<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=30099" target="_blank">Canada seeks refurbished U.S. army helicopters for use in Afghanistan</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/13-military" target="_blank">Military</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-02-10 16:36:08
<strong>Canadian</strong>

   

Great news if we get them, but dosen't leave much time to train crews and maintainers. With the CC177 (C17) project, crews went on a three month USAF C-17 flying course, then did three months seasoning with a USAF squadron before coming back to Canada and setting up 429 squadron. Heavy lift helos will give us more in-theatre capability, but should not be seen as a panacea for IED road fatalities.

   

If you read the article. it said that Canadian crews have been training with the Yanks and Aussies in anticipation of receiving the newer type "F".

I do agree that they will not stop the IED problem though.

   

Re-manufactured would likely be a more accurate term than refurbished. At that price the process would involve much much more than a new paint job.

One thing which troubles me is that verticle supply and deployment allows our people to avoid IEDs but leaves joe-six-pack and his camel still vulnerable. However my experience in that neighbourhood would make me suspect that the locals have full knowledge of the location of IEDs.

During my time, I saw locals remove landmines planted by the Russians, to be placed in the Russians' path. Brings an ironic meaning to the term hoisted on his own petard........

   

Wouldn't the folks who flew the CH47s still be around to fly these CH47s? I know that some 20 years ago and different models but it's not a totally new aircraft like the C17s are.

   

They all work and look alike in the dark.

Oh we talking choppers here?

   

A common misconception. The pilots mentioned are part of an exchange program that has been on-going for years. They are posted to those squadrons for normally a two year tour and may or may not be used as check pilots once a canadian squadron was stood up. There is likely just 1 exchange pilot with a US squadron and 1 with an Aussie squadron, and as they belong to the US/Aussie squadrons for the duration of the tour, would not be part of a training cadre. I imagine the exchange chopper guys that came to Canada were put into Griffon squadons.

   

[quote="ridenrain"]Wouldn't the folks who flew the CH47s still be around to fly these CH47s? I know that some 20 years ago and different models but it's not a totally new aircraft like the C17s are.[/quote

The working ranks for these birds will likely be Captain (pilot) and corporal (Flight engineer/loadmaster). When we got rid of our chinooks in 96, we essentially kissed our corporate knowledge for heavy lifters good-bye as guys got promoted/retired/ moved to different airframes. There may be some available expertise, but not enough critical mass to stand up a squadron without in-depth training for all involved.

   

This is what I've been saying all along.

It's saddening to me that the air force actually turned down 'D's as a temporary solution until the new helos came online...

   

At this speed, we won't get the new helos before we get out of Afghanistan...

   

What is the problem with buying NEW equipment for the CF????

Used submarines, used helicopters, c'mon.

   

This will have to be brief as I'm in the middle of a life-sucking OPME (if you know what that means you know how much fun I'm having).

For me the whole article gets shot down when the reporter mentions that we have pilots on exchange with Aussie Chinooks, we don't...never have. We currently have 1 guy down in the States getting trained as an instructor (to train our guys down there we have to provide instructors to counter the increased student numbers). We will have 1 guy in the UK at one of their Chinook squadrons starting this summer.

We never turned down D's, there were never any to be had. From what I understand we were offered preferential placement on the US F line but turned it down for several reasons: the US F's do not have the fuel range we require, their cockpit is odd to say the least (the US army has a common cockpit program that is utterly despised by all users but apparently saves money in the long run), plus a few other issues. The Dutch F+ model is more to our liking and is the direction that we will hopefully go in.

As for getting used Chinooks, don't hold your breath, there is a huge demand for these aircraft and in reality we don't have the clout to get any anytime soon. We may be able to jump the que a little like the C17 deal, but we won't even be ready to man a Chinook squadron until sometime around late 2009 or early 2010 and that's with minimal "seasoning". In contrast with the C17 deal where guys could get away with only 3 months of training we will be putting the Chinooks into some of the worst places possible, cheaping out on this training will kill guys. Unfortunately we don't have many ex-Chinook guys left, we got rid of them almost 20 years ago, that's a full career for most in the CF.

I've never been a big fan of the CHAPS program, lets take a 20-30 year old A/B/C model, retrofit it and call it a D model then sometime in the future refit it again and call it an F. So in the end your still left with an airframe that is 20-30 years old but with new welds and technology. Lets do the right thing and buy new, I realize this means we won't have aircraft on the ramp until 2011 (maybe 2010 if we can work out a deal with the Dutch) but at least the aircraft we buy will be new.

Cheers,