30 MUSD for a new CHINOOK CH-47F

[Kirkhill]

In light of Gen. Hilliers stated need for Heavy Helos


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Army to Purchase New Chinooks, Upgrade Fleet
 
 
(Source: US Army; issued Jan. 19, 2005)
 
 
WASHINGTON --- All of the Army's CH-47 Chinooks will be upgraded to the new CH-47F models by 2018 as the result of a partnership between the service and Boeing, the helicopter's manufacturer. 

The Army will buy 55 new CH-47F models, have 397 helicopters remanufactured into CH-47Fs, and have 61 remanufactured to the CH47G used by Special Forces units. Total procurement costs through 2018 will be $11.4 billion. 

In a media round table Jan. 12, Col. William T. Crosby, project manager Cargo Helicopter, said the effort will keep the Chinook in the air even longer than the U.S. Air Force's B-52 bomber. 

When the helicopters are remanufactured, they will be rebuilt from the ground up. The Chinooks will receive recapitalized depot-level repair components that are nearly â Å“zero hourâ ? or new. The aircraft will receive new airframes. 

The new version of the Chinook features a modern â Å“glass cockpitâ ? avionics suite, in which computer displays replace the more traditional â Å“steam gaugesâ ? seen on traditional control panels. Crosby said the CH-47s Common Avionics Architecture System is based on the MH-47G common core. The UH-60M program plans to use the same system 

â Å“The software is different, but when you plug in the hardware, it checks to see which aircraft its in and installs the right software,â ? Crosby said. â Å“This is part of the Common Avionics Architecture System we've been working on.â ? 

Crosby said research showed that it was less expensive to replace the entire fuselage than to rebuild the 40-year-old airframes currently in service. Many of the new airframes interior formers and load bearing members are machined in one piece, much stronger than those used in the original airframes, which were built of numerous pieces riveted together. Crosby said the changes amount to a 50 to 60 percent reduction in part numbers for some components. 

The upshot of these changes was a reduction in the price of a new helicopter from the $42 million to $30 million. The price for remanufactured helicopters is expected to be slightly lower than $30 million, but is still being negotiated. Crosby said the lower cost became possible when the Army agreed to fund non-recurring costs at a higher rate. 

â Å“By bumping up our non-recurring costs, we were able to avoid $12 million in the price of each helicopter. When the eighth helicopter roles off the line, we start making those non-recurring costs back,â ? Crosby said. â Å“We agreed with Boeing that we could remanufacture the 427 aircraft with new airframes at a price less than or equal to the price of rebuilding the original airframes. They were able to find the cost savings.â ? 

Jack Dougherty, director of Chinook Programs for Boeing, said the company was able to outsource the construction of some of features, and to redesign others using more modern methods, because of the increase in non-recurring funding. 

He said the order for 55 new helicopters, even spread over several fiscal years, is most Boeing has received from the Army since 1973. 

Sgt. 1st Class Gary Newton is the standardization instructor, and served with the operational test unit during the first phase of testing on the helicopter. He said the new aircraft makes his job easier. 

â Å“We flew about 90 hours in two different aircraft,â ? Newton said. â Å“The new airframe will reduce vibration and reduce our workload. The new intercom system makes it easier to communicate, and the two crewmembers in the back can now talk to each other independent from the pilots in the cockpit.â ? 

The new Chinook is also easier to prepare for loading onto a large cargo aircraft, Newton said. 

â Å“Our time to load on, say, a C-5 Galaxy has been cut in about half,â ? he said. â Å“It also decreases the time for unloading at the other end.â ? 

Chief Warrant Officer Brian MacDonald has flown the prototype, as well as the former CH-47D and MH-47E versions of the aircraft. 

â Å“The new avionics help improve our situational awareness,â ? MacDonald said. â Å“The integrated glass cockpit decreases our workload. You have a display screen showing you the map to your destination. You still have a paper map, but it's folded under your leg as a backup.â ? 

MacDonald said the more powerful engines in the CH-47F are the same that are being used to convert about 65 percent of the current fleet of CH-47Ds. 

â Å“The difference is like being on steroids,â ? MacDonald said. â Å“We've always been the most powerful heavy lift helicopter, but now we're making more power, and we're getting more power for less fuel.â ? 

