Canada considers purchase of used US Army Chinooks
- Thread starter 404SqnAVSTeach
- Start date
BillN
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 230
Duey,
I'll drive around Acadia Drive...pick you up, and we can both go together
I hope they keep the LM position on the new ones at the Cpl level. It was a great learning environment for us all, and gave our Cpl's a chance to escape the boring "rote" of the AMS's.
I remember with much glee the look on Sgt George Wilson's face when I handed him my request to go rotary wing LM back in '83. On the form where it asked "why do you wish to transfer?" I wrote "Because a trained monkey could do my current job". It wasn't very popular answer with the CO, but it worked....3 weeks later I was under the tender loving care of George Leduc and a LM/UT at 450
By the way, George was the only Loadie I know that did 4 separate tours on Chinooks, 3 at 450 and 1 at 447. Too bad he's out now......he'll be chafing on the bit to get back on the new ones (just like me)
Cheers,
Bill
I'll drive around Acadia Drive...pick you up, and we can both go together
I hope they keep the LM position on the new ones at the Cpl level. It was a great learning environment for us all, and gave our Cpl's a chance to escape the boring "rote" of the AMS's.
I remember with much glee the look on Sgt George Wilson's face when I handed him my request to go rotary wing LM back in '83. On the form where it asked "why do you wish to transfer?" I wrote "Because a trained monkey could do my current job". It wasn't very popular answer with the CO, but it worked....3 weeks later I was under the tender loving care of George Leduc and a LM/UT at 450
By the way, George was the only Loadie I know that did 4 separate tours on Chinooks, 3 at 450 and 1 at 447. Too bad he's out now......he'll be chafing on the bit to get back on the new ones (just like me)
Cheers,
Bill
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Scott57 said:
no hijacking the thread. this isn't about uniform color its about helicopters. Uniform color has nothing to do with helicopters.
Mover - had no intention of hihjacking the thread. I'm extremely happy to see them bringing back the Chinooks. They were great ferrying us troops to the showers in northern BC. And, it was nice to see a couple of familiar names that you brought up. It's great seeing George (Leduc) on occasion in Ottawa as we joined around the same time. In fact, I've known many movers.
Uniform issue does relate to the Chinook in my books. (Army Chinooks = Army CSS Support). It relates to our weakness as a branch (logistics/ sense of identity) and 3 x DEU's. But you're right - different thread and I will digress.:salute
Uniform issue does relate to the Chinook in my books. (Army Chinooks = Army CSS Support). It relates to our weakness as a branch (logistics/ sense of identity) and 3 x DEU's. But you're right - different thread and I will digress.:salute
BillN
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 230
Scott57 I don't agree. When I was flying on the 'Hooks in the med-80's we had all three uniform colours on the Squadron, and nobody gave a flying fig......we just did our jobs......and I see no reason why this attitude should not be the same, when and if, we get 'Hooks again.
The colour of your uniform has nothing to do with being a good tradesman/woman, regardless of element, it's called "professionalism".
Cheers,
Bill
The colour of your uniform has nothing to do with being a good tradesman/woman, regardless of element, it's called "professionalism".
Cheers,
Bill
Agree with most of what you just said i.e professionalism. However, wait till I get back to Ottawa (and when I have more time) on Sunday and I will start a thread within the CSS forum in regards to uniforms. As I said, my intent was not to hijact this thread.BillN said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Scott57 said:
Right on! when you start that post you can add my two cents to the whole unifor debate moving this post to you new one.I think loggies should be chamelions when it comes to DEU's, You get posted air, your issued Air DEU ,you get posted Army you wear the ARMY deu.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Back on topic.....
Isn't anyone actually questioning the thought process on the procument of these helos?
We got rid of our Chinooks (for reasons that were, at the time, beyond my comprehension) and now the powers that be are now in a scramble to buy someone's used choppers....
Due to the lack of forsight of the Liberal gov't at the time, we're about to comence offensive ops in A 'stan without any lift capabilities...barring us begging other contingent's helo's for our ops, which leaves a horrible taste in my mouth IMHO.
I'm just wondering...how much of a debacle is the procument process going to be and will we have them in time?
Remember that there is a election coming up and a change of gov't MAY put this on the back burner for a time...or (as JC did) scrap the deal altogether.
Just my $0.02 worth...seeing as I'm just a tiller bar puller
Comments?
Regards
Isn't anyone actually questioning the thought process on the procument of these helos?
We got rid of our Chinooks (for reasons that were, at the time, beyond my comprehension) and now the powers that be are now in a scramble to buy someone's used choppers....
Due to the lack of forsight of the Liberal gov't at the time, we're about to comence offensive ops in A 'stan without any lift capabilities...barring us begging other contingent's helo's for our ops, which leaves a horrible taste in my mouth IMHO.
I'm just wondering...how much of a debacle is the procument process going to be and will we have them in time?
