• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada considers purchase of used US Army Chinooks

I believe the RAF has 6 or 8 Chinook's which have been grounded since purchase because of US refusal to provide proper software for cockpick? IIRC US Army looked at procuring these helo's from UK but found them in poor condition.
A new version of Ch-53E IE the "K" model is on drawing board for USMC.

 
ringo:

I hadn't heard about the US Army issue but this from Wikipedia does square with what I remember from discussions in the press over the last few years.

Ordered at the same time as the HC.2As, 8 Chinook HC.3s were to enter service as dedicated Special Forces helicopters. These were to be effectively low-cost variants of the US Army's SF Chinook, the MH-47G. The upgrade would include improved range, night vision sensors and navigation capability. The eight aircraft were to cost £259 million and the forecast In-Service Date (ISD) was November 1998 (defined as delivery of the first six aircraft). As work proceeded, it became evident that displays for the weather radar and other systems anticipated for an avionics upgrade programme (put to contract in 1997) would not fit inside the existing cockpit.

One potential solution was to adopt a fully digital cockpit, as used by Chinooks purchased by the Royal Netherlands Air Force. However, this was not affordable within the funding available for the HC3 programme, and a hybrid solution was adopted, incorporating elements of the existing analogue cockpit and the new digital systems and displays. In March 1998 the new ISD was set at January 2002.

The problem seems to have been a lack of definition of requirements by the Ministry of Defence. Of 100 separate requirements only 30 were defined in the contract. All the aircraft were accepted from Boeing by December 2001, meeting, and in some cases exceeding, the contract, but none have so far been accepted into service. A key issue is that the Chinook HC3's unique, hybrid digital/analogue cockpit is reliant on software to operate. However, the contract did not specify that software documentation and codes should be analysed in accordance with UK standards in order to demonstrate the integrity of the software. It has not, therefore, been possible to demonstrate that the flight instruments meet these standards. The idea that the systems would be proved by the RNAF aircraft proved unfounded due to the unique configuration of the HC3.

One of the main contractors for the avionics system has recently indicated that it would allow access to some software data. However, the process of analysis is time-consuming and expensive and, in addition, there is no guarantee of a successful outcome because the legacy software is not amenable to the techniques required to confirm the robustness of software design. Consequently, the Chinook HC3 is currently restricted to day/night flying above 500 feet in clear weather, and where the pilot can fly the aircraft solely using external reference points without relying on the flight displays. These restrictions mean that the helicopters cannot be used other than for limited flight trials.

Another problem is the corrosion allegedly suffered during storage at Boeing. It was reported in 2003 that the US Army were interested in buying the 8 HC.3s, allowing the RAF to purchase MH-47Gs. However following inspection of the aircraft the US Army declined this option. One HC.3 was damaged during delivery, rolling backwards into a crane at Bristol docks on July 20, 2001. Damage was significant but repairable. If and when the HC.3s enter service they will join 7 Squadron at RAF Odiham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Chinook

Edit: From what I can gather the software problem is an entirely "Made In Britain" issue.
 
I havent heard anything yet from old timers like me who used to do heli-ops with chinooks (pilots, loadees, or temporary flight guests i.e. infantry):

Ref their use, they were great for moving a large group of people from one place to another over rough terrain (as can be testified to by our boys 'over there'). However I see a few drawbacks to the acquisition...

1) its been a long time since we had them; the AF will have to round up old pilots or borrow trainers from our allies to get a Chinook pilot program going.

2) they're nasty for attracting ground fire (because they're big!), not as responsive or manoueverable once hovering (unless piloted by Americans who are amazingly deft in piloting those babies), and as far as I know we have no Canadian-approved tactics for operations in 'hot areas'.

Any AF / Chinook experts out there who can let our boys know what problems to expect once in use? 
 
The rotary winged types that have spoken about us possibly getting chinooks don't see it as a big deal according to the other threads on this subject.
 