-ends- 

And on the need for special sea-going conversions....


http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sabr.htm

For SABR heavy the de facto solution appears to be the Boeing Chinook CH-47.  It had been expected that any Chinook's purchased for SABR would be "marinised" with features such as a folding rotor system, however this may be dropped on cost grounds, the argument being that the Royal Navy has managed for over ten years to operate non-marinised Chinook at sea, so the need is clearly not that essential.  An outside alternative to the Chinook is the CH-53 (probably in X variant, co-operating with the USMC a la JSF) which is being proposed by Sikorsky.  Adopting the CH-53 would require modifications to the lifts of the Invincible Class carriers (and perhaps HMS Ocean), but this might be cheaper than introducing bespoke folding in to the airframe in order to meet RN lift size restrictions.  SABR-heavy has been increasingly likely to form the largest portion of a total SABR buy of up to 80 aircraft (later reduced to 70, but may increase to 100+ if combined with BLUH/SCMR).

 

[thomastmcc]

Hi I think the CH-53 is too big for the lifts on the invincible carriers and HMS ocean .

 

[Good2Golf]

If someone were considering a capability based on 47's, they could look at an initial acquisition of a few of the remanufactured D-models to get a capability within 12-18 months, get themselves on the waiting list for say, 12-16 CH47F's, when our turn in line for the F's came up bring them on strength then trade in the re-man'd D's for the final batch of F's.   Based on some of the tasks that the beasts may be expected to do (expeditionary forces, etc...) I would even suggest that the last 47's to come on strength be G-models to support Cdn troops in an expeditionary venue (in-flight refeulling, terrain radar, etc...)   The nice thing about the Chinook's avionics is not only the "glass cockpit" but the seamless integration (L-16, SINCGARS, BFID, JTRS) into the digitized battlespace...part of the US Army's Force 21 framework.

Say we pay $35M US per (to include industrial regional benefits/offsets,etc...), that's about   C$45M, multiply by...say 16 a/c for argument's sake, and you have C$ 720M, multiplied by the classis DSP estimate of x3 for complete life-cycle costs (don't ask why, it just seems to work out historically, ask guys in DLR/DAR) and you have C$2,160M which amortized over a 20-year ELE (estimated life-expectancy) is C$108M/yr all-up.   Guys at work with access to the CAS's and DGAEPM's L1 indicative funding levels will see that this is a pretty good deal compared to money being spent annually on "other aerospace weapon systems" (no names, no pack drill... )   I know the troops on the ground in Kabul and Khandahar and CMTC and the brigades and CTC and...well, you get the idea, would sure appreciate the kick-arse mobility and sustainment capability the 47 would bring to operations.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Kirkhill]

Many, many thanks Duey.

 

[Good2Golf]

De nada, Kirkhill!  I figure it's best to be straight up with the numbers, as much as we know them, so that no one accuses us of trying to hide anything or understate the actual cost of such a 'weapon system'.  Yup...I and many other 147-qual'd guys, as well as the younger kids wanting to get in and support boots on the ground in operations, would all kill...well at least give a nut of our own choice, L or R, to fly the hook (again, for some of us that old)...  If ever there were a big bang for the buck in today's contemporary operating environment, the 'Hook would be it.  Luckil both Hillier and Leslie are big supporters of the 'Hook.  If only some AF generals had the same level of excitement in the machine... *sigh* :

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Inch]

Many, many thanks Duey.

Kirkhill, I think you found a subject near and dear to Duey's heart.

Good info Duey, I'm hooked on MH though so count me out of the waiting list for nut donors, I mean drivers.

 

[Infanteer]

Fantastic - put that "HIGH" on the to do list, General Hillier and Mr Graham.

Thanks for the good stuff, Duey....

 

[Kirkhill]

Duey:


A question for you.  Life-cycle costing.

Is that just a planning tool or is our government signing 20 year life-cycle support contracts?

One makes good business sense.  The other would seem to me to be silly.

20 years out the military's needs will have changed, technology will have changed and most of the parts suppliers will have stopped production, changed hands or gone out of business.  This would mean that any contracting entity would be stuck with a very onerous task and would likely go out of business themselves or have to be bailed out by government in any case.  Thereby making a mockery of a long term contract.

