Chinook Platforms Issue - Thesis Example

Chapter IV Results: The main aspect that needs to be dealt in this section is whether the remanufactured airframes need to be considered over the newand composite frames, considering the four hypotheses in terms of safety, efficiency, proficiency and operational savings. While the performance of remanufactured airframes are indeed suspect during stress situations and demanding scenarios, especially in actual combat zones, it needs to be seen in the context of the major funds that need to be invested (capital feasibility ) requirements. Fund allocation is an important area, especially when the decision to go ahead with new composite frames needs to be considered, in the current economic scenario, wherein gaining largesse of funds to invest in high capital ventures needs to be contextualized and appropriately dealt with. Thus, the present fiscal climate having been fuelled by fiscal indiscipline and loose controls, it is necessary that a budget committee consensus is gained before final approval for large scale investment in capital projects of this kind is undertaken. Moreover, it would also be more fiscally prudent and judicious to assess the economic and financial impacts of projects before they are actually implemented and enforced upon the community. The below mentioned report is based on Comparative statement annexed in Appendix 1 at the end of this report. From the survey conducted on several respondents, the majority of them opted for the purchase of new composite airframes. Currently most of the crews are using Chinook remanufactured airframes and their average flying hours are between flying time of 2-3 hours. Out of the 91 respondents, 79% are presently working with the remanufactured aircrafts. Table1. Respondent’s using models Helicopter models Users (%) Remanufactured Ch-47 (D/F/ICH) 79 CH-47 (D/F/ICH) with brand new composite frames 13 Remanufactured MH-47 (E/G) SOA variant 5 MH-47 (E/G) SOA variant with brand new composite frames 0 Other (Specify) 3 In this survey most of the respondents strongly agreed that the composite airframes will be the mainstay of Chinook platforms. Presently, these genres of helicopter variants are the fastest and most sought after. Their main role is during the deployment of troop movement, artillery and other war related supplies. The US Army’s first major step is in the introduction of a more powerful version of war helicopters, which is CH-47. However, the survey seems to reestablish the fact that composite airframes are more superior on all counts, safety, efficiency, proficiency and operational savings. The actual deliberations of the survey and its outcome are being discussed in next pages. There were so many improved versions of the Chinook helicopters; the most recent one being the CH-47F (ICH) and the MH-47G. Special Operations Aviation (SOA) version is a new arrival in the US Army. The CH-47F (ICH) and the MH-47G Special Operations Aviation (SOA) variants are much more sophisticated devices and are fitted with all functions of CH-47. With larger payload, range, and higher operating speed, it is believed that just one Chinook helicopter could take the place of more than five other earlier generation helicopters. How purchase of new composite airframes increases the safety for both pilot and crew? The first hypothesis is concerning with the safety of the pilot and crew with the purchase of composite airframes. The majority of respondents believe that the purchase of new composite airframes will increase the safety requirements of both the pilot and the crew. Majority of the respondents are of the considered opinion that composite aircrafts seem to be much lighter in weight during flying hours than the remanufactured aircrafts, thus making the composite airframes more convenient and safer for travel. The composite aircraft design uses less amount of fuel than remanufactured aircrafts. The new versions of CH-47 use the swept-wing design that was envisioned to make better use of costly aircraft fuel which needs to be conserved for optimum use in the U.S. Army. The main aspects that are to be considered in this study are with regard to the following Hypothesis 2, 3 and 4. Taking into account the second hypothesis, with regard to whether the purchase of new composite airframes could increase efficiency of aircraft maintenance, 32% of random subjects in target group reported that remanufactured airframes are safer. The remaining 68% of target group reported that composite airframes are safer. According to the survey, majority of the respondents find composite aircrafts easier to maintain and control during the extended mission range flights. Fig. 1: Percentage of respondents thinking easier aircraft control maintenance during extended mission range flights. Does the purchase of composite airframes would increase efficiency of aircraft maintenance? It is