Canada asks for Chinook design changes; military expert worry about delay
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
A
aesop081
Guest
beenthere said:
No problems, there are lots of other suitable manufacturers of Heavy lift choppers around to chose from.
A
aesop081
Guest
tomahawk6 said:
Exactly.
The 100% solution doesnt exist and i think that the Chinook is as close as it gets.
I'm not knocking the Chinook as a choice. I'm just pointing out some of the things from the previous Chinook experience. New and improved doesn't equate with problem free and I tend to be sceptical of accepting both the manufacturers claims and the experience of other users.
I would suggest that a demonstration of the Chinooks capability to fulfill part of our requirements would be a trip through Arctic Canada on a published itinerary with a departure from Ottawa in February with a Boeing crew of two pilots and one technician. I had a look at the weather today in the Arctic and temperatures are about typical with -35 and -40 being the lows.
Ottawa--Churchill overnight,--7 am departure to Hall Beach, overnight,--7am departure to Resolute, overnight, --7am departure to Eureka,overnight --7am departure to Alert. One day crewrest Alert. One day slinging operations Alert area. Alert--Grise Fiord, overnight, --7am departure to Clide River,overnight --7am departure to Coral Harbour,overnight --7am departure to Moosonee,overnight --7am departure to Ottawa.
If that trip worked out and kept to itinerary it would be a great first step in confirming that the Chinook would be able to operate in the Arctic.
Ottawa--Churchill overnight,--7 am departure to Hall Beach, overnight,--7am departure to Resolute, overnight, --7am departure to Eureka,overnight --7am departure to Alert. One day crewrest Alert. One day slinging operations Alert area. Alert--Grise Fiord, overnight, --7am departure to Clide River,overnight --7am departure to Coral Harbour,overnight --7am departure to Moosonee,overnight --7am departure to Ottawa.
If that trip worked out and kept to itinerary it would be a great first step in confirming that the Chinook would be able to operate in the Arctic.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,222
- Points
- 1,160
Other nations have operated Chinooks in similar conditions in arctic Norway quite successfully for decades. I also assume that when we DID have Chinooks, someone flew them around up in those parts of our country. So I'm not sure what that would prove.
It took us several weeks to get one of two Griffons to Eureka this past summer, between weather, major unserviceabilities (some aggravated by the environment), and delays getting techs and parts to the location, and much the same problems were encountered getting it back again. The other one of the pair had very little difficulty. Mind you, the temps were not down to your proposed levels. Everything that could possibly go wrong did go wrong.
Success or failure of a single example of a helicopter, or any machine for that matter, is not necessarily an indication of quality or suitability.
Success or failure of a single example of a helicopter, or any machine for that matter, is not necessarily an indication of quality or suitability.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/crew/index_e.asp?id=5293#s1 Some day in the future we will be called upon to provide resources for a mission to the Arctic and there is no doubt that a single Chinook will have to participate and it will be an immediate tasking. http://www.dnd.ca/site/reports/dps/main/03_e.asp
Loachman: This is from my "brag bag". 8) I would have to dig out my log book for the exact details but in the good old days we flew a CH-113 from Ottawa to Alert--5 flying days. We spent 5 flying days laying cable from Alert with an improvised cable laying device--about 50 miles of 3/4 inch communication cable. Flew back to Ottawa--5 flying days. Crew was 2 pilots, 2 flight engineers, 1 loadmaster. No maintenance techs or other support. The helicopter arrived back in Ottawa with some snags but was back flying within 24 hours. No. It wasn't in the winter.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
The US Army and National Guard operate Chinooks in Alaska since the 70's, maybe before.Some of those have seen service in Afghanistan. The Chinook has performed rescue's on Mt McKinley too. I really doubt that a tour of arctic Canada is necessary - it just delays the delivery of Chinooks for the CF.
An interesting discussion about the Chinook being selected as a replacement for some of the PaveHawk fleet the USAF runs for CSAR. No one aircraft is perfect in all roles and the CH-47 is no exception.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/04/combat_search_a.html
An interesting discussion about the Chinook being selected as a replacement for some of the PaveHawk fleet the USAF runs for CSAR. No one aircraft is perfect in all roles and the CH-47 is no exception.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/04/combat_search_a.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
For some odd reason, we've always "canadianized" off the shelf equipment & complicated what could have been a relatively simple transaction. While the Chinook purchase is not a small (or cheap) transaction, our conditions are no different than what the US military has to deal with in Alaska AND our Scandinavian allies deal with on their side of the Arctic circle.
Are these special canadian modifications essential?
Are these special canadian modifications essential?
What the U.S. Army or any other operators do in Alaska or other places has little in common with how we operate. We have no hangars (or anything else) up there and we have been flying in the Arctic since we've had an air force. I would consider that taking a Chinook up north and giving it a run through the places where we will be using it would be a perfect opportunity to see just how it's going to perform for us. The real bonus would be to bring the people from the headshed who are going to be signing off on the purchase along for the trip so they can see first hand just how well it performs. We've all heard the old saying about "buying a pig in a poke".
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
This isn't my lane but...
