Airforce Spending Spree

[PViddy]

I found this in the paper this morning.  All i can say is, it's about time they whipped out the wallets.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=ad21f415-504d-4e17-be7d-8dca3b0fd4d8


Armed forces begin plane, helicopter purchases
 
Stephen Thorne
Canadian Press


Thursday, November 03, 2005


1 | 2 | NEXT >>
ADVERTISEMENT

 

OTTAWA -- Canada's air force has begun a shopping spree, looking to buy heavy-lift helicopters, transport aircraft and search-rescue planes, all within about five years, a military spokesman said Thursday.

Military planners are working late every day examining options and drafting requirements before issuing tenders for the lucrative contracts, said Capt. Jim Hutchison.

A special priority has been placed on the helicopter purchase, where options include used American Chinooks, similar to the troop transports that Canada sold to the Netherlands in 1991 as part of federal cost-cutting.

"It's an exciting time to be in the air force," said Hutchison. "The directorate of air requirements staff have been putting in the overtime hours like crazy in the past six months or so.

"There's a whole lot of work to be done."

Navy Lieut. John Nethercott said while used Chinooks are among the helicopter options under consideration, the preferred route is to buy new ones.

Canada's last major foray into used military equipment - four British submarines obtained for about $850 million in the 1990s - proved a bust.

They were plagued with problems and required numerous upgrades. One, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire on her maiden transatlantic voyage under Canadian command. A sailor died and the submarine now needs $20 million in repairs.

Last week, a transformer aboard the only sub in service, HMCS Windsor, suffered a meltdown. No one was hurt and the boat continued her cruise.

Nethercott, an air force spokesman, said the navy experience isn't a factor in the air force decision.

"The air force will explore all options," he said. "We're looking at long-term solutions and we think that those can be gained by buying new aircraft."

The last federal budget and April's defence policy statement outlined aviation requirements for the military, citing the need to support newly conceived expeditionary forces in far-flung regions of the world.

The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, wasted no time forming planning groups to get the process underway last spring.

But he said even before deliberations began that transport helicopters and replacements for the military's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which are more than 40 years old, are must-haves.

Hutchison said the army and air force have been working closely on the requirements for a heavy-lift helicopter and are looking at four main options - Sikorsky's S-92 and H-53 and Boeing's Chinook, either new or used.

Planners are drafting requirements, describing the conditions in which the new choppers will have to operate - hot, dusty, high altitudes - and the jobs it will have to do - move troops and equipment around war zones.

Three years ago, Canadian fighting troops in Afghanistan had to rely on U.S. helicopters for transport and resupply. They often found themselves at or near the bottom of the Americans' priority lists.

 

[geo]

Somewhat more galling is the fact that with the PRTs in Kandahar, Canada may end up depending on heavy lift helicopters from the Netherlands...

Hmmm... I wonder if their cheque cleared?

 

[Good2Golf]

Somewhat more galling is the fact that with the PRTs in Kandahar, Canada may end up depending on heavy lift helicopters from the Netherlands...

Hmmm... I wonder if their cheque cleared?

Nope...Dutchies are up North in Balkh (Mazar-e-Sharif's province)...ISAF territory, not down in CJTF 76 - RC(S).  'hook support is US from TF Storm in KAF.

For the record, the Dutch bought an additional nine -D's after upgrading our seven C+'s, taking their number up to 16, and they're getting 5 new F-models shortly.  One of them just had a "hard landing" out here a few days ago...ripped off one or two main mounts...ooops!

Personally, I would like to see us borrow some Chinook D-models while we wait for the production line to spit G-models out for us in a few years time.  That way I could get back here within a year or so and start flying TF 3-06 around here -- TF 1-06 is going to have to do without seeing my poop-eating grin in the cockpit.  :-[

Cheers,
Duey

 

[George Wallace]

This from the Boeing "Chinook News" Site:

Lot 1 was completed in May. Since then, our Philadelphia facility has delivered MH-47G Special Operations Heavy Assault Chinooks for the U.S. Army at a rate of two each month to meet the call for 16 aircraft by the end of the year.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/chinooknews/2005-09.pdf
This from the FAS site:

The Fatcow is a CH-47 with the Extended Range Fuel System [ERFS] II system located in the cargo bay. The configuration consists of three or four fuel tanks attached to a refueling system. The system contains 2400 gallons of JP4/8 excluding the CH-47 internal fuel load of 1050 gals. The Fatcow can set up a 1,2,3,or 4 point system using HTARS. The fuel cells must be crash-worthy and self sealing up to 50 caliber hits.

