Canada asks for Chinook design changes; military expert worry about delay

[GAP]

Canada asks for Chinook design changes; military expert worry about delay
Article Link

OTTAWA - Canada's air force wants to upgrade the design of its planned CH-47 Chinook battlefield helicopters and is offering Boeing a limited contract to construct a couple of prototype aircraft, defence sources have told The Canadian Press.

The chief of air staff, Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, confirmed project staff have asked for changes, but would not discuss the specifics of the negotiations underway with the Chicago-based aircraft giant.

He said he's confident the ongoing talks and the redesign will not affect the delivery date of the 16 medium-lift helicopters, which the army has identified as essential in getting Canadian troops off the bomb-strewn roads of southern Afghanistan.

But air force observers are worried the request, made earlier this year, will knock the project off schedule, pushing the arrival of the aircraft out past 2011.

Much like vehicles coming off the assembly line, helicopters can come with a variety of different features and Watt compared the impending $4.7 billion purchase to buying a pickup truck or SUV.

"We don't want a basic truck," he said in an interview. "Because we have a relatively small fleet without all of the additional bells and whistles and extra capabilities, we want that fleet to be more than a basic truck so it can do those missions in a little more demanding circumstances."

One of the most important upgrades the air force wants to see is better armour and weapons so the choppers can perform casualty evacuation.

Canadian troops wounded in battle in Afghanistan are currently airlifted to hospital in specially outfitted U.S. Blackhawks. The modifications being requested would not upgrade the Chinooks to a full medevac role, which would require the installation of a suite of life-saving equipment, but would allow for the timely airlift of most wounded soldiers.

Watt said there are other design changes meant to allow the Chinooks to operate in bad weather and fly over vast distances - necessary features if the aircraft are to be useful to the army in the Arctic during the summer. The air force also wants the CH-47 to act as a backup search and rescue helicopter for the sometimes troubled Cormorant.

When the medium-lift helicopter program was announced, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor said he expected delivery of the first aircraft in 2010 or 36 months after a contract was signed.

Yet over a year after the Conservative government invoked an advanced contract award notice, citing national security and Boeing as the only company capable of delivering the required aircraft, it has yet to strike a formal contract.
More on link

 

[dapaterson]

Hmmm... is this part of the Air Force brain trust's efforts to sabotage the purchase?  We're getting the C-17s fast in no small part because we're stickign with the design and not adding "Canadian" specific features.

This is either AERE empire building or extreme stupidity.  Methinks the new DM needs to visit Louis St Laurent and inform the PMO that we're buying off the shelf... and perhaps bring with him a briefcase full of pink slips...

 

[HItorMiss]

Agreed Data

I understand the need for certain add on capabilities however I think this first set of aircraft need to be off the shelf to get them into service quickly, no fuss no muss as it were. After that should we be happy and I don't see why we wouldn't be. We can then tender a new contract for say 16 more aircraft (number is off the top of my head and just going with the first purchase order) That we can "Canadianize" as it were. Seeing as we would already have Chinooks in service we could afford to wait some time for the "Canadian" ones and then once they were in service retro fit the older ones to meet the new requirements.

IMO anyway....

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Why aren't we just buying the OTS submission for the US CSAR competition rather than once again trying to "Canadianize" them?

Seriously, so much of this dicking around appears to be people with nothing better to do, trying to justify their jobs.


Matthew.  ???

 

[Flip]

Seriously, so much of this dicking around appears to be people with nothing better to do, trying to justify their jobs.

Agreed - there's the danger.

One thought though - isn't the delay more a matter of waiting our turn
on the production line? My point is this might not cause an unacceptable delay.

"No contract yet" is the part that bugs me most.  Here's the thing that implies delay to me.

 

[Loachman]

I will not pretend to have much real info on this, as I have no personal interest in Chinook, but my "hearsay" info from a reliable source indicates that there are some very real concerns with the standard US Army version.

Most of what we want is apparently pretty close to what the USAF wants, if they do indeed opt for Chinook as their CSAR helicopter.

Buying a few OTS and attempting later to buy another set built to our requirements is not a viable option, especially with such a small fleet.

 

[dapaterson]

Loachman:

I'd rather have a common fleet with an ally with slightly less capability, than a unique Canadian fleet with increased support costs.

All the CF is guilty of "Canadianizing" fleets and incurring increased support costs; I'd hope that we're learning to do better.

 

[Pencil Tech]

This is the problem with having everything that flies under Air Command. The Chinooks are not "for" the Air Force. If the Army controlled Tac Hel I bet we'd get them faster.