clear from the survey that efficiency levels of composite aircrafts are much better than that of remanufactured airframes. Questions four and five are related with the efficiency of aircraft and on which will have less structural and physical fatigue. Sixty-four percent of respondents were sure that the composite airframes produce less physical fatigue and seventy-eight percent believes composite airframes will have less structural fatigue. Of those quizzed, during the course of the survey, majority were certain that the composite airframes will be more fuel efficient than their contemporaries. Fig. 2: Fuel efficiency during extended mission range flights The same percentage of respondents believes the composite airframes create less vibration. The majority of the respondents were confident that the composite airframes could counter aerodynamic drag more efficiently. Moreover, the aircrafts that contained composite airframes have greater extended life as mentioned by the many Chinook helicopter crew survey participants; this will result in increased aircraft maintenance efficiency in the mainframe of the aircraft. How far the composite airframes differ in the proficiency of tactical missions from the remanufactured airframes? The purchase of new composite aircrafts will increase proficiency of successful planning missions. The questions eleven, twelve, thirteen as well as fourteen focuses on the proficiency of the aircrafts. The composite airframes are easier to build and to remove. Fig. 3: Respondents reactions to the proficiency of aircrafts Out of the 91, 43% believed that the remanufactured airframes will be easy to breakdown, while the 57% were of the opinion that the composite airframes are easier to breakdown. Nearly 30% were thinking that the remanufactured airframes are easy to build up and remove and the 70% thinks that the composite airframes as easier to build up and remove. About 67% of respondents were sure about the fact that the latest version CH-47 with composite airframes are faster to reinstall than remanufactured aircrafts. The result of the survey shows that 84% of the surveyed participants noted their opinion that composite airframes have more extended life therefore requires fewer man-hours to tear apart and rebuild the helicopter. In a split decision some respondents agree that the remanufactured airframes can be assembled and conveyed much faster than composite aircrafts and while many others suggested an opposite point of view saying the composite airframes can be assembled and conveyed much faster than the remanufactured frames. Majority of the survey participants agree that the composite airframes would help pilots to quickly plan the movement of the aircraft during actual combat in a war zone. Table3. Percentage of respondents saying composite airframes help the pilot to quickly plan his aircraft in a war zone. (AGREE OR DISAGREE) Respondents Frequency                     Percentage agree 16 80% disagree 4 20% Total 20 100% Does the purchase of new composite airframes increase the operational savings? Remanufactured airframes will be replaced by the composite airframes as these composite airframes would decrease man-hours to produce remanufactured airframes and spending money for the composite airframes will be more effective than spending on the remanufactured airframes; and additionally there will be fewer negative aftermaths. The cost of the composite airframes will be large when compared to buying the remanufactured airframes. The new CH-47F will cost around $32 million and these will be reduced to $8.5 million when remanufacturing the other CH-47 models to the CH-47F model. The composite airframe material will be higher and stronger and will not break as often. Some persons were of the opinion that the composite airframes require constant maintenance and some others believed they need less effort to maintain. In the event of accidents, damages to a certain area would affect other non-damaged areas, as seen in the case of remanufactured airframes. Some respondents however noted that composite airframes would be costly. Majority of the respondents felt that composite airframes require fewer days to complete a phase reset test. This showed, 70% of the respondents felt that the composite airframes require fewer days to complete a phase reset test, and 30% felt that lesser days are required for the remanufactured airframes. Fig. 4: Respondents reactions to phase reset test The repair of composite airframes will take longer duration than the composite airframes and these need specialized training also. Some respondents famed that the composite airframes were built upon better materials and will have longer term of service. Then these composite airframes will have longer time in air and lesser time on maintenance. There will be less downtime for the composite airframes when compared to the remanufactured