Chinook HC.3's to be converted back to HC.2's.....

[Shasper]

Ah gotcha.

SHas

[rallymodeller]

More in Canada than just the patrol choppers scandal (which I won't even get into other than the Sikorsky H-92 is a bigger helo based on the engines and dynamic components of the already underpowered H-60). We too have an ongoing rumpus based around Medium Lift helos:

Way back in the '90's some bright spark decided that we didn't need our CH-147 Chinooks anymore. These helos were all to CH-47C/D standard -- indeed some of what made it onto the CH-47D/HC.2 like the auto-hover system and ISIS rotor-blade inspection was based on Canadian requirements. So we sold them off to the Netherlands, and then...

We're off to Afghanistan, where the gov't noticed a need for -- wait for it -- medium lift helos! So we are forced to rely on the kindness of our allies, in this case Poland's lending of two Mi-17s and continual use of Dutch Chinooks (some of which may have been ours in the first place. Oh the irony!)

Our Armed Forces has put one of their infamous no-bid contracts out for more Chinooks, but the F models aren't supposed to arrive until 2011 at the earliest, so we are forced to buy used ones that the US Army chooses for us. And we won't get those until 2009.

Meanwhile the Czech government is all but standing on the PM's doorstep shouting that they want to do us a deal on Mi-17s and are being pretty much ignored.

Sigh. It's the EH-101 all over again.

[SimonR]

Mossie has hit the nail on the head, its the faceless civil servents who have no idea of the real world out side of white hall who make the call when it comes to what the MOD buget is spent on.

That's not my recollection of the HC.3 fiasco. The word in RAF RW community at the time was that the MoD wanted to do another HC.2 procurement but it was HQAC that were insisting on the enhanced nav and range capabilities of the MH-47E and pushed for the "low cost" hybrid digital/analogue solution. This was pure territorial politics from the RAF as they didn't want to lose the RW SF mission to the AAC. The fault was 80% RAF incompetence and arrogance, 20% MoD weakness and ineffectiveness in my opinion.

[Craig]

I'm confused-what's Head Quarters Air Cadets got to do with Chinook procurement?

[kitnut617]

Meanwhile the Czech government is all but standing on the PM's doorstep shouting that they want to do us a deal on Mi-17s and are being pretty much ignored.

I think this has something to do with no eastern europe aircraft being able to get certified by the FAA or Canadian equivalent, although there is a Kamov Ka-32 operating in BC

[Martin H]

I'm confused-what's Head Quarters Air Cadets got to do with Chinook procurement?

LOL i think Simon is refering to what used to be HQ Strike command, but is now refered to as HQ Air Command....... Mind u i used to know a few bods at HQ air Cadets who thought they were gods gift to the RAF.

[Craig]

Why use the past tense? There's still plenty there now who seem to think the same. Had to endure meeting TG5 on a course last year, that was frightening!

[MCS]

a Sikorsky something or other which no other self respecting military arm will have anything to do with, yet those who think they know best have decided that's what the navy is going to get.  At best it's another 'off-the-shelf' civilian helicopter which is being made to do military work, same as the Bell CH-146 Griffon and the CH-149 Cormorant (they lucked out with this one though)

Robert

Eh, not quite. The -92 from the outset was designed for both civilian and military applications. Perception is skewed, due to the fact that the majority sold have been to civilian operators and those that have been bought by military forces are using them in the VIP role.

(which I won't even get into other than the Sikorsky H-92 is a bigger helo based on the engines and dynamic components of the already underpowered H-60

That's a bit off the mark. While the original concept was to use -60 dynamics, it quickly evolved into a new design. The rotor head and blades share nothing with the 'hawk and the gearboxes, while they look similar, are a new design. IIRC, the engines have the most shp out of the entire CT7/T-700 family.

An argument could be made for the -60A being underpowered, especially depending on the environment and operating weight, but, I haven't heard much rumblings from the -60L community about a lack of power.

[Gary]

Regarding Canadian choppers. What upsets me isn't the fact that that arcehole PM Jean Cretain cancelled the Seaking replacement deal with fines greater than the cost of actually purchasing the damned things, nor is it the total waste of money in investing in upgrades of our 'Nooks to then sell them off for less than what the upgrades cost. It's the systemic political callous disregard for the lives of the crewmen and women who have died because these antique aircraft weren't up to the task.

I find it enraging that our current political masters have a policy of not riding in the older aircraft types or military are forced to use daily. Equally ironic, how is a new MI-17 worse than a 50 year plus old Seaking?

