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

[danchapps]

Fair enough. Thanks for the input. I miss seeing both the Lab and the Chinook out flying. Also my uncle works for Boeing (now Arnprior Aerospace) and I'm sure they miss the Labs too. 

 

[Loachman]

but isn't the Lab fairly similar to fly compared to the Chinook?

It's not the "similar to fly" that's significant, it's all of the knobs and switches and buttons and the patterns in which they're twiddled, flipped, and pushed that makes the difference, plus the nature of the job as G2G explained.

In more serious terms, all of the onboard systems will be different, including the instrumentation, and it is that and the procedures that require time and effort to learn even when moving between different versions of the same aircraft in many cases.

And it's not just the flying - techs take time to train as well, and even more time to thoroughly understand the new aircraft. There will be a lot of frustrating gremlins for them to find and fix for the first few years.

 

[dapaterson]

Acquiring 6 refurbished CH-47D for about $90 million seems to be a very good deal if there is a reasonable amount
of lifetime remaining for them after refurbishment.  It may even be worthwhile getting more if all checks out.

Wondering about the cost of the 16 new F-models--the cited article implies that a deluxe new F-model
costs about $40 million/airframe(I assume for the airframe only).  Our proposed contract for 16 new F-models with support,...
is for $4.7 billion----> about $290+ million/airframe. 

$250 million "supporting" costs for EACH airframe seems more than a bit excessive. 
With limited funds available, we should be trying to get the most advantageous deal possible.

Perhaps so many pigs are being slaughtered for the Boeing pork-barrel that our cost of bacon should soon
jump more than a little bit!

Perhaps someone more familiar with the cost per flying hour of these two models of helicopter could
contrast the two proposed purchases.

We're talking apples and oranges.

$15M per airframe is just that - a helicopter airframe with no spares, no support, no infrastructure.  It's the price you pay the dealer for the new car.

The $4.7B for 16 airframes is the new car from the dealer.  It's lifetime support including spares (less the bits of maintenance we do ourselves - but that's being greatly reduced).  It's training to teach people to drive the new car - and the learning curve is slightly greater to go from a Griff to a Chinook than for going from a Dodge to a Toyota.  And it's also building new a garage because the new car won't fit in the old one.

 

[OldSolduer]

OK two questions:

1. Who made the decision to get rid of the Chinooks we had? I apologize if I insulted anyone.
I remember flying in those choppers years ago. I was in the very back and we flew with the ramp down.....AWESOME sight!!


2. How long will it take to gain the necessary skills for pilots to fly the Chinooks? 

 

[Bearpaw]

A Google search yielded the following information about the CH-47F program in the US---Dated Jan. 21, 2004

Department of Defense
Office of the Inspector General -- Audit
Acquisition of the CH-47F Improved Cargo Helicopter - Report No. D-2004-046(PDF) - Project No. D2003AE-0069.000

The "web" synopsis of the report has the following statement:

"The Army estimated the cost of the CH-47F Program at $13.6 billion for 301 CH-47F aircraft, including $156.2 million for research, development, test, and evaluation; $5.4 billion for procurement; and $8.0 billion for operations and support."

$13.6 billion/301 = $45.2 million per airframe (which includes support---the US Army probably has fairly extensive support)

Since this was 4 years ago, exchange rates, inflation,.... assume that today's cost of this contract would be about $100 million/airframe.

For Canada---we are getting 16 airframes plus support and have to build infrastructure---hangars, parts depots,....

at a per airframe cost of $293+ million.

I would not be so concerned if we were getting 50 or 60 airframes but these numbers simply do not add up.

I wonder how many airframes the US could afford at those prices----it seems a bit like the torpedo deal a few years back when
we received a "refund" for the excessive prices charged.

On another site:

http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Support-Helicopters/CH-47F-Chinook_a000504003.aspx

there is more interesting figures on the US CH-47F program.

 

[dapaterson]

Once again, apples and oranges.  American purchases are disclosed as equipment acquisition costs; Canadian purchases are life-cycle acquisition costs.

A tremendous differnece.  Unless you can read the actual contract documents, you cannot compare the two.

 

[aesop081]

A Google search yielded the following information about the CH-47F program in the US---Dated Jan. 21, 2004

Department of Defense
Office of the Inspector General -- Audit
Acquisition of the CH-47F Improved Cargo Helicopter - Report No. D-2004-046(PDF) - Project No. D2003AE-0069.000

The "web" synopsis of the report has the following statement:

"The Army estimated the cost of the CH-47F Program at $13.6 billion for 301 CH-47F aircraft, including $156.2 million for research, development, test, and evaluation; $5.4 billion for procurement; and $8.0 billion for operations and support."

$13.6 billion/301 = $45.2 million per airframe (which includes support---the US Army probably has fairly extensive support)

Since this was 4 years ago, exchange rates, inflation,.... assume that today's cost of this contract would be about $100 million/airframe.

For Canada---we are getting 16 airframes plus support and have to build infrastructure---hangars, parts depots,....

at a per airframe cost of $293+ million.

I would not be so concerned if we were getting 50 or 60 airframes but these numbers simply do not add up.

I wonder how many airframes the US could afford at those prices----it seems a bit like the torpedo deal a few years back when
we received a "refund" for the excessive prices charged.

On another site:

http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Support-Helicopters/CH-47F-Chinook_a000504003.aspx

there is more interesting figures on the US CH-47F program.