airframes. Table 4. Percentage of respondents thinking the remanufactured airframes offer less financial overhaul relative to the composite frames. (AGREE OR DISAGREE) Respondents Frequency                     Percentage Agree 11 54% Disagree 9 46% 20 In retrospect, on a larger canvas, it is viewed that composite airframes would, in the long run have more functional advantages and savings in costs when compared to remanufactured airframes. During the implementation of military projects, it is not only necessary to consider the long term cost savings in investment decisions, but also it is quite necessary to be able to realize operational effectiveness and mobility besides speed and efficacy of operations. Besides this, it is also necessary to consider the fact that aging aircrafts would not be able to stand up to tough and demanding warfare situations and this would, in turn, result in greater operational hazards, including being vanquished while engaged in combat with enemy. There are many aspects that need to be considered while deciding whether to go in for new aircrafts or, engage in residual life assessment (RLA) and implementation of plans for repairing aging aircrafts. According to this writer, it is best to have freshly bloodied aircraft in order to preserve combative power and air supremacy. For major operations, it is the quality of the jet pilot and his dexterity and aerial skills that would come into play. Thus, it would be best if new planes are purchased on need to need basis, and depending upon actual investment capabilities. Chapter V Discussions: The results of the survey prove the fact that investment outlays could be the main impediment in the choice of new composite airframes as compared to remanufactured airframes. Another aspect is that of air pressure which builds up quicker in new composite airframes as compared to remanufactured ones. Perhaps one of the main reasons for the need for switchover has been that “The current CH-47D cargo helicopter fleet is unable to support the requirements of a primarily CONUS based, contingency force.” (CH- 47F improved cargo helicopter, 2007, para.2). “Reliability at all stages of the airport journey was of primary importance to respondents.” (Sykes & Desai, 2009, p.1). Coming to each item of the results one by one it could be said that firstly, majority of respondents believed that Fit, Operate and maintain Remanufactured airframes while only minority wished to go in for new composite airframes. This could be primarily due to the overwhelming cost factor that has just been discussed. Nevertheless, on most technical counts, the composite airframes have been preferred to remanufacture ones due to increased safety elements, efficiencies, proficiencies, and operational savings. H1: Survey results from 20 subjects (randomly control group, target group were pilot/aircrew/corrosion/phase maintenance/airframe technician) who were assigned in Hawaii National Guard 171 B Company CAB and 777th B Company ASB Aviation Brigade. Table1. Percentage of respondents thinking that purchasing of new composite airframes would Increase safety aspects of both pilot and crew (AGREE OR DISAGREE) Respondents Frequency Percentage Agree 6 32% Disagree 14 68% Total 20 Calculation of percentage of survey results: H1: Increase safety for pilot and crews for remanufactured airframes Q4 (40) +Q9 (20) +Q15 (30) +Q25 (40) +Q27 (30) = 100% Q [(4.9.15.25.27)] = 100% (160) = 100 % 32% of random subjects in target group reported that remanufactured airframes are safer. Composite airframes: Q4 (60) +Q9 (80) +Q15 (70) +Q25 (60) +Q27 (70) = 100% Q [(4.9.15.25.27)] = 100% (340) = 100 % The remaining 68% of target group reported that composite airframes are safer. Table2. Percentage of respondents thinking purchase of new composite airframes could Increase efficiency of aircraft maintenance (AGREE OR DISAGREE) Respondents Frequency Percentage Agree 4 20% Disagree 16 80% Total 20 Fig. X: Frequency histogram for 20 respondents H2: Composite airframes increase the efficiency of aircraft maintenance. Survey results from 20 subjects (randomly control group, target group were pilot/aircrew/corrosion/phase maintenance/airframe technician) who were assigned in Hawaii National Guard 171 B Company CAB and 777th B Company ASB Aviation Brigade. Q5 +Q11 +Q12 +Q13 +Q14 + Q16 + Q18 + Q19 + Q24 + Q28 = 100% Increase in efficiency Q [(5.11.12.13.14.16.18.19.24.28)] = 100% 20% of random subjects in target group reported that purchase of remanufactured airframes could increase efficiency of aircraft maintenance while the balance 80% felt that composite airframes could increase efficiency of aircraft maintenance. Table3. Percentage of respondents thinking purchase of new composite airframes could Increase proficiency of tactical mission (AGREE OR DISAGREE) Respondents Frequency Percentage Agree 6 30% Disagree 14 70% Total 20 H3: Composite airframes