I keep thinking back to the UK civil servant in the Ministry of Defence that a couple of years back got a phone call from Sweden wanting to know if they were ready to take delivery of the masts that they had ordered for the Royal Navy.  The trees were mature and ready for cutting.  The order had been placed in Nelson's day.

 

[Good2Golf]

Kirkhill, personally I believe it should be the former (a planning tool) vice the latter (hard figure). 

Some folks seem to feel a business case for military capital acquisition must be tied to solid things...20 years for example...to have credence with gov't.  I don't think that's the case but there are some pretty big paradigms that still need to be broken.  I also don't think that things like this can be made on too short a business case, either...shades of ASD replacing military PY's/capabilities, and then the price gets jacked for the next contract because the smart civvies know the military blew up the capabillity and must either continue down the ASD road or re-start/rebuild a missing mil capability.

Another factor is that a lot can change in 20 years.  We should not necessarily set ourselves up for a, "gosh darn it, we planned this ten years ago, and we still have 10 years left...we can't change now."  I think that there have been enought changes since 89 until now that there may not be as much change in the next 15 years.  However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared to "adjust fire" as the contemporary operating environment continues to evolve.

How we work this out into something that seems a reasonable response to a Governemnt's desire to be seen by the electorate as providing a good balance amongst all its programmes is an interesting challenge.  Prob ably a bit above my pay grade, but I'd like to contribute to the process when and where I can.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[silentbutdeadly]

this would totally help out us ground pounders ! but wouldn't we have had that type of lift if we stayed with the EH 101 project or should i say proimse?

 

[Inch]

this would totally help out us ground pounders ! but wouldn't we have had that type of lift if we stayed with the EH 101 project or should i say proimse?

No, the EH101's were going to replace the Labs in SAR roles and the Sea Kings in MH roles, there wasn't going to be enough of them to use for Tac Aviation as well. Not to mention that having a pilot that's qualified for two roles would be a nightmare to try and maintain any currency let alone proficiency. When was the last time you saw a Cormorant or for that matter, a Sea King? If you've never seen one of them, you wouldn't have seen an EH101 and you'll probably never see the Cyclones either, unless that troop carrier on the wish list goes through.

 

[Kirkhill]

True enough Inch,

But using the "one size fits all" logic of the Griffon (won't debate the validity of that logic for the moment) then the original plan to roll the SAR and MSH programmes into one and do both jobs with the one airframe could "logically" have led to the purchase of the Troop Carrier version of the Merlin - basically the Cormorant without the winch from where I sit.

After all the Sea King is used by the RN and RAF for SAR, ASW, Troop Lift, Vertrep, and AEW.  The Merlin could have done all those.

On the other hand, now that time has passed and that we already have two aircraft in the stable (Cyclone and Cormorant) why not get a third (Chinook)?

If we had a single platform then there would be strength in the argument that we should by army kit to fit those platforms (they only lift 5-7 tons instead of the 10 tons of the Chinook IIRC).  But now that we have multiple platforms again, why not by the platform to fit the job?

On that basis buy the Chinook rather than the Merlin.  Besides the Liberals can blame the Conservatives for ditching the Chinooks - kind of even things up for having Conservatives blame the Liberals for ditching the Merlins> ;D

 

[Inch]

I agree completely, you know me, I've long championed on this forum for the right kit for the job, not a jack-of-all-trades solution. I think you took my post the wrong way, I'm not saying they can't do the job.  I was pointing out that the EH101 contract was made to replace SAR and MH helos, not fulfill the vacated medium-heavy lift role for the army.

The H92 cargo hook is rated to 10,000 lbs. 

 

[Good2Golf]

I think SAR and MH being different aircraft (for good or for bad) and the differences in weapon system maintenance (civs for SAR, AF for MH) will make the 'hook an easier deal to accept for government.  It's not a stretch to consider that the Griffon have inadvertantly made the point against "one kit for all jobs".  I'm with Inch...better to have the right number of right machines to do the jobs properly than to half-a$$ how you do it.

p.s.  Current ratings for the 'hook puts 12 tons on the center hook and can carry 14 tons between the fore/aft hooks.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Sam69]

Notwithstanding all the cheerleading for the Sh*thook (sorry Duey), I'm still waiting for a clear articulation of the requirement. We know that the Army needs medium/heavy lift helos for both green and black ops. But what are the actual requirements? Range? Speed? Endurance? Load capacity?

