CH47 Chinook
- Thread starter apostle
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,418
- Points
- 1,160
Seriously NATO should have a number of airframes, engines, transmission and blades built, all boxed and properly mothballed and stored in Nevada. Don't worry to much about top line avionics as that will always be changing. This will be part of the NATO war stock and as various nations helo's start getting lot's of hours, then they can trade them in for a new airframe with the older one going through the upgrade/zero hour/preservation process.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,418
- Points
- 1,160
Not when you need to replace combat losses in a hurry or ramp up in a hurry. Readiness comes with a price. Why do you think the Soviets kept everything, they would have just kept throwing everything at us till we ran out of ammo, tanks and aircraft. Even now a loss of a helicopter or a tank is a significant event, because there are so few of them. The airframe and drivetrains are the most labour intensive portion, you can run the helo on the bare minimum instruments.
There is a big difference between parking obsolete and surplus machines out in the desert sun and putting brand-new machines there.
Seals break down. Plastic parts deterorate. Mods do not get done. Money is spent for things that may never be used, and there is little enough money for things that we need that would be used. It takes months to carry out major inspections on machines in use; more work would be required for machines that had been parked for years, plus mods would most likely be required which would take more time, money and effort.
What about spare crews for these machines? Where do we park them until needed?
What do you mean by "instruments"? We have a variety of sensor and survivability equipment on board that also require maintenance.
It is better to use equipment that has been bought. It is kept in serviceable order, then, and is ready for use quickly.
A lot of what the Soviets kept was just for show. Most of it would never move under its own power again.
There is no merit in this, which is why nobody does it.
Seals break down. Plastic parts deterorate. Mods do not get done. Money is spent for things that may never be used, and there is little enough money for things that we need that would be used. It takes months to carry out major inspections on machines in use; more work would be required for machines that had been parked for years, plus mods would most likely be required which would take more time, money and effort.
What about spare crews for these machines? Where do we park them until needed?
What do you mean by "instruments"? We have a variety of sensor and survivability equipment on board that also require maintenance.
It is better to use equipment that has been bought. It is kept in serviceable order, then, and is ready for use quickly.
A lot of what the Soviets kept was just for show. Most of it would never move under its own power again.
There is no merit in this, which is why nobody does it.
- Reaction score
- 4,919
- Points
- 1,160
Colin P said:
A B-52 is probably far more complex to inspect/certify than a Chinook, but here's a little bit of an idea on how long it takes to get one of those "boneyard" aircraft back into flying shape.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-ghost-rider-b-52-rises-from-the-grave-to-ride-aga-1686588702
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,418
- Points
- 1,160
Loachman said:
As I said airframe and major components all sealed in their containers. Basically what parts take the longest to construct and are the chokepoint to rapidly increasing your fleet as required. Just imagine if in a conflict or just before, you lost 3-6 Chinooks in one event, how are you going to replace that capacity in a hurry? Other than the US every NATO military is at the bare bones of what it needs, the loss of 1-2 aircraft is a significant crisis, where are you going to get the surge capacity for such a critical element as heavy lift helicopters? Even if the production line is open, you may be not first on the list. My idea may not be the best, but NATO needs to add more meat to the bone, having mothballed equipment that can be rapidly reset can help add that meat with less impact on the economic costs of maintaining equipment.
And how do we replace the crews?
How do we replace any personnel losses?
The only worthwhile option is to increase the number of active personnel and all associated required equipment. Buying stuff and packing it away "just in case" really does not make a lot of sense.
How do we replace any personnel losses?
The only worthwhile option is to increase the number of active personnel and all associated required equipment. Buying stuff and packing it away "just in case" really does not make a lot of sense.
- Reaction score
- 22,865
- Points
- 1,360
High-readiness storage would tie up capital funds without the immediate capability available, and as Loachman queries, the personnel are a far more valuable and hard-to-replace resource. If things are so bad that we would need attrition aircraft to replace ours, we'd likely do what we did before, buy some used machines to fill in the gap in months, vice years, but it would still take more time than it seems the idea of reserve/depth/reconstition/reach-back is looking for.
...and what about additional frigates if we lose one or two, and what about additional tanks and LAVs and support vehicles and a C-17...and...and...and...
In the end, it will likely be "run what ya brung" and nothing more. Losses = less capacity.
:2c:
Cheers
G2G
...and what about additional frigates if we lose one or two, and what about additional tanks and LAVs and support vehicles and a C-17...and...and...and...
In the end, it will likely be "run what ya brung" and nothing more. Losses = less capacity.
:2c:
Cheers
G2G
- Reaction score
- 4,919
- Points
- 1,160
Good2Golf said:
I think every other Army/Navy/Air Force in the world is going to have the same issues, other than the US due to its boneyard, but those airframes are 2-3 months away at best. That's a long time in a near-peer environment.
quadrapiper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 521
- Points
- 840
Expect "we" can discount those in any sort of serious fight; assuming the US flying forces would be losing the same sort of (and probably more) airframes as Canada.PuckChaser said:
It would make more sense to raid the civil aviation fleet, but that would bring a mishmash of types and would only solve the pure transport problem - the least-likely priority for us.