increase proficiency of tactical mission. Survey results from 20 subjects (randomly control group, target group were pilot/aircrew/corrosion/phase maintenance/airframe technician) who were assigned in Hawaii National Guard 171 B Company CAB and 777th B Company ASB Aviation Brigade. Remanufactured airframes: Q6 +Q7 +Q17 +Q22 +Q27 = 100% proficiency of tactical mission. Q [(6.7.17.22.27)] = 100% Composite airframes: Q6 +Q7 +Q17 +Q22 +Q27 = 100% Q[(6.7.17.22.27)] = 100% 30% of random subjects in target group reported that purchase of remanufactured airframes could increase operational savings while balance 70% felt that composite airframes could increase operational savings. . Table 4. Percentage of respondents thinking purchase of new composite airframes could Increase proficiency of tactical mission (AGREE OR DISAGREE) Respondents Frequency Percentage Agree 8 40% Disagree 12 60% Total 20 Fig. Y: Frequency histogram for 20 respondents H4: Composite airframes increase operational savings. Survey results from 20 subjects (randomly control group, target group were pilot/aircrew/corrosion/phase maintenance/airframe technician) who were assigned in Hawaii National Guard 171 B Company CAB and 777th B Company ASB Aviation Brigade. Remanufactured airframes: Q5 + Q6 +Q8 +Q10 +Q20 + Q21 + +Q24 + Q26 + Q29 = 100% increase in operational missions. [(5.6.8.10.20.21.24.26.29)] = 100% Composite airframes: Q6 +Q7 +Q17 +Q22 +Q27 = 100% increase in operational missions Q [(5.6.8.10.20.21.24.26.29)] = 100% 40% of random subjects in target group reported that remanufactured airframes could increase operational savings while balance 60% felt that composite airframes could increase operational savings. . FINAL RESULTS Hypothesis Aspects Remanufactured New composite Conclusions H1 Safety 32% 68% new composite Is safer H2 Efficiency 20% 80% new composite is efficient H3 Proficiency 30% 70% new composite is o is is comparitivelymore proficient H4 Operational savings 40% 60% new composite is operationally economical While on the one hand, the air force should not be starved of composite aircrafts, for state-of-the art combat and reconnaissance, at the same time they should not render the earlier ones redundant. The need to seek a just and equitable military order is paramount importance, whether during peace, or wartime, and it is for the administration to render due justice as deemed necessary and incumbent. Again the hours of flight are at its peak at 2-3 hours duration which has been endorsed by majority of the respondents. In aircraft, duration of flights is an important consideration, especially during war times there may be need for long haul flights for combat purposes. “The impact of fatigue is not restricted to the military, nor is it unique to recent military campaigns.” (Hancock & Szalma, 2008, p.232). Thus, the response time of 3-4 hours may be relevant for peace time but not during war and in war zone scenarios. Drawbacks and limitations of this study: Another drawback of this survey has been the fact that 41% of the respondents have been drawn from the helicopter maintenance and servicing sections, and only 16% of the respondents were actual fliers of aircrafts; thus the bias would have been naturally drawn towards servicing and maintenance. This survey, therefore, seems to have taken a narrower view of the comparison between remanufactured airframes and new composite airframes in as much of the choice of respondents are concerned, since a research study of this kind needs to be underpinned by the actual users, viz. people, or decision makers who could make the difference between a good choice and a bad one. Next, coming to the response regarding the degree of physical and structural fatigue, the composite airframes score over their remanufactured rivals and counterparts, according to the respondents for this survey. Payload for composite airframes is higher than that of remanufactured, due to higher innate capacity and also wider body design and capacity at disposal. In the question of maintaining air control over extended mission flights, here again the composite brand new frames weigh over its remanufactured counterparts. Greater fuel efficiency is also permissible for composite variety according to 87% of the interviewees. This advantage is retained for lower aircraft vibration since 85% endorsed it also. Coming to weight during flights, 90% of the interviewees agreed that composite airframes have less weight during flight than their remanufactured counterparts. This is also true in the case of breakdown, rebuild, removal and reassembly where a majority of respondents endorsed preference for the composite rather than the remanufactured units. However, according to majority of respondents, composite airframes offer greater cabin pressures as against remanufactured (61 as to 38) and also has higher degree of humidity. However, there are strong