The The Improved Cargo Helicopter (ICH) is a remanufactured version of the CH-47D Chinook cargo helicopter with the new T55-GA-714A engines. The ICH program is intended to restore CH-47D airframes to their original condition and extend the aircraft's life expectancy another 20 years (total life of 60 years) until the 2025-2030 timeframe. The program will remanufacture CH-47 aircraft, reduce the aircraft's vibration, thereby reducing Operations and Support costs, and allow the aircraft to operate on the digitized battlefield by incorporating a 1553 data bus. The ICH will also acquire the capability to carry 16,000 pounds of external/internal cargo for a 50 NM combat radius at 4000 feet pressure altitude and 95 degrees fahrenheit. In addition, the following improvements will be incorporated into the aircraft:

So, which is more desirable for the CF?  Or should we be looking at more than one variant, to support JTF and JAFT tasks?

 

[geo]

Logic would dictate that, if most parts are compatible, we get some Fs (or by then Gs) and some specials for the JATF

 

[Jantor]

Nope...Dutchies are up North in Balkh (Mazar-e-Sharif's province)...ISAF territory, not down in CJTF 76 - RC(S).   'hook support is US from TF Storm in KAF.

For the record, the Dutch bought an additional nine -D's after upgrading our seven C+'s, taking their number up to 16, and they're getting 5 new F-models shortly.   One of them just had a "hard landing" out here a few days ago...ripped off one or two main mounts...ooops!

Personally, I would like to see us borrow some Chinook D-models while we wait for the production line to spit G-models out for us in a few years time.   That way I could get back here within a year or so and start flying TF 3-06 around here -- TF 1-06 is going to have to do without seeing my poop-eating grin in the cockpit.   :-[

Cheers,
Duey

Here's some pictures of that hard landing by that Dutch Chinook

http://blog.siegnet.us/dutch/index.htm

Buz

 

[PViddy]

Ouch.

So would that be one of our old birds ?

PV

 

[Good2Golf]

Apparently, the Dutch Col I was talking to was a little guarded about the damage...I interpreted "tore rear landing gear somewhat" to mean something else than this...

From the link above...

I can't see the regristration number so I cant tell if it was one of ours or not...I'll let you know if I get any more gen from the Dutchies over here.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[geo]

Hmmm.... hard landing is right...... Whoa!..... this guy takes the prize for the understatement of the year.


Then again, any landing you can walk away from is a good one.
(might not do much for your career but.....)

 

[Good2Golf]

Geo, look at all the pics at the link above and folks should appreciate how intact the Chinook actually stayed.  All the systems worked as designed - break-away, self-sealing fuel tanks did exactly that.  That the rotors stayed on and didn't strike the fuselage is amazing.  These guys were fortunate...could have (and has been in the past) a lot worse.  Still working on the info side of things...anecdotally, I'd be interested to know if this was one of ours that I flew in the v.early 90's.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Jungle]

Then again, any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

I think that applies better to Parachuting... 
That's quite a job he did on that airframe... Duey, a quick assessment: is it possible they can repair that kind of damage ?

 

[PViddy]

Weld it up into a mini sub....... ;D
But seriously, that's also what i got from the pics, the fusilage and crew area are totally uncompromised.  i would be a fan of getting the chinook again, new ones though.

cheers

PV

 

[Good2Golf]

I think that applies better to Parachuting... 
That's quite a job he did on that airframe... Duey, a quick assessment: is it possible they can repair that kind of damage ?

Yes, without question...the going joke in the helo world is that so long as they have the aircraft data plate, they can "rebuild" anything.  This one looks bad, is bad, but can be repaired.  It will probably take about 2 months at Boing Vertol in Philadelphia to get this one running again.  Looks like about $3-5M of damage...mostly the formers and stringers in the aft fuselage and I suspect there will be damage in the fwd and aft pylons as well...the aft pylon where it is connected onto the upper stringers of the rear fuselage is a place where stress and strain will result in noticable damage.

After that, send it out for a four-wheel alignment and she's good to go!

Cheers,
Duey

 

[geo]

from what I could see on the Boeing site and some US Mil sites, most Chinooks made, excluding those lost in combat are pretty much still up in the air & flying.
Testament to some good design features.

