Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Featured article candidates/Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service/archive1

The Boeing CH-47 Chinook has had a lengthy and complex history with the Australian Defence Force. Twelve CH-47Cs were ordered for the RAAF in 1969, but due to budgetary constraints no more than six were ever operational at any point in time. The helicopters were withdrawn from service in 1989, only for four of them to later be reactivated, upgraded to CH-47Ds and transferred to the Army when it was realised that their capabilities were needed. The Army later purchased four more CH-47Ds, and the fleet was recently replaced with 10 brand-new CH-47Fs. The type was used in the Iraq War, though possibly only for carrying cargo in a friendly country, and saw extensive combat in Afghanistan where two were destroyed as a result of flying accidents.

I developed this article to GA status last year, and have since improved and expanded it by drawing on the somewhat patchy sources on the helicopter's history. I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian edit

I reviewed/passed for GA and have inspected the changes made since then, tweaking/trimming mainly for prose. This is a solid piece of work on the somewhat convoluted history of this type's Australian service.

Referencing -- all reliable sources; I'll try to do a formatting check before this closes but it won't be a stopper in any case.

Images -- great work getting all the pictures; licensing looks appropriate for all, the only things being that the source for File:RAAF Chinook.jpg times out for me, and the sources for File:Australian Army Boeing CH-47D Chinook CBR Gilbert.jpg and File:Australian Army CH-47F Chinook being loaded on a USAF C-5 Galaxy at Dover Air Force Base.jpg look dead.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I've updated the links for those photos - finding a replacement for the last one, and archived links for the other two. Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

Oooh. No offence to your fighter jets, you've done some great work there, but I do like a good old-fashioned workhorse. Just a few quibbles:

have mainly been used to support Army units in Australian service reads a little odd, and we've established that we're talking about Chinooks in an Australian context from the title and the first paragraph. I'd suggest simply removing "in Australian service".
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this was in line with the Army's preference Did the army have much input in this decision-making process, or is it just that they agreed with the air force's choice after the fact?
- The source doesn't specify. Given how siloed the services were at this time, with their procurement decisions often being made independently of one another, it's unlikely that the Army had much formal input. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know much about Raw's rationale for recommending the CH-53 or his feelings about the rejection of the report?
- Unfortunately not. I also looked into this for the bio on Peter Raw, but not much was available. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
could transport up to 33 passengers or 11,129 kilograms (24,535 lb) of cargo Do we know if that's the hold capacity or including the underslung load?
- The source doesn't specify unfortunately - this is the maximum loaded weight minus the unloaded weight. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
longest distance a helicopter had flown up to that time An estimate of the distance would be nice for context.
- 14,000 km - I've added this. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A15-011 crashed when one of its engine turbines disintegrated Do we know the ultimate cause of this? Presumably there were boards of inquiry or similar into the two crashes. Their findings would be an interesting addition if they can be found but I appreciate that might not be easy and the effort might not be worth the return.
- Sources for A15-011 don't appear to be available - there aren't any records in the National Archives or National Library of Australia. As the crash didn't lead to any fatalities, there may not have been a full-scale inquiry. I see that there's a summary of the loss of A15-001 [1], which I'll consult next weekend. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added a little bit more on the loss of A15-001. There isn't a great deal extra to say though: the helicopter crashed after striking a power line which was not marked on the maps used to plan the sortie and was very difficult to see from the air. The COI recommended that the squadron improve its map-keeping to prevent this from re-occurring. Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
by this time the RAAF no longer had significant expertise in operating the type But surely the army didn't have *any* experience?
- Indeed - and the Army was in the process of mismanaging the Blackhawk fleet to such an extent at the time that it became mostly inoperable by the mid-1990s. However, this was done to concentrate all the helicopters with the same service. I've clarified this. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  The article manages to touch upon many sore points in Army-RAAF relations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In November 2005 the Australian Government authorised a program of urgent upgrades What was the urgency? Were they needed for a particular operation or was there an incident that highlighted vulnerabilities?
- It was to prepare them for Afghanistan - I've clarified this. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that. You can't include information that's not available and what's left is only very, very minor details. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

Agree that this article is of a high standard, and worthy of Featured Article status. The article touches on an issue of great embarrassment to both the Army and the RAAF: the transfer of the Chinooks to to the Army. You might consider this source. [2] That the 155mm howitzers could not be moved by the air was did not pass unnoticed.[3] On looking into this I noted that "the Chinook costs about $7,080 per hour to operate, and the serviceability rates, despite the best efforts of the RAAF, have been very low. Australia's new battlefield helicopter, the Black Hawk, which will provide improved troop mobility, costs only $2,390". [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review and that book - it says bluntly what various other sources hint at. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.