[kitnut617]

Eh, not quite. The -92 from the outset was designed for both civilian and military applications. Perception is skewed, due to the fact that the majority sold have been to civilian operators and those that have been bought by military forces are using them in the VIP role.

Well from what I've read in magazines like Combat Aircraft (who usually can be relied on), the -92 that's on offer to the military hasn't flown yet with years of development down the road to go before one does.  As you say all the ones flying are civil operated ones and the few that are in military service are just that, again as you say in the VIP role, basically doing what they do in civil service which is convienently overlooked.  BTW, none of the US armed services want it as a military platform for 'military' purposes and Canada is the first country to sign for a 'military platform' version of the -92. 

It all smacks of 'tit-for tat' from the recent outgoing government over the controversay of the handling of the EH-101 Petrel order the previous out going government had put in place not long before they were ousted.

[rallymodeller]

Equally ironic, how is a new MI-17 worse than a 50 year plus old Seaking?

Well said!

[MCS]

Eh, not quite. The -92 from the outset was designed for both civilian and military applications. Perception is skewed, due to the fact that the majority sold have been to civilian operators and those that have been bought by military forces are using them in the VIP role.

Well from what I've read in magazines like Combat Aircraft (who usually can be relied on), the -92 that's on offer to the military hasn't flown yet with years of development down the road to go before one does.  As you say all the ones flying are civil operated ones and the few that are in military service are just that, again as you say in the VIP role, basically doing what they do in civil service which is convienently overlooked.  BTW, none of the US armed services want it as a military platform for 'military' purposes and Canada is the first country to sign for a 'military platform' version of the -92. 

It all smacks of 'tit-for tat' from the recent outgoing government over the controversay of the handling of the EH-101 Petrel order the previous out going government had put in place not long before they were ousted.

Again, the perception is skewed due to the fact that they are civilian operators.

CHC is performing SAR duties with it via a contract with the U.K.'s Maritime and Coastguard agency.  The Saudi MOI recently signed a contract for 16 aircraft to perform amongst other roles, SAR. Multiple operators perform offshore oil rig transport. Now, I'm not saying that the missions are the same as those performed by a military operator, but, there are similarities that cannot be overlooked.

It's an ever maturing platform...the first delivery was in the third quarter of 2004 and the fleet already has well over 54,000 flight hours. The aircraft is "military-ready" depending upon the mission it's being proposed for.

In this day and age, suitability as a military platform has less and less to do with the aircraft itself and more to do with the mission requirements called for in the proposal and the successful integration of mission systems into the overall weapons system. More often than not, many procurement programs have their own specific requirements where development work is required irrespective of the platform being proposed.

As far as the U.S. military not wanting it, that's too broad of a stroke. There has to be a requirement for it and a procurement program in place for it to compete against. To date, there has been only two: VXX and CSAR-X.

The Navy acquisition chief, John Young, said at the time that, the VXX decision was based on "the Lockheed Martin streamlining proposal because it was judged more likely to meet these government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk, and at lower cost." Young continued, saying that both aircraft met the performance specifications but "Lockheed started at a point that was closer to the requirements, [therefore...] they had less work to do, so that obviously let them bid potentially lower."

Of course, all of the talk about less risk is moot since NAVAIR is constantly changing the requirements.

As far as CSAR-X is concerned, well, technically at this point, it hasn't lost, but, it hasn't won either. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. The one thing I do know from talking to personnel on the program, is that a number of USAF personnel favored the S-92. Of course, if you ask someone at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin/Augusta-Westland they'll say the same thing...lol.

I can agree that politics and saving face probably played a huge role in the MHP decision. But, how could it not? Spend all that money a decision to procure the -101, spend more money to cancel it, and then chose it the second time around?? In all likelihood, the -101 wasn't going to be bought regardless of who was competing for the contract.

[kitnut617]

Some good points there MCS, but the Canadian SAR helicopter is the Cormorant, the -92 is the new Navy helicopter for operations of their frigates, something the -92 hasn't even been put through, even on a demonstration.

[MCS]

Some good points there MCS, but the Canadian SAR helicopter is the Cormorant, the -92 is the new Navy helicopter for operations of their frigates, something the -92 hasn't even been put through, even on a demonstration.

I can't dispute that, for I have no idea of what testing and/or demonstrations have been done to ensure satisfactory use on a frigate.

Based on past experience with H-3's, H-60's, and H-53's, I don't think that is as much of a concern as making sure it can fully perform the mission at hand.  Obviously, that will decide the overall success of this program and whether the taxpayer has gotten boned yet again.

There's no doubt that there will be teething problems once delivery has started. If SAC and GD Canada have done their homework, problems will be kept to a minimum. Time will tell...