OK, for the last time......

Do you know exactly what Canada is buying ?

NO, you do not. You simply divided the total contract project cost by the number of airframe and decided that was the answer. Nice way to do research. Come back when you have found detailed contractproject clauses for the entire meduim-to heavy lift project.

 

[peaches]

I was in Winnipeg recently and attended a Q&A session with the 1 CAD General.  One of the many question brought up was Chinooks.  He basically said it comes down to what they can get first of the production line.  He did not answer direct questions about 47F vs 47H, so nothing to add there.  However, he did say that they were leaning toward basing all 16 in one unit in Bagotville, althought nothing has been finalized.

 

[George Wallace]

Bagotville?

That seems a little out of the way.  They would use up quite a bit of flying hours getting to a task, before even conducting a task.  Seems like a more centralized location would be better, or to divvy up the numbers between the Bdes and a OP Commitment.

 

[aesop081]

Bagotville?

That seems a little out of the way.  They would use up quite a bit of flying hours getting to a task, before even conducting a task.  Seems like a more centralized location would be better, or to divvy up the numbers between the Bdes and a OP Commitment.

Bag-town doesnt make much sense but with some deployed ,there are not enough to break down in more than 1 or 2 places, let alone having some located at each brigade.

 

[peaches]

The issue is hanger space believe it or not!!  He mentioned that Bagotville has the space, and it does.  There is a big hanger ther built for USAF AWACS ops.  As well, we can't forget politics.

He was asked the question about distance to customer, and said that as far as 2 & 5 Bge, not an issue, 1 Bge would see cross country ops....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Here's a positive development:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/02/10/pf-4838866.html

Canadian pilots have already been training on CH-47s in the U.S. and Australia in anticipation of the Tory government's long-promised $4.7 billion purchase of 16 brand new Chinooks.

Can anyone add more details this statement? Are we currently bringing people up to speed or is this a case of just a few people getting trained so they can write the training manuals?

 

[beenthere]

OK two questions:

1. Who made the decision to get rid of the Chinooks we had? I apologize if I insulted anyone.
I remember flying in those choppers years ago. I was in the very back and we flew with the ramp down.....AWESOME sight!!


2. How long will it take to gain the necessary skills for pilots to fly the Chinooks? 

There's a post a couple of pages back regarding the decision to get rid of the old fleet.

As for gaining the necessary skills to fly them ---that's a loaded question but certainly a good one. It looks like the pilots that hang out here aren't about to rush in with an answer so I'll give you my biased opinion.
It would only take a few months to train enough pilots to operate them. However they would only have the basic qualification and with the exception of those with previous flight time on the Chinook they would be qualified but lacking experience. Experience only comes with time and as everyone is different in gaining skill, absorbing knowledge and putting them together there's virtually no way to predict just when a group of individuals would become proficient enough to operate in a theatre of operations.

 

[beenthere]

Having the whole fleet in one location would be the best plan but Bagotville is a bit remote when it comes to supporting deployed operations. Also, it's not central to most users.
Trenton is by far the best location for supporting deployments as that's where everything is shipped from.
A perfect example is the C-130s on past deployments. When spares or specialists such as metal techs were needed they were on the first flight out. Often it was just a matter of getting a part from supply and carrying it over to the AMU. Same thing applied to replacement personnel. Except of course they didn't come from supply.

 

[peaches]

The old CH47 fleet would not do us any good today if we'd kept them.  they were old when we got rid of them, the Dutch paid big bucks to rebuild them.  Canada was not & would not have done that.  We would have 40 year old Chinooks right now that were no good.

As for training, there are some pilots that may have do exchange tours with the USA or UK on Chinooks.  Then you could train some more in the USA, combine the two groups and you'd have an initial cadre of Chinook crews;  which you use to train more crew....

were they are based, how many are moot points until we have them on the ramp.  If the gov't changes anytime soon, bye bye Chinooks!!!

 

[peaches]

You can't base the whole AF in Trenton.  Trenton has a full ramp as it is, & no hanger space.  Hanger space is the driving force, & Bagotville has plenty.  Do not forget politics, of all the new aircraft the CF is buying, none to date are based in Quebec.  Quebec only has Grifs & F18's......

 

[beenthere]

Had we kept the old Chinooks they all would have been replaced or rebuilt by now, the fleet would have grown by several numbers and we would have experienced crews and maintenance personnel.
However we didn't and that's why we're discussing operations rather than doing them.

 

[karl28]

          Just a question from a curious Civilian who doesn't know allot about Air Force matters ,  but why wouldn't the Airforce station them at an army base like Valcatier , Pet , or Edmonton wouldn't it make sense to have near the infantry units that they will be flying around for ease of training ?      If not one of those places cause of the hanger issues than why not Mountianview it has hangers and close to Trenton as was previously pointed out and still close to Pet .

 

[beenthere]

You can't base the whole AF in Trenton.  Trenton has a full ramp as it is, & no hanger space.  Hanger space is the driving force, & Bagotville has plenty.  Do not forget politics, of all the new aircraft the CF is buying, none to date are based in Quebec.  Quebec only has Grifs & F18's......

Mountainview.

 

[George Wallace]

Not too much left of Mountainview these days.  Most of the hangars are gone, and those still standing are probably on the verge of coming down.


Take a fly by with Google Earth.  ;D