Ex-Dragoon:

Perhaps Centurian1985 would like to check out some of Duey's posts - as our resident Chinook SME :)
 
Jantor said:
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

They just posted that FYI. I just read it, and it appears to be about some sort of multi-way trade between the US Army, Boeing, Canada, and Chile to get ex. US Army Chinooks that needs to be refurbished, but the US Army has no money to refurbish them, so Boeing buys them, they give them to us in exchange for some CH-146 Griffons, which would be sold to Chile, as they need a Huey replacement.
 
Chinooks that need to be refurbished
anyone... does this sound like Upholders that need refurbishing?

If the US, that needs & operates it's fleet of Chinooks isn't interested in / can't afford to refurbish....... isn't this sending out a subliminal message?
 
geo said:
Chinooks that need to be refurbished
anyone... does this sound like Upholders that need refurbishing?

If the US, that needs & operates it's fleet of Chinooks isn't interested in / can't afford to refurbish....... isn't this sending out a subliminal message?

According to the article, Chinooks sold under the US Army program will be fully refurbished by Boeing IDS. So we are in effect getting fully refurbished Chinooks from Boeing.

Edit: And the reasoning is simple according to CASR: The US Army will take the money and use it for brand spanking new CH-47F's.
 
Buying them would be the easy part. Housing, maintenance and all of the other requirements for a sizable fleet would present a considerable challenge. They require a lot of maintenance and support.
I don't know how much consideration has been given to the support that a fleet of Chinooks would require but it would certainly be a major effort considering the present size of the military.
 
reading the papers this morning - article in it quotes MND as telling the CDS that he should not hold his breath to get immediate response to his request for CH47s

at present, if we wanted to fly and maintain CH47s out of KAF we'd need to borrow Pilots & Mechanics + tons of tools & parts from the US or the UK. Owning em is easy, flying & maintaining em is another kettle of fish altogether.
 
Well, there are still 17 of us CH147-trained pilots in the CF and some of us could form a portion of a CH147A pilot cadre.  We would also want experienced tactical aviators and new pilots to fly any new machine as well -- demographics are important.  I believe the CDS' discussions were in providing an interim heavy lift solution to deployed operations until such time as the TALC project determined what airframe best fulfils the heavy-lift requirements of the CF.  Of course, loan of a particular aircraft might be seen (and not without foundation) as a statement by the government that this was the aircraft that would be finally selected for TALC.  Part of the slow down in action on this particular issue would appear to be political sensitivities between getting an operational capability in theatre as quickly as possible and not being seen to prejudge an ongoing procurement process (i.e. TALC project; assessing op requirements and selecting an appropriate aircraft.) 

Unfortunately, as we (Gov't) continue to dither on, we get pushed back further and further on manufacturers' wait lists as a potential, but slow-to-commit customer.  Alas, to think that folks thought that Paul Martin was "Mr. Dithers".  I am not at all heartened by the Minister's inferral to the CDS that he'll have a long time to wait for heavy lift helicopters.  On the other had, so long as we still get lifted by US, UK and soon to be NL Chinooks in the Southern provinces of AFG, there is no impetus for government to get on with things.  I foresee a tour or two flying Griffons in AFG for me before I think a heavy lift helicopter will even be selected, let alone procured... *sigh*

As noted earlier, other challenges would include maintenance and support.  I still think, however, the major issue right now is dealing with political sensitivities in procuring a helicopter -- luckily many folks...dare I say a generations have experience with this kind of thing!  ;D  I might very well be retired and BillN and I will get together out here by Normal Rogers Airport and have a drink or too (maybe even a round of golf at the Landings.)

Cheers,
Duey

p.s. the CASR bit about dividing 24 Chinooks equally between 403, 408, 427 and 430 shows a lack of understanding of the issue of basing and force generation/employment activities.  I think you'd see a squadron stand up in Trenton, for instance, to support the entire heavy lifter fleet and operate centrally before you see a fleet piece -mealed across the country.  It sounds expensive, but from a resources (human, materiel) point of view, it would be MUCH cheaper to travel around the country from tack to task from a single base of operations than to operate four separate sqns/detachments of mixed fleets at the line units and training squadron.
 
I must wonder (way outside my lane that's why it's more of a question) how many Heavy lift Helo's they would earmark for SOAS?

