Canada considers purchase of used US Army Chinooks

[Good2Golf]

Duey. I had you misplaced. I'd thought that you were on the banks of the Rideau untill you gave your position away.
Within the obvious limitations can you describe a typical US Sqn/Company in terms of equipment, personell,maintenance capability etc. in a way that would provide a comparison with a Cdn. Squadron.
Also what resources outside of the unit are available. Is there a unit that provides phase type maintenance or is that all done in house?

Beenthere, a US Army medium lift Aviation Battalion has three ops Coys and a Maint Coy, looking after 42-48 CH47's.  Accordingly, a standard MTH Company (like a flight in a Cdn Sqn) is a 14 to 16 CH-47D/F equipped unit....so about twice the airframes per similar unit size as a Canadian squadron's flight.  Maintenance if different to the degree that first line servicing is by a dedicated crew per aircraft...that's there machine to fix, so the servicing crew supervisor has 16 crew chiefs and 16 crews.  Maintenance is done by a separate maint coy.  Interestingly a US Avn Maint Coy S4 Maint is often a pilot officer assigned for overall responsibility for conducting second line maintenance action.  There are not necessarily SAMEO/AERE officer equivalents per se in Army Aviation at the company level.  It is a different model to see it in action, especially for those familiar with a SAMEO and SAMS and AMO, ASO and Maint and Servicing NCOs.  It works but overall, US Army uses more aircraft to conduct the same number of tasks a Canadian unit would use.  I can hunt down more information when I get back from AFG if you're interested.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[beenthere]

Is there a plan in the works for ramping up new squadrons to operate the Chinooks? From our previous experience with heavy lift helicopters there must be a history of the lessons learned.

From my own experience the limited number of aircraft that we had on the two squadrons was a major problem and they would have been more effective had they been all concentrated in one unit. I realize the need for geographic distribution but it was obvious that the limited number of aircraft available at a given time on either squadron was an ongoing problem. When there were only four aircraft on a squadron it was often that none were available at a given time or if they were available there were no back ups.
It always worked better when the two squadrons were working together as there were more aircraft in the pool.

From that experience it would indicate that eight or more aircraft on one squadron would probably be the minimum number to provide effective support. I'm not into all of the theory of operations, doctrine and so on but it's obvious that in order to provide effective support there has to be a large degree of flexibility.
The ideal way to operate is to be able to have more equipment than the operation calls for.That also removes the pressure factor and makes people less likely to accept aircraft that have questionable serviceability. That also applies to the maintainers in that they don't get pressured into overextending work hours and making critical judgements that are beyond their capabilities.

Another factor regarding Chinooks is that some of the operational mishaps that are bound to happen require a huge number of maintenance hours and a lot of personnel. The squadrons require enough personnel to be able to cover the contingency of recovery and repair while still operating the other aircraft.

Although I personally considered the AFMS units to be large and overpopulated they provided the support that was needed for more than a few recovery and repair operations that would have been very hard to do using squadron resources.

 

[Good2Golf]

Beenthere, good question.  Having seen the 4/3 split of 450 and 447, I think that economies of effort and sustainment of deployed operations that can be realized through consolidation in a particular location would far outweight the additional cost of having to transit around domestically.  So, I figure the whole lift fleet will go into a single location..perhaps one that already had a transport flavour?  There are only a few locations out there that fit the bill, especially considering some organizations that would have to be supported on a relatively regular basis...   Oh, I don't think the AFMS idea is so far fetched...

Cheers,
Duey

 

[beenthere]

Sounds good. My opinion is that the next worse situation to not having the heavy lift capability is to have it and then not have it concentrated.
I started out with 1THP in Rivers Man. when all of the CH-113As were in Rivers. They were initially split between 1THP and another unit (OTU). Then in 1966 the helicopters were divided between 1THP which moved to St. Hubert and a detachment of 1THP in Namao. Even then the effect was to create two squadrons neither of which had enough aircraft to provide effective support and the only times that they were effective were on large exercises when they were combined.When the numbers of aircraft were reduced because of losses it got even worse and aircraft had to be loaned out to one Sqn. or the other in order to support operations.
I have no problems with the AFMS concept. However when it was first established in Ottawa they had so many people that they were an air force of their own. At that time there was a surplus of technical trades people because of base closures and reductions in Europe. There were lots of people but they were very shy on helicopter experience as most of them had been on fighter units.

 

[3rd Herd]

Found on another forum. I figured Duey and some of the others here would enjoy. A slightly used US helicopter for sale, deep sea salvage required.
http://www.hemetcigarclub.com/hold/HowNotToLandHelicopter.wmv

 

[George Wallace]

Wouldn't that just ruin your day! 

 

[Armymatters]

Found on another forum. I figured Duey and some of the others here would enjoy. A slightly used US helicopter for sale, deep sea salvage required.
http://www.hemetcigarclub.com/hold/HowNotToLandHelicopter.wmv

Looks like a CH-46 Sea Knight... those helos have been kicking around the US Navy and Marine Corps for about 40 years, and are the same as our CH-113's.

 

[aesop081]

Found on another forum. I figured Duey and some of the others here would enjoy. A slightly used US helicopter for sale, deep sea salvage required.
http://www.hemetcigarclub.com/hold/HowNotToLandHelicopter.wmv

The video is a prominent feature as part of air force HPMA training.