There are a lot of SOF mentions in the operational requirements docs on the ADM Mat MHLH site. Could some of the Canadianisation changes be for MH-47-ish requirements? If they are, it might be completely legit for a small fleet.
Or I might be way off....
There are a lot of SOF mentions in the operational requirements docs on the ADM Mat MHLH site. Could some of the Canadianisation changes be for MH-47-ish requirements? If they are, it might be completely legit for a small fleet.
Or I might be way off....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just to comment a bit about fleet size. In Appendix E on the ADM Mat site for MHLH it lays out the requirements for # of chinooks required to carry out operations. It appears the project staff envision three purchasing options the CF can undertake in accordance with CF transformation:
Option 1 - 35 aircraft - allows the CF "to meet all of the objectives of CF transformation and to satisfy the full extent of operational requirements..." This plan allots 19 airframes to operational squadrons, 9 to the operational training unit, 6 to 427 SOAS, with 1 reserved for operational training and evaluation. Overall, this option allows for "a sustained 6 aircraft capability to support conventional TF deployed operations."
Option 2 - 23 aircraft - allows the CF to meet "the key CF transformation objectives, provided the sustainability of a 6 aircraft deployment is not essential." Option 2 allots 11 airframes to operational squadrons, 5 to the operational training unit, 6 to the SOAS and 1 for OT&E. The option allows for "a sustained 3 aircraft capability to support conventional TF deployed operations" with an "unsustained surge capability to 6 aircraft."
Option 3 - 16 aircrat - is the "minimum viable fleet size necessary to achieve the key objectives of CF transformation." This option allots 12 airframes to operational squadrons (divided between 2 main operating bases) and 4 to the operational training unit (no dedicated CANSOFCOM or OT&E aircraft).
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/mhlh/docs/mhlh_sor_v1_annex_e_13_June_06.pdf
So right now we're obviously going for Option 3. But what I find interesting is that this Appendix is from the Statement of Requirements issued in June 2006, this being the same month as the govt announcement to buy the fleet of 16 aircraft. To me, this indicates that the CF had its sights set higher from the beginning. This could possibly mean that a) after the initial purchase the Air Force has intentions to eventually expand the fleet, or b) AF officials are in negotiation right now to grow the initial # of aircraft to be purchased.
Option 1 - 35 aircraft - allows the CF "to meet all of the objectives of CF transformation and to satisfy the full extent of operational requirements..." This plan allots 19 airframes to operational squadrons, 9 to the operational training unit, 6 to 427 SOAS, with 1 reserved for operational training and evaluation. Overall, this option allows for "a sustained 6 aircraft capability to support conventional TF deployed operations."
Option 2 - 23 aircraft - allows the CF to meet "the key CF transformation objectives, provided the sustainability of a 6 aircraft deployment is not essential." Option 2 allots 11 airframes to operational squadrons, 5 to the operational training unit, 6 to the SOAS and 1 for OT&E. The option allows for "a sustained 3 aircraft capability to support conventional TF deployed operations" with an "unsustained surge capability to 6 aircraft."
Option 3 - 16 aircrat - is the "minimum viable fleet size necessary to achieve the key objectives of CF transformation." This option allots 12 airframes to operational squadrons (divided between 2 main operating bases) and 4 to the operational training unit (no dedicated CANSOFCOM or OT&E aircraft).
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/mhlh/docs/mhlh_sor_v1_annex_e_13_June_06.pdf
So right now we're obviously going for Option 3. But what I find interesting is that this Appendix is from the Statement of Requirements issued in June 2006, this being the same month as the govt announcement to buy the fleet of 16 aircraft. To me, this indicates that the CF had its sights set higher from the beginning. This could possibly mean that a) after the initial purchase the Air Force has intentions to eventually expand the fleet, or b) AF officials are in negotiation right now to grow the initial # of aircraft to be purchased.
I've not seen all of the requirements. Nothing more than the notice of intent document which indicates off the shelf models. I've heard of the proposal for more armour and some guns or whatever but nothing that would indicate that it would have to meet any technical specifications that are specifically Canadian. Also I've never heard of any intention to have Canadian flight trials or anything similar as a means of verification that it will perform as we would expect it to.
Our previous Chinooks came with the promise that they were new and improved and were the frontrunners of the new modern fleet that was going to replace all Chinooks that had previously been built. In fact they had many of the old Chinooks problems and many of the improvements were just new problems. The engine was one of the improvements that turned out to be an outstanding liability. There were many other things as well.
That purchase was also made without first flying the aircraft or having it checked out. It appears that the same process is underway again and the people at the top are as blissfully unaware as their predecessors were more than 30 years ago.
Our previous Chinooks came with the promise that they were new and improved and were the frontrunners of the new modern fleet that was going to replace all Chinooks that had previously been built. In fact they had many of the old Chinooks problems and many of the improvements were just new problems. The engine was one of the improvements that turned out to be an outstanding liability. There were many other things as well.
That purchase was also made without first flying the aircraft or having it checked out. It appears that the same process is underway again and the people at the top are as blissfully unaware as their predecessors were more than 30 years ago.
Similar threads