 

[PMars]

The Chinook is now being proposed for the USAF CSAR competition which is for around 144 units. They have removed the speed requirement from CSAR but Boeing is planning to do a general clean up to get a few more knots out of the machine. That would bring it up to, what, HH-47K variant? They are also doing some work on the rear pylon and rotors so that the aircraft could be loaded into C-5 and maybe even C-17 for transport into theatre.

Gen. Hillier has the right idea to get our order in ASAP or we may be so far back in the line that the 'Hook may not be a viable option. What would be a good idea would be to get a few used machines so that we could get a running start of training, etc. This is an approach the RNZAF used for their Sea Sprites. They got a few used USN machines to do training on and then used the older machines for parts when their new birds arrived. We could do something similar or even retain the used machines in an OTU (with a sim of course) after our new ones arrive.

 

[Gobsmacked]

1. The Chinook. . . Boeing is . . . also doing some work on the rear pylon and rotors so that the aircraft could be loaded into C-5 and maybe even C-17 for transport into theatre.
2. What would be a good idea would be to get a few used machines so that we could get a running start of training, etc. This is an approach the RNZAF used for their Sea Sprites. They got a few used USN machines to do training on
3. and then used the older machines for parts when their new birds arrived. We could do something similar or even retain the used machines in an OTU (with a sim of course) after our new ones arrive.

PMars, I've broken your statement into points to reply.
As a fellow Albertan (myself I'm from Edmontonchuk), I would hope you would know better.

1. FYI - There are numerous Pulblicly Available sources (try web search or read some pubs like 'Air International, Air Forces Monthly or Flight International' to name a few), as well as the USAF News page or monthly AF online magazine, that have noted that:
USAF has been lifting CH-47s for years.    2 per C-5 and 1 per C-17.

2. IMHO - I AGREE - BUT on LOAN BASIS ONLY FOR INITIAL TRG UNTILL CH-47F DELIVERY, lets the pilots/maintainers get back up to speed.

3. As for OTU - I'll leave this comment up to the AF types to debunk - due to different logistical tail and requirement to have both CH-47D and CH-47F pilots qualified. I think the training system is already stressed enough as is.  It is also the 'exact' same argument being made by the CAF for Arcturus disposal (although a mini-AIMP as I've argued for, various places, would minimize differences - but unfortunately it seems likely too late already  :'(  with one already consigned to maintenance trg)..

As for parts, I'm betting that the CH-47F is almost a Like New aircraft other than Airframe commonalities - although even this is simplified for both parts manufacture/maintenance with the F.
"The new version of the Chinook features a modern 'glass cockpit' avionics suite, in which computer displays replace the more traditional 'steam gauges' seen on traditional control panels.
Col William T. Crosby, project manager Cargo Helicopter, said . . . many of the new airframes interior formers and load bearing members are machined in one piece, much stronger than those used in the original airframes, which were built of numerous pieces riveted together.  Crosby said the changes amount to a 50 to 60 percent reduction in part numbers for some components.

The new Chinook is also easier to prepare for loading onto a large cargo aircraft, Sgt. 1st Class Gary Newton said.  The new Chinook is also easier to prepare for loading onto a large cargo aircraft, Newton said.  'Our time to load on, say, a C-5 Galaxy has been cut in about half,' he said. 'It also decreases the time for unloading at the other end.' "


This also leads me to another important point ballyhooded about in other threads - the 'much touted' C-130J vs C-130E/H Commonality - THIS SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.
  :fifty:
This is a fallacy which LMC in their Kanata Ont office - that I'm betting is in the riding of a Liberal Cabinet Minister? - is happy to keep floating about.    >
Even the AF noted, when the FSA program was actually still running before Political Cancellation, that the 'Only Reason the C-130J was being considered was due to Extreme Political Pressure as it was Not Suitalble to the FSA requirement for Outsize/Oversize Strategic airlift' - which is what Canada needs to get its troops/equipment anywhere (always overseas).    :argument:

As noted by Senior USAF Officers, including a former Commander of AMC, "the C-130J is basically a 70% - 80% (two similar quotes) New airplane".  This has also been acknowledged in CAF reports that are available by ATI.  Other than basic airframe parts, the main up-front cost savings available from the C-130J - vs A400M or C-17 or BC-17X - is that the same hangers can be utilized without modification or new construction being required.  :tsktsk:

 

[aesop081]

  (although a mini-AIMP as I've argued for,

If you had any concept of the fiasco that the CP-140 AIMP currently is, you would not be advocating anything similar.

