test-helicopter-contract-issued/  Having seen CH-53E and MH-53G in action, there is no doubt that they are very capable heavy-lift helicopter, but the premium on resources that their fully-marinized, shipboard capability demands would likely strain the available resources beyond acceptable levels.

Regards
G2G
 
You are absolutely correct G2G... I modified my post to also say perhaps.

History will prove whether it was a wise choice, or whether it was particularly appropriate in AFG due to the high hot and heavy and air dominance we enjoyed (and the 53, nor the V-22, will be particularly great without air dominance, that's when you want to start splitting things up into smaller aircraft).

Unfortunately, we can't afford to have many different variants, and couldn't crew them even if we could, to be able to pick the right aircraft for every mission.

I'm not distracting from this project, it has delivered a capable airplane quite quickly.  I was just making a counterpoint to all those that are implying it was the only choice.
 
Baz said:
....this project, it has delivered a capable airplane quite quickly.
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.
 
Now for the question of the day...directed to the Tac Hel/Sea King gang out there. Will it be able to work off the new AORs? If so, that would be a game changer for a whole lot of different deployment scenarios.
 
Journeyman said:
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.

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. He is extremely familiar with project management and has delivered some of the RCAF's (if not the CFs) most successful and cost effective (admittedly smaller scale) projects in recent memory. His opinion carries weight with me.

Just sayin.
 
How about the C-17 buy... our former COS at 1 Can Div said that one was pretty much a no brainer...(we'll take those four...right off the line).
 
Jammer said:
Now for the question of the day...directed to the Tac Hel/Sea King gang out there. Will it be able to work off the new AORs? If so, that would be a game changer for a whole lot of different deployment scenarios.

I don't know much about the hangar layout out on the new AORs, nor do I know what size helo the flight deck is being stressed for (beyond the obvious 26-28k for a fully loaded Cyclone).  I am also unaware of how difficult it is is to fold the blades on our new Chinooks.

Generally speaking, army helos do not do well on a ship over a long deployment because saltwater corrosion can start to do some damage fairly quickly.  That said, a tandem rotor helo can often do quite well operating from a ship because it is not really impacted by an unfavourable wind envelope that a tail rotor equipped helicopter might be.
 
The Brits and the Italians regularly deploy thier Chinooks on 'phibs, and they seem to do well.

I don't see them being based on the AORs...just the capablity to land on them to provide fwd re supply for ashore forces. Haiti or Somalia scenarios are what came to mind
 
SeaKingTacco said:
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. He is extremely familiar with project management and has delivered some of the RCAF's (if not the CFs) most successful and cost effective (admittedly smaller scale) projects in recent memory. His opinion carries weight with me.

Just sayin.
Yes, thank you; I'm agreeing with him.

Perhaps I should have posted one of the hand-wringing posts for clarity:
HB_Pencil said:
How to run a procurement program......
I wouldn't consider the Chinook model acquisition.

But thanks for playin' along.  ;)
 
Interesting that the MND actually stated about the Cyclone..."if and when it is delivered"....doesn't sound promising.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I don't know much about the hangar layout out on the new AORs, nor do I know what size helo the flight deck is being stressed for (beyond the obvious 26-28k for a fully loaded Cyclone).  I am also unaware of how difficult it is is to fold the blades on our new Chinooks.

Generally speaking, army helos do not do well on a ship over a long deployment because saltwater corrosion can start to do some damage fairly quickly.  That said, a tandem rotor helo can often do quite well operating from a ship because it is not really impacted by an unfavourable wind envelope that a tail rotor equipped helicopter might be.

3 manual folding blades per hub[2 per aircraft] duh. :nod:
 
SeaKingTacco said:
(beyond the obvious 26-28k for a fully loaded Cyclone). 

Not to derail the conversation but AUW is up to 29,300 lbs but probably will not increase anymore.
 
tomahawk6 said:
3 manual folding blades per hub[2 per aircraft] duh. :nod:

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