advantages for brand new composite units in terms of greater aerodynamic drags and fewer appearances of surface air cracks as compared to remanufactured ones. Perhaps, according to respondents, one of the major advantages of brand new composite units is that these have greater extended life and are easier to tear and rebuild than remanufactured ones. However, this point does not seem to carry much credibility since it is the opposite that is true. New composite units would definitely take more time and efforts to break down than older and severely repaired second hand aircraft frames. However, new composite units take lesser time for phase reset test as compared to remanufactured ones. However, the respondents were divided on the question of assembly and conveyance of remanufactured frames; while 55% of the interviewees strongly agreed that new composite units were faster to assembly and convey, 45% of the interviewees disagreed. However the one strong point is that nearly 98% of the respondents agreed, everything said and done, that composite air frames are a better bet than remanufactured ones. The main question that arouses with regard to the debate between composite and remanufactured ones is that of financial availability and budgetary constraints for it. Coming to financial outlays, while 64% disagreed that it was more expensive, 54% of the interviewees agreed that this would cause financial constraints. But in a critical aspect, element in war crafts – maneuverability- new composite airframes could be better than remanufactured ones, according to 80% of the interviewees. Chapter VI Conclusions: The results and discussions on this critical issue in the case of Chinook platforms, whether fresh, brand new composite airframes would be better than well performing yet remanufactured frames, ion deed makes interesting reading for both aircraft specialists and laymen. While both have their respective advantages, when taking the results of an overall research plan process, it cannot be denied that taking technical aspects and commercial considerations, including overall long term view, the costs involved for brand new air frames would indeed be overwhelming and unsustainable, especially in the current economic scenario. Remanufacturing would be the best option, both cost and efficiency wise, and especially considering the fact that in-house spare capacity and infra-structure is readily available. It is now being seen in terms of four hypotheses that are laid down: Hypothesis 1: Could the purchase of new composite airframes increase safety of pilot and crew: YES Hypothesis 2: Could purchase of new composite airframes increase efficient aircraft maintenance- YES Hypothesis 3: Could purchase of new composite airframes render proficiency of tactical mission: YES Hypothesis 4: Could purchase of new composite airframes increase operational savings: DEPENDS Final conclusions: That being said, it is now necessary to consider the final analysis. Since all the hypothesis 1 to 4 have not tested positive for new composite airframes, it is better that any investment decision be postponed for the present. It is also possible for in-house, aircraft servicing units to produce the same quality and performance Chinook 47F (ICH) to produce the aircrafts internally and in their own work stations and thus save a lot of outside investment costs in terms of materials, labor, overheads and interests. “Structural improvements include air transportability modifications, which reduce time necessary to prepare the aircraft for cargo transport and advanced corrosion protection. In addition, the implementation of lean manufacturing processes on the factory floor and use of employee involvement teams have reduced manufacturing costs and improved production efficiency.” (CH- 47F improved cargo helicopter, 2007). Again, “because of its size, the CH-47 has been reassigned to logistics missions behind the line, but the Superior hot and high performance provided by its tandem rotors has made the helicopter essential to combat operations in Afghanistan.” (Warwick, 2008, para.1). Thus, for the present, the much safer bet that has been endorsed by this study, at this critical economic juncture would be in terms of investing in replacing its aging yet agile and combat-worthy Chinook CH – 47F (ICH) with remanufactured airframes and not indulge in buying-sprees of brand new composite aircrafts. Moreover, the cost of aircrafts is also a major aspect. “Those that were registered owners of aircraft were also asked to indicate their aircraft’s value. One aircraft was said to be worth £1.5 million and another £50 million! Six others were grouped in the range £400k to £1000k.” (General aviation small aerodrome research study, 2004, p.8). APPENDIX 1 Subject Fuel Consumption (O&S) cost savings Re-manufactured airframes Cost to purchased aircraft (new or improved) (H1) CH-47D Average H1 flight durations 2 hrs and 30 minutes. H1 consumes 940 gallons of jet fuels per mission. 