If your lifting a several DA teams with maybe an assaulter team, your going to need dedicated SF pilots, on a heavy lift frame to do it. (yes I am aware that DHTC has pilots now)
 
HoM, a lot of that would depend on the CONOP of the operators.  Without getting into a less than appropriate examination of particular options, it would not be unreasonable to imagine some cases where a larger aircraft might be suited to a particular action, and others where a number of smaller airframes might provide a more appropriate or tailored mode of mobility.  How that would be implemented at squadron(s) level is anyone's guess right now. 

Cheers,
Duey
 
Thanks Duey

Yet one more question that fall's into the perview of someone way above my pay grade LOL

I will state though from my experience with covert insertion on training with Recce, that the CH146 is fine for a 4 man det but even then with all the excess weight in our rucks I know were pushing. If you are going to use more then det size elements I think were going to need more then just the 146 to accomplish any mission with a viability of no detection
 
HoM, yes...that's probably a fair statement that the Griffon would do well with det size elements.  Covert or distributed insertions would be fairly well matched with the Griffon's capabilities.  Large unit/mass pers moves is something a heavier aircraft would be biased towards, capability-wise.

Cheers,
Duey
 
Well, there are still 17 of us CH147-trained pilots in the CF and some of us could form a portion of a CH147A pilot cadre.  We would also want experienced tactical aviators and new pilots to fly any new machine as well -- demographics are important. 

Duey

How difficult would it be to transition to a new avionics suite which would, presumably, be part of the refurbished Chinooks? I was talking with some Sea King guys a while ago and they mentioned that flying the Cyclones will be a huge technological leap. Or might it in fact be easier to fly with all the computerized help?

cheers, mdh
 
mdh said:
Duey

How difficult would it be to transition to a new avionics suite which would, presumably, be part of the refurbished Chinooks? I was talking with some Sea King guys a while ago and they mentioned that flying the Cyclones will be a huge technological leap. Or might it in fact be easier to fly with all the computerized help?

cheers, mdh

I remember an answer for this, and it applies from commercial aviation. One American airline, Southwest Airlines, due to the structure of its fleet (single airplane type: Boeing 737), has it's newer airplanes that are fitted with a glass cockpit programmed so that regular steam gauges show up on the CRT displays in the locations where the old steam gauges are. It was too difficult and expensive to train their pilots so that they were familarized with the new fully glass cockpits, so they contacted Boeing to have the software adjusted. If the pilot was already familar with the regular glass cockpit displays, the pilot can flip a switch to switch it back to the regular display. Perhaps the same can be done for any future Chinooks in CF service where older pilots already familar with the older Chinook version that was in service.
 
mdh said:
Duey

How difficult would it be to transition to a new avionics suite which would, presumably, be part of the refurbished Chinooks? I was talking with some Sea King guys a while ago and they mentioned that flying the Cyclones will be a huge technological leap. Or might it in fact be easier to fly with all the computerized help?

cheers, mdh

MDH, not a problem at all.  Learning the "visible front end" of any avionics managements system (AMS) would be readily absorbed by any CF pilot during the initial conversion training to type.  The worst case are those of us flying Griffon with the AMS' cockpit display unit (CDU) down on the pedestal between the two seats -- best case, experience on other aircraft like the training variant of the Griffon in Portage (a.k.a. Bell 412CF) and the Cormorant have glass cockpits. 

In the end, though, what is most important is an understanding of what any instrumentation and avionics systems are representing and the pilot being able to form that information into a sound "air picture" and operate his or her machine accordingly.

I suspect that the Sea King was a different story for a different reason, at leasty partially.  The Sea King is the only CF aircraft that has its cockpit instrumentation arrange in a circular, or "clock" format (vice all the other cockpits with what we call an "instrument T")-- a very old, albeit function configuration.  The instrument scan is notably different for a Sea King pilot flying in the clouds; they literally scan around the "clock" to ensure proper flight attitude and aircraft performance is maintained...the rest of us refer from the artificial horizon (principal attitude reference at center, top of the "T") 'out and back' to other instruments.  In the end, though, I can't see this being as big a deal as some of the SK guys made it out to be...I think they might have been referring more to the entire issue of stepping out of the late '50's into the 21st Century...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey
 
Back
Top