Remember that there is a election coming up and a change of gov't MAY put this on the back burner for a time...or (as JC did) scrap the deal altogether.
Just my $0.02 worth...seeing as I'm just a tiller bar puller
Comments?
Regards
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ch 47s , wonderful these are the same helicopters that we sold to the dutch as it would have been too
expensive to modify them to the D standard, you can just bet this would not have happened if they had
been operated by the Army where they belong, but no the airforce was in control and fighter pilot
generals are not to interested in helicopters.
the liberals,if they run true to form they will try to get them on the cheap and we will probobly get junk and
someone will get killed, just remember the subs.
expensive to modify them to the D standard, you can just bet this would not have happened if they had
been operated by the Army where they belong, but no the airforce was in control and fighter pilot
generals are not to interested in helicopters.
the liberals,if they run true to form they will try to get them on the cheap and we will probobly get junk and
someone will get killed, just remember the subs.
- Reaction score
- 332
- Points
- 880
time expired said:
Pretty bold comments - do you have any idea about Airforce-Army dynamics? Next you'll be blaming the boys in blue for the Griffon purchase.
Welcome to army.ca - we appreciate thought and research into ones comments before spouting nonsense.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
But they didn't belong to the army and right now we would be having a debate on weather or not to REPLACE the aging chinook.time expired said:
Selling them my have done some good. Instad of foot dragging on replacing an old piece of equipment, (think sea king, Herc, etc) We are now procuring equipment to fill a requirement.
I have my doubts on weather the Army would have kept the chinooks flying anyways I believe it would have been the first behemoth to go in the 1990's as being expensive and outdated.
But thats just speculation
Much like your post....
For your info the Commander of 1 Can Air Div (MGen Bouchard) is a helicopter pilot.
So please before you post do some homework.
The Chinooks were sacrificed because they were very expensive to operate and maintain as I recall. At least that was the official line at the time. It may very well have been the proper thing to do taking into consideration that the small number of aircraft didn't provide effective support. Eight aircraft was just about enough to eat up lots of money and less than half as many as would be needed to provide minimum support for any operational role.
Any idea of the army operating aircraft has long gone from the realm of possibilities and the reality is that they were being operated for the army as are other aircraft. That is a logical use of resources and will probably never change.
As for the new or used issue. It makes no difference which category they fall into so long as they meet the required specifications. The US Army is the major operator of Chinooks and they have been recycling their fleet since they first started using them. Many people fail to realize that an aircraft is essentially the sum of it's parts and that in many cases the only thing that's original is the serial number.
Of course everything can and will change as the political game plays out and just about anything can happen to the present plan. Even at the best I would not expect to see Chinooks supporting operations for a few years as there are virtually no resources to support them.
Any idea of the army operating aircraft has long gone from the realm of possibilities and the reality is that they were being operated for the army as are other aircraft. That is a logical use of resources and will probably never change.
As for the new or used issue. It makes no difference which category they fall into so long as they meet the required specifications. The US Army is the major operator of Chinooks and they have been recycling their fleet since they first started using them. Many people fail to realize that an aircraft is essentially the sum of it's parts and that in many cases the only thing that's original is the serial number.
Of course everything can and will change as the political game plays out and just about anything can happen to the present plan. Even at the best I would not expect to see Chinooks supporting operations for a few years as there are virtually no resources to support them.
It is my understanding that one of the driving reasons for getting rid of the chinooks and the kiowas and hueys was that the army didn't like paying for three types of aircraft. Much like the Sea King and the Navy, the army pays for most of the YFR for Tac Hel. The army wanted to have a single type to reduce the cost it had to pay for flying. I could be wrong but I am sure Duey would know the answer.
I don't think that is true. 1 Wing, then 1 CAD flips the bill. 20% of our flying is in direct support of the army - the rest is training/maintaining currency. I don't think the army would pay for something they use 20% of the time. Not to mention some 1 Wing assests have nothing to do with the army.
When we do a mission for the army, a certain code is entered into the "Mission Management Application". At that point, you're probably right, a portion of the bill is flipped by the Army. But as I said, that's about 20% of the time. The rest is pilot training and proficiency.
BillN
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 230
Just a correction here. We didn't have 8 Chinooks, we only had 7. 450 Sqn in Ottawa had four, and 447 in Edmonton had three. We had a total of nine, but we lost 001 and then 002 in flying accidents.
As for the question about who paid for what, I don't know. But, I can tell you that this, we did as much "work" for the air force as we did for the army, and I'm not just talking about boring holes through the sky building up flying hours.
Cheers,
Bill
Chinook LM
'83 - '87
As for the question about who paid for what, I don't know. But, I can tell you that this, we did as much "work" for the air force as we did for the army, and I'm not just talking about boring holes through the sky building up flying hours.
Cheers,
Bill
Chinook LM
'83 - '87
Similar threads