Looks like a CH-46 Sea Knight... those helos have been kicking around the US Navy and Marine Corps for about 40 years, and are the same as our CH-113's.

It is in fact a CH-46.  The mishap was not related to the aircraft's age but was rather atributed to crew error ( hence why it is part of our HPMA trg)

 

[Armymatters]

I have been told we are also looking into CH-53 Super Stallion's as well... apparantly Sikorsky is developing a newer variant of the Super Stallion for the Marine Corps with more engine power...

 

[George Wallace]

I'd like to hear more on the CH 53 proposal.  I would think that they may be a better aircraft than the CH 47.  Both are in service with a lot of Armies.  The CH 53 looked like a more robust chopper to me, but as I am not in the Air Force, nor as qualified as some on this forum are, to make much more that than these type of unqualified statements.

 

[Armymatters]

I'd like to hear more on the CH 53 proposal.  I would think that they may be a better aircraft than the CH 47.  Both are in service with a lot of Armies.  The CH 53 looked like a more robust chopper to me, but as I am not in the Air Force, nor as qualified as some on this forum are, to make much more that than these type of unqualified statements.

I have been onboard a CH-53, and it is a big chopper and can in theory do more (USMC CH-53E's carry 55 troops or 14,515kg on the hoist, while the CH-47D's can carry 30 troops or 12700kg on the hoist), as USMC CH-53's can sling a LAV-25 (not the Stryker, as the Stryker is too heavy), but the CH-53's really shine at sea level, not in the hot and high conditions of say, Afghanistan. Sikorsky is working on a more powerful and bigger variant (I dug out some more data) as the CH-53X, and instead of the 3 General Electric T64-GE-416 turboshaft's that produce 4,380 shp each, they are planning to fit 3 Royce Royce AE 1107C's that produce around 6,000 shp, which is the same engine as the V-22 Osprey, and shares the same engine core of the Rolls-Royce Allison AE2100 engine (fitted to the C-130J). The key advantage to the CH-53 is the fact the helo was designed for shipborne operation, complete with folding tail and main rotor (the CH-47 I believe doesn't and requires that the blades be removed), and can in theory lift more.

 

[George Wallace]

Well, the CH 53's of the Bundeswehr/HEER always impressed me.  They can carry two or three Weasels inside and one slung. 

 

[Armymatters]

Well, the CH 53's of the Bundeswehr/HEER always impressed me.  They can carry two or three Weasels inside and one slung. 

The German CH-53's are of the earlier, 2 engine models. Imagine what the CH-53X's can do with the more powerful engines... probally be able to sling a LAV III?

 

[Good2Golf]

Yup, that's a CH46E Sea Knight, a.k.a "Phrog"...IIRC, about 6-7 marines died/drowned in that accident.

There is no doubt that an H53 can lift a lot, especially 3-engined CH-53E's, but they generally tend to like the thick air at sea-level for the tail-rotor's effectiveness.  There's a reason folks are no longer using the H-53 over here...CH47 is THE machine where extended ranges, high altitudes, mountainous regions and warmer weather is concerned.

Friends I know on MH-53's note that high alt mountainous stuff must be done with care...53 is quite sensitive to wind direction when hovering...Chinook could care less about that because of tandem configuration.

The H53 would be a decent machine perhaps for the Standing Contingency Task Force based of ships, but I don't think it would be the preferred solution to operations such as in Afghanistan.  I'd actually take an EH-101 Mk4 before I flew an H53 over here.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[George Wallace]

One example of the H 53s shortcomings may be the failed Operation in Iran to rescue the American Embassy Staff.  Dust and other conditions contributed to their problems.  (They were shipborne and not prepped for Desert and Sand conditions)

 

[Armymatters]

One example of the H 53s shortcomings may be the failed Operation in Iran to rescue the American Embassy Staff.  Dust and other conditions contributed to their problems.  (They were shipborne and not prepped for Desert and Sand conditions)

And on top of that, the plan was way too complex, with too many things that could fail. To add insult to injury, there was a massive problem of tri-service coordination, which the Americans later resolved by creating USSOCOM.

The main issue was the birds that they used. The Navy didn't have space on their carriers for the regular spec-ops helos, and was adamant about the issue, refusing to budge, which forced the planners to use the RH-53 Sea Stallion minesweeper helicopters instead, which were completely unsuitable.

 

[beenthere]

Found on another forum. I figured Duey and some of the others here would enjoy. A slightly used US helicopter for sale, deep sea salvage required.
http://www.hemetcigarclub.com/hold/HowNotToLandHelicopter.wmv

I believe that accident took place off the coast of California. Several fatalities-crew plus some Navy special ops personnel returning to the ship after an exercise. A very good example of how quickly things can go wrong.

 

[baboon6]

The RAF operates Chinooks off Royal Navy carriers fairly regularly eg. flown into Afghanistan and Iraq that way, including air assault in Iraq 2003. I don't know if their aircraft have any modifications.

 

[beenthere]

So what's the present status on the Chinooks?

 

[Jantor]

Hi,

There is a speculative presentation on the CASR site that's new for April.

Other than that, I haven't heard a peep ???

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/index.htm