I just had an engaging discussion with a JTF door kicker who has flown in both Chinooks (US Army) and EH-101s (RAF) on operations and he was unequivocal in his sentiment that the EH-101 was much better suited to their green ops requirement. While he had nothing specifically against the Chinook, he said it paled in comparison to the EH-101.

Sam

 

[Good2Golf]

Sam, Sean Friday and crew in DAR will be taking the AVN CDR and the AMR work and boiling it into SOR-like material.  The Army's statement is stated WRT a BG-sized TF and some minimum load quantas (MSVS PLS pallet 7t min) and formation sizes, operational factors in sp of the TF, time on station, etc...  From that, it's up to the folks in DG Air FD (DAR and D Air SP) to boil that information down to numbers in an SOR.  The Army statement was purposefully not airframe specific.  If it takes twice as many S-92's to lift what Chinooks could do, and the S-92's are only $17.5M US a piece...hey, that's just as effective in my books. 

Sam, do you figure that DND would look at a fleet of more EH101's instead of S-92's or NH-90's if the 47 wasn't determined to be feasible?  I'm not so sure that an aircraft currently serviced by civilians would be procured...that would put civy maintenance of the CH149 at risk...not sure folks want to go there...that's directly at odds with DND being used as an arm's-length pork barrel by the politicians...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey

p.s. Ironically, and not to question DHTC door kicker's opinions, but the SAS is not at all fond of the EH101.  That's why they put pressure on Whitehall to finally accept the 8 HC.2b/3 (MH-47G's) being fought over for the last few months in the UK.  JA on the Lounge can give more info on the moderate displeasure of RAF and their customers with the 101.

 

[Sam69]

Don't get me wrong buddy, I have nothing specifically against the Hook (other than it is unnatural to fly inter-meshing rotors and that you will go to h*ll for it), I am just worried that we are setting ourselves up for disappointment if we set our sights too high without a solid operational requirement behind it. Remember: we have an appalling record when it comes to buying helicopters for some reason.

I also think that the analysis will need to look at airframe numbers and the offsets in the Griffy fleet. This is bound to be a contentious discussion overall and will, no doubt, attract the attention of lobbyists from industry who will be keen to ensure that their aircraft is not excluded from the competition. Having lived through SKR NSA MHP, it's a struggle that I do not look forward to. And, of course, the contractual issues are ones that we have little control over.

On the EH-101/Cormorant front, while the addition of green Cormorants might be seen as a threat to blue-suit maintenance, I think it portends (more significantly) better access to parts. This seems to be the Achilles heel of our current ISS with the Cormorant. Plus, added to the soon to be delivered VH-101s, would mean that we are approaching critical mass for airframes on this continent. It will be quite interesting to see who wins the USAF CSAR contract.

Lastly, I don't know the specifics of why this particular door kicker preferred the 101 to the Hook, but I know that he would counter the SAS's argument by saying that they are involved in a different mission focus than JTF 2 at the moment. I can't go into details for obvious reasons and because I simply do not know enough about either the SAS's or JTF2's tactics, employment, or needs to make any kind of cogent assessment of his comments. I just found his to be an interesting opinion that's all.

Sam

 

[Good2Golf]

Ack, Senor Sam!  Heck, either/any chopper would beat the pants of your and my BD-4D's.... ;D

p.s.  Apparently some guys in the Air Staff have a plan...as with all fleets, the Griffon's current numbers aren't necessarily sacrosanct.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[ArmyRick]

The might griffons rocK !!!


(Just kidding)

 

[Sam69]

Ack, Senor Sam!  Heck, either/any chopper would beat the pants of your and my BD-4D's.... ;D

Right about now I'd say a Cessna 150 with a chipped windscreen would beat the pants of our BD-4Ds!  :dontpanic:

Sigh... how did we get here?

Sam