 

[Bograt]

This is the problem with having everything that flies under Air Command. The Chinooks are not "for" the Air Force. If the Army controlled Tac Hel I bet we'd get them faster.

hmmm. Anyone see what I did with the can opener- I have a can of worms here.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Here's the OTS solution - It's already designed and the demonstrator has already flown:  http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/hh47/index.html


Matthew.    ???

 

[Loachman]

Loachman:

I'd rather have a common fleet with an ally with slightly less capability, than a unique Canadian fleet with increased support costs.

All the CF is guilty of "Canadianizing" fleets and incurring increased support costs; I'd hope that we're learning to do better.

From what I understand, several of the issues are more basic, ie undesireable characteristics, than "Canadianizing".

None of the desired changes appear to be frivolous.

Not getting it right the first time would end up costing far more in the long run.

The Brits bought MH47s "on the cheap" and are still paying the penalty.

The Dutch CH47F buy differs from the US Army model in cockpit architecture and possibly other areas as well. Cockpit architecture appears to be one of our concerns as well.

Again, I'm not close to this project, but I'd tend to trust the judgement of those that are.

 

[Loachman]

Here's the OTS solution - It's already designed and the demonstrator has already flown:  http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/hh47/index.html

Yes - the manufacturer's website and sales pitch...

I'm not sure if a true "demonstrator" has flown, as this particular variation is more than just the airframe and dynamics.

The USAF have been forced to re-compete. IF HH47 wins the CSAR-X competition again, we will probably get just what we want. If not, it could well be either the stock F or the best compromise that we can squeeze out of Boeing.

For now, this is idle speculation.

 

[Loachman]

This is the problem with having everything that flies under Air Command. The Chinooks are not "for" the Air Force. If the Army controlled Tac Hel I bet we'd get them faster.

While that is both a more natural and proper relationship, and one that I have long pimped, it would not speed things up at all.

 

[Rigger]

This shouldn't be a big deal. It not like we are asking them to design and build a folding head or a new transmission. The core aircraft will be the same, we just want extra gadgets up front. Think of it as buying a new truck, we've decided on the type we are going to get, all we want to do is pick out some extra options.

 

[Loachman]

If it was that simple, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[TCBF]

Perhaps some Workplace Health and Safety Initiative caused by somebody remembering how we had to wear ear plugs riding in and jumping from our old ones, so now we have RFPs outlining six tonnes of noise abatement insulation per aircraft.  Then someone else pointed out that dispatching jumpers over an open ramp negates all that...

;D

...not to mention mounting an HMG on the ramp.  Which opens up a whole new can of worms if we want kits to turn our Chinook into an MH-47(Cdn).

But being only self-loading cargo myself, I will leave serious commentary to our aviation community - rotary wing section.

 

[dapaterson]

But being only self-loading cargo myself, I will leave serious commentary to our aviation community - rotary wing section.

That's the Army Air Corps, bub...

 

[AIC_2K5]

As a side from the heated thoughts on the arrival date, I find this particular tidbit encouraging:

Air force planners say 16 helicopters are the minimum needed to do the job required, but documents released by the project office suggest the fleet size could eventually grow to 35.

 

[Loachman]

I was wondering about that myself. It's the first that I've heard of an increase in numbers.

That's a hell of a bill, both for the machines themselves, and supporting infrastructure. We still don't know for certain where the initial sixteen will be based, as available hangarage appears to be a significant factor in that decision and there is a shortage nationwide. There seems to be little appetite for building new ones.

And then, post-Afghanistan, what would we do with them all?

Unless we re-roled a brigade as an airmobile one (which we should) there is going to be a dearth of suitable employment.

Our old aviation doctrine of the eighties and early nineties (which I still favour over the current) stated that, at Brigade level, there was continual requirement for light helicopters for reconnaissance and fire direction (AOP, FAC, and AH) and occasional requirement for utility and attack. At Div level, there was continual requirement for utility and attack, and occasional requirement for Medium Transpor.. Medium Transport only became a continual requirement at Corps level.

I have no objection to fielding thirty-five Chinooks, so long as balance is maintained. I fear that this will come only at the cost of the CH146 fleet (not a fan of the machine, but there is a requirement for utility helicopters).

And we still need something to fill the Attack, or at least armed, role.

 

[Good2Golf]

In the defence procurement world, there are a number of options considered, ranging from "DESIREABLE" to "HIGHLY DESIREABLE" to "ESSENTIAL".  It would stand to reason that the 35 aircraft fleet size may have been a "DESIREABLE" (a.k.a. "nice to have") number and that the hard requirement (ESSENTIAL) was the 16 aircraft fleet size.  I would not read much in to the 35 number.

G2G