940 gals X $3.00 gal $ 2,820 Total fuel expense (358 gals/hr) Historically, it takes 31.2 days to complete phase reset maintenance. Requires a total of 14 maintenance crews. Decrease operation and support (O&S) cost savings. Re-built airframes from CH-47A/B/C/D cracks after a few 100 hours. The airframe is heavier compared with CH-47F (ICH) model. $16 Million per new-build helicopter (H2) CH-47F (ICH) 2 hrs and 30 minutes flight durations. H2 consumes 627 gals of jet fuel per mission. 627 gals X $3.00 /gal $ 1,881 Total fuel expense. Expected fuel savings of 33.3% (1/3). Reduced (O&S) savings by approximately 60% the time required to complete phase reset maintenance of 16.33 days. Requires 14-10 maintenance crews. Increased (O&S) savings by 20%. Implementation of monolithic airframes to CH-47 (ICH) variant extends service life of aircraft to 10,000 flight hours before noticing cracks. Integration of composite materials in airframes structures lightens up the weight of helicopter; therefore, it cost less to fly it or extended the mission radius capability of the aircraft. $32.3 Million per new-build Ch-47 F ICH model $8.2 Million per remanufactured helicopter (converting CH-47D to Ch-47F ICH variant) (H3) MH-47E SOA Variant Flight mission last up to 4hrs without refueling. H3 consumes 358 gals/hours plus 45 gals of for take-off. Total of 1,477 gals per/mission. 1,477 gals X $3.00 /gal $ 4, 431 Total fuel expenditure. Historically, it takes 31.2 days to complete phase reset maintenance. Requires a total of 14 maintenance crews to complete the task at hand. Decrease operations and support (O&S) cost savings by 20 %. Re-built airframes from CH-47A/B/C/D Cracks after a few 100 flight hours. The airframe is heavier compared with Mh-47G SOA variant that are made from composite materials. $32.4 Million per new-built aircraft. $11.4 Million per recapitalized helicopter (converting MH-47D to MH-47E). (H4) MH-47E SOA Variant Flight mission last up to 4 hours without refueling. H4 consumes 239.6 gals/hour plus 45 gals for take-off. Total of 984.6 gals per mission. 984.6 gals X $ 3.00 per gal $ 2,953.80 Total fuel expenditure Expected fuel savings of 33.3% (1/3). Reduced (O&S) savings by approximately 60% the time required to complete phase reset maintenance of 16.33 days. Requires 14-10 maintenance crews. Increased (O&S) savings by 20%. Implementation of monolithic airframes to MH-47G SOA variant extends service life of aircraft to 10,000 flight hours before noticing cracks. Integration of composite materials in airframes structures lightens up the weight of helicopter; therefore, it cost less to fly it or extended the mission radius capability of the aircraft. $42 Million per brand new unit. $18.6 million per helicopter (modified airframes from CH-47D). Table 3: Cost Analysis for CH-47F (ICH) and MH-47G variant versus CH-47G and MH-47E. Descriptive evaluations of the advantages and disadvantages of experienced configuration and procurement plans for special forces Chinook is provided above which includes, potential operations and support (O&S) cost savings, fuel consumption, benefits of remanufactured airframes versus monolithic frames, and cost to purchase new or improved helicopter. Reference List CH- 47F improved cargo helicopter. (2007). Global Security.org. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-47f-ich.htm General aviation small aerodrome research study. (2004). The National Pilot Survey, p.8. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from http://www.gaac.org.uk/gasar/GASAR_NationalPilotSurvey.pdf Hancock, P.A. & Szalma, J. L. (2008). Performance under stress. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, p.232. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from http://books.google.co.in/books?id=w19X0p5g6TYC&dq=The+impact+of+fatigue+is+not+restricted+to+the+military,+nor+is+it+unique+to+recent+military+campaigns&source=gbs_navlinks_s Sykes, W. & Desai, P. (2009). Understanding airport passenger experience. Independent Social Research, p.1. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UX-KGeLNz98J:www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/airports/reviewregulatioukairports/understandingexperience.pdf+41%25+of+the+respondents+have+been+drawn+from+the+helicopter+maintenance+and+servicing+sections+and+only+16%25+of+the+respondents+were+actual+fliers+of+aircrafts%3B&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjT8fiGGehIUOJXqAFpOM-MTvr_MMZcEqu3UNoZzO7uP8hvYgx5kyIUtybRkZlYv8CphxLoQVYZvPYRnfUPJoFig0gYgn-PDJpT6YAFQXmlSLjBQE-ZnUA5AI_oOxz1px8VxAL_&sig=AHIEtbS1dkTUEdfZ-81sgmZpJLBB3N81AA Warwick, G. (2008). New Chinook modals extend heavy lift helicopter’s life. Flight global. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/01/222555/new-chinook-models-extend-heavylift-helicopters-life.html Read More