That's all that we currently have anyway, in either a cold weather scenario or a real shooting war.
Armed Griffons were alright in Afghanistan, but against an Inuit uprising or the Russians or Chinese, not so much.
That's all that we currently have anyway, in either a cold weather scenario or a real shooting war.
Armed Griffons were alright in Afghanistan, but against an Inuit uprising or the Russians or Chinese, not so much.
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 230
Inuit uprising? :christmas happy:
Colin P,
I'm an Aerospace Engineer (AERE) that worked in the Chinook program. In case you don't know what an AERE is, we're the guys that tell the pilots, "No helicopter for you!". But seriously, the Officer Commanding Maintenance Flight at a Squadron is an AERE. We also work in many other jobs, such as Project Offices, Technical Airworthiness Authorities, etc. Basically, we're the guys that would have to look after the stuff that you propose to put in Nevada in, I assume, long term storage.
I'm not going to go in depth as to the many reasons why your plan is unrealistic, but I will say that it would be cheaper and more operationally effective to just buy more aircraft and keep them at 450 Sqn (with additional hangars being needed). Then the question would be, where are you going to find more techs to maintain these additional aircraft? See, just like the other posters stated, a simple statement like getting more parts, airframes, etc. isn't so simple after all.
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.
Colin P,
I'm an Aerospace Engineer (AERE) that worked in the Chinook program. In case you don't know what an AERE is, we're the guys that tell the pilots, "No helicopter for you!". But seriously, the Officer Commanding Maintenance Flight at a Squadron is an AERE. We also work in many other jobs, such as Project Offices, Technical Airworthiness Authorities, etc. Basically, we're the guys that would have to look after the stuff that you propose to put in Nevada in, I assume, long term storage.
I'm not going to go in depth as to the many reasons why your plan is unrealistic, but I will say that it would be cheaper and more operationally effective to just buy more aircraft and keep them at 450 Sqn (with additional hangars being needed). Then the question would be, where are you going to find more techs to maintain these additional aircraft? See, just like the other posters stated, a simple statement like getting more parts, airframes, etc. isn't so simple after all.
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.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,418
- Points
- 1,160
Scoobs I would love to see a hanger with about 4-5 extra airframes per type undergoing long term storage/overhauls. I proposed airframes and main components to reduce initial costs and to avoid some of the political issues. I was also thinking about the VH-71s as basis for this idea.
Long-term storage is a waste of resources.
You can consider some of those Chinooks to be "spares". They are just in use in the meantime, as that keeps the fleet healthy.
We had to "war-stock"/"spare" Kiowas in 444 Squadron. They, too, were in constant use, for the same reason.
Consider tires. Now, many vehicles have compact spares, but many still have full-sized ones. Does it make sense to keep that spare fifth tire in one's trunk, never used, until one in use bursts, or to rotate all five to keep the wear even?
You can consider some of those Chinooks to be "spares". They are just in use in the meantime, as that keeps the fleet healthy.
We had to "war-stock"/"spare" Kiowas in 444 Squadron. They, too, were in constant use, for the same reason.
Consider tires. Now, many vehicles have compact spares, but many still have full-sized ones. Does it make sense to keep that spare fifth tire in one's trunk, never used, until one in use bursts, or to rotate all five to keep the wear even?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,418
- Points
- 1,160
I would be more happy with that solution, but everything I have seen in my time was a 1 for 2 replacements. so i assume that what we have now is at best about 75% of what we need.
We bought eight Chinooks in 1975. One was lost - with all aboard - on its delivery flight and replaced by Boeing. Another was lost in a taxiing accident up north and burned with three lives lost and another three people badly burned.
We now have fifteen.
We did not have adequate doctrinal employment for the first batch. By the doctrine of the time, they were a corps-level resource, with an occasional requirement at division level.
Now we have twice as many, but at least we have several more divisions.
These were bought for Afghanistan. Had we never become involved there, we would never have bought them.
For conventional warfare, we have a much greater need for reconnaissance and attack - capabilities that we really lack.
So you should be happy - we did a two-for-one replacement, and have, doctrinally, 100% more than what we need, at least as far as Chinook is concerned.
We now have fifteen.
We did not have adequate doctrinal employment for the first batch. By the doctrine of the time, they were a corps-level resource, with an occasional requirement at division level.
Now we have twice as many, but at least we have several more divisions.
These were bought for Afghanistan. Had we never become involved there, we would never have bought them.
For conventional warfare, we have a much greater need for reconnaissance and attack - capabilities that we really lack.
So you should be happy - we did a two-for-one replacement, and have, doctrinally, 100% more than what we need, at least as far as Chinook is concerned.