 

[Gobsmacked]

If you had any concept of the fiasco that the CP-140 AIMP currently is, you would not be advocating anything similar.

I never said I agreed with the long-drawn-out AIMP process or the cut-back to just 16 AIMP'd Aurora, from 18 Aurora and 3 Arcturus.  Nor the limited availability of airframes during the AIMP.  Let alone the law suits, etc.  :-\

So, as you are in the business:
ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE OK WITH JUST 16 AURORA?
ARE YOU ADVOCATING WE SIGN ON TO THE OH-SO-WELL-MANAGED MRA4  PROGRAM IN THE UK?
OR DO WE SUDDENLY HAVE $$$Billions TO SIGN ONTO THE US LRPA FOR NEW PRODUCTION BOEING JETS?

OR DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION THAT FITS WITHIN DND's CONSTRAINED BACK-LOADED BUDGET???   

 

[aesop081]

ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE OK WITH JUST 16 AURORA?

No iam not ok with that.   The original 18 were too few to begin with.   The loss of the Arcturus will result in more airframe hours on the Auroras and less availability as we will have to rely on the Auroras for PPF/LPPF.[/quote]

ARE YOU ADVOCATING WE SIGN ON TO THE OH-SO-WELL-MANAGED MRA4   PROGRAM IN THE UK?

I'm well aware of whats going on with the Nimrod MR4.   Lots to do with missmanagent and political interferance.

OR DO WE SUDDENLY HAVE $$$Billions TO SIGN ONTO THE US LRPA FOR NEW PRODUCTION BOEING JETS?

The MMA is a realistic project to bring MPA/ASW into the 21st century. The problem with the Aurora was its uniqueness.   While other users of the P-3C series have benefited from US upgrades, we did not as we were the sole operators of the CP-140.   I'm certain that purchassing the MMA in conjuntion with the US is one of our best options.   As the US feilds and upgrades the MMA, we would benefit in the long-term from using the same aircraft and systems.   Simple fact, IMHO, is that MP aircraft are of vital importance to Canada's security and should not have been payed ip service.   The US will be buying large numbers of the new MMA, economies of scale......

OR DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION THAT FITS WITHIN DND's CONSTRAINED BACK-LOADED BUDGET???    

Better solution ?   One must simply take a look at what the RNZAF was able to acheive with the P-3K2.  
Even if we had simply designed a complete update package for the CP-140, with fully intergrated systems, and send aircraft for complete upgrade.   Instead we decided to phase it in over 20 years, resulting in a fleet which will be smaller than when its started, in a constant stae of flux and in more demand than ever before.

Of course the best solution would have been to upgrade the aircraft over the course of the last 20 years instead of trying to do everything all at once.   Of course now we are faced with the fact that not oly the missin systems are obsolete but the airframe will soon require major work to keep it flying until...what was it......2025 ?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

No iam not ok with that.   The original 18 were too few to begin with.   The loss of the Arcturus will result in more airframe hours on the Auroras and less availability as we will have to rely on the Auroras for PPF/LPPF.

I'm well aware of whats going on with the Nimrod MR4.   Lots to do with missmanagent and political interferance.

The MMA is a realistic project to bring MPA/ASW into the 21st century. The problem with the Aurora was its uniqueness.   While other users of the P-3C series have benefited from US upgrades, we did not as we were the sole operators of the CP-140.   I'm certain that purchassing the MMA in conjuntion with the US is one of our best options.   As the US feilds and upgrades the MMA, we would benefit in the long-term from using the same aircraft and systems.   Simple fact, IMHO, is that MP aircraft are of vital importance to Canada's security and should not have been payed ip service.   The US will be buying large numbers of the new MMA, economies of scale......


Better solution ?   One must simply take a look at what the RNZAF was able to acheive with the P-3K2.  
Even if we had simply designed a complete update package for the CP-140, with fully intergrated systems, and send aircraft for complete upgrade.   Instead we decided to phase it in over 20 years, resulting in a fleet which will be smaller than when its started, in a constant stae of flux and in more demand than ever before.

Of course the best solution would have been to upgrade the aircraft over the course of the last 20 years instead of trying to do everything all at once.   Of course now we are faced with the fact that not oly the missin systems are obsolete but the airframe will soon require major work to keep it flying until...what was it......2025 ?

Just as a side note, I believe the Japanese are reducing their P-3 fleet dramatically and we could pick up airframes there if there is a desire to do so....



Matthew.