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

[Loachman]

I guess Shilo, Wainwright, Suffield,  and Edmonton don't exist in your world.

Suitable hangar space is a major factor in the decision.

There aren't any in those locations.

Major exercises, and probably even some minor ones, will be supported by deploying aircraft as needed. We do this with the Griffon fleet today. There is usually little choice due to manning issues that drive serviceability and crewability and high demand. We were flipping crews and hels from one side of the country to the other last summer with two northern ops, support to Montebello, and exercises occurring either simultaneously or very close together - and during posting and leave seasons.

 

[George Wallace]

Suitable hangar space is a major factor in the decision.

There aren't any in those locations.

Major exercises, and probably even some minor ones, will be supported by deploying aircraft as needed. We do this with the Griffon fleet today. There is usually little choice due to manning issues that drive serviceability and crewability and high demand. We were flipping crews and hels from one side of the country to the other last summer with two northern ops, support to Montebello, and exercises occurring either simultaneously or very close together - and during posting and leave seasons.

It wasn't the hangars I was thinking about, but the locations of the troops that would be using them.  Where would the central location be to serve the largest number of 'clients'?  Is it economical to constantly be using up flying hours to fly from one end of the country to the other to provide services?  Bagotville would reasonably cover the Valcartier/Gagetown areas, with Petawawa on the fringes.  The West would involve more expense, time, flying hours, etc. or are they to be left out of the picture?

 

[Sf2]

They aren't left in the cold...you deploy a det when you need them.

Would Edmonton train often enough with Chinooks often enough to justify a permanent housing for them?
You have the minivan - Griffon, and the Motorhome - Chinook.  Do you drive your kids to soccer, get groceries, return the videotapes (eh bateman?) in a Motorhome?  Or do you do it in the minivan.  Then, when you wanna do the family road trip, once, twice, maybe three times a year, you get the motorhome out of storage and have fun.

 

[aesop081]

It wasn't the hangars I was thinking about, but the locations of the troops that would be using them.  Where would the central location be to serve the largest number of 'clients'?  Is it economical to constantly be using up flying hours to fly from one end of the country to the other to provide services?   Bagotville would reasonably cover the Valcartier/Gagetown areas, with Petawawa on the fringes.  The West would involve more expense, time, flying hours, etc. or are they to be left out of the picture?

So where would YOU put them ?

 

[George Wallace]

So I park my motorhome way out in the boonies, and leave it there, while I tool around the job site in a Chevy pickup.........except for those weeks when the In-laws and Out-laws visit?    Sounds a little bit Chretianist doesn't it?

 

[George Wallace]

So where would YOU put them ?

Good question.  Where are they most needed?

 

[aesop081]

Good question.  Where are they most needed?

You tell me George. I asked where YOU would put them .

 

[beenthere]

As far as training goes far more time is required for crew training than troop training. We're talking about a logistical support helicopter that's used to move big loads around an operational area.

 

[George Wallace]

You tell me George. I asked where YOU would put them .

Two places I would have figured, that they would be used the most in country, would be the MTC and CTC.  Operationally there may be the requirement for a Det close to the JTF and DART should they be collocated in Trenton.  

Operationally, overseas; where would they be transported out of?  Montreal?  Trenton?  Halifax?  Vancouver?

Questions would arise as to costs.  What are the costs of new Hangars compared to long term long flying hours to get them from Bagotville to their taskings?

Who has the hangars already?  Who is getting new infrastructure?

What commonality do we find in all the above questions.  

Some numbers cruncher may conclude Trenton.  A Tactical guy may pick CTC or MTC.  A Logistician may pick an Airhead or Seaport.

 

[aesop081]

What about a base where suitable ground facilities already exist ?

That has suitable low-flying training areas already established ?

In range of 3 major army bases and 2 major ports ?


Ferrying aircraft around in the CF is just a fact of life. We do that with almost every fleet we have. Its not that big a deal.

 

[George Wallace]

So?  Goose Bay would be an option?

Northern Bn and all.  ;D

 

[aesop081]

So?  Goose Bay would be an option?

Northern Bn and all.   ;D

I was thinking that Bagottville isnt that bad a choice after all......

 

[Loachman]

What are the costs of new Hangars compared to long term long flying hours to get them from Bagotville to their taskings?

It doesn't make any difference. It's capital versus O&M costs - the same issue that prevents us from cost-effectively replacing all major fleets (trucks, aircraft, ships, etcetera) rather than spending many times that amount to prevent them from falling apart from twenty to fifty years of hard (ab)use.

Yes, Petawawa and Edmonton would perhaps be the wisest choices, but unless some hangars sprout spontaneously they are not likely to be based in either location.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was thinking that Bagottville isnt that bad a choice after all......

Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be putting them all in Kandahar? Work back from there to the base where it's easiest to support Kandahar from Canada and that would be....?

 

[beenthere]

The former Chinook locations of Ottawa and Edmonton were quite acceptable. The big problem was that the fleet was too small and the only time that they provided effective support for operations or training exercises was when the two squadrons got together.
Flying from Ottawa to Gagetown was never considered unusual and was just another part of the operation. Much the same for Wainwright. The long range fuel system extended the range and made Ottawa to Halifax in one leg possible. Ottawa Winnipeg was a stretch but was done in one leg.
The most noticeable difference in operating from places like Petawawa or Gagetown was lack of hangar space and support. Most air bases are geared for air operations with more equipment and support services and 24 hour operations.

 

[George Wallace]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be putting them all in Kandahar? Work back from there to the base where it's easiest to support Kandahar from Canada and that would be....?

Would you be taking a Circumnavigational Route, a Polar Route, or a 'Rental'?  Are you going to go East or West?

 

[aesop081]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be putting them all in Kandahar? Work back from there to the base where it's easiest to support Kandahar from Canada and that would be....?

Maybe we should keep some here...you know, to train pilots, FEs, technicians, troops doing pre-deployement training......

You know, that kind of stuff

and maybe we should give just a tiny thought to after Afghanistan, since its going to take a while before we get out Chinooks. Just maybe......

 

[daftandbarmy]

Good points.

So let's keep a few here to maintain training etc and deploy the rest to the front where they can help destroy bad guys while saving the infantry's arses. If I have to walk across Wainwright training area to reduce our casualties in A-stan while increasing Taliban KIA levels, then rock on Tommy.

 

[Loachman]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be putting them all in Kandahar?

Unless we're going to make Kandahar a posting, and move families in, no.

We need a certain number in an OTU for aircrew and groundcrew. We need a bunch of people training to go, a bunch in location, and a bunch reconstituting upon return - with the training/reconstituting bunches supporting Army training and assorted ops in Canada during the same time. Those four groups split the personnel and airframes into four approximately equal groups.

Work back from there to the base where it's easiest to support Kandahar from Canada and that would be....?

Immaterial. Ports are only a few flying hours away. We sent Chinooks to Norway for a major ex in the eighties, along with a large number of Kiowas and Twin Hueys. They came from several Squadrons..

 

[beenthere]

Loachman. We've already proved that four Chinooks in one unit is the exact number that won't do anything other than cause problems. We had four in Edmonton and four in Ottawa. One was always undergoing a series check which leaves three. One often had some big problem that kept it grounded so it became a rob aircraft to supply the remaining two with parts. One would go out someplace to do some work and the last one usually had to go out with a repair crew to rescue it. It wasn't like that every day but it often was the case. Four is a bad number because it's an awfully low  number to start subtracting from.