Privatised Battlefield Support Helos [Archive]

Where R We?

9th Aug 2006, 12:35

Isn't this like a PFI?

Estimated start date of the contract: 1/01/2011
- Estimated duration of the contract: 10 Years
- Date of dispatch of invitations to tender to selected candidates: 1/02/2007
- Time-limit for receipt of requests to participate (Date & Time): 30/09/2006 at 17:00

3.5 yrs to get it sorted...

Low Ball

9th Aug 2006, 12:47

Frankly if this is the only way we can get modern helicopters onto the front line to cover the now nationally agreed shortfall in as short a time as that predicted then lets do it.

The services have been operating COMR fleets for some time so this is nothing out of the ordinary.

So whats it going to be?

NH 90
S-92
EH 101
AB 139

Anyone any other ideas?

LB

microlight AV8R

9th Aug 2006, 12:54

If it gets decent kit for our people at a realistic cost, just do it!

Question: If a helicopter is lost thru accident or enemy action, what happens then? Does MOD have to purchase the lost aircraft? Really can't imagine the owner being able to insure against military operations risks.
I ask this because all of the COMR arrangements thus far are mainly for training use in the UK or training/support tasks abroad where hostilities are unlikely.

Then again, what's the deal on leased C17 ?

mlc

9th Aug 2006, 15:10

The MOD are apparently looking to retire all our 119 Gazelles and replace them with 20 rented replacements.

I'd love to know how good they were at sums during their school days!!!!!!

vecvechookattack

9th Aug 2006, 17:32

119 Gazelles..??? where the heck are they..?

microlight AV8R

9th Aug 2006, 17:41

119 Gazelles..??? where the heck are they..?

I suspect we wouldn't have enough crews for them if they were all airworthy anyway !

119/20 is still a strange ratio though.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

9th Aug 2006, 19:56

"Civil Owned Military Registered"? Is that legal? Presumably the Contractor will deploy with them to carry out repairs and maintenance. Don’t forward operating bases tend to be a bit dangerous?

I always thought it so apt when the DLO formed IPTs into Clusters, except that I’m sure there’s a word missing.

EESDL

9th Aug 2006, 20:46

now you know what Dauphineer was on about in the other thread..........................

ZH875

9th Aug 2006, 21:37

Green Flash

9th Aug 2006, 21:43

And when the sh!t starts flying, the contractors/hired hands/LEC's/slaves will hang around, bravely spannering whilst dodging the cr@p, all properly protected?:rolleyes:

Really?:rolleyes:

South Bound

10th Aug 2006, 06:51

Don't get confused between the aircraft lease and Service-provision. There is no suggestion that these would be supported forward by contractors - think of it like the C17 lease, we will pay wildly over the odds to lease aircraft we can't afford to buy until a replacement arrives in 2020, but in the meantime it will be operated and maintained by Service manpower! It looks like the aircraft are there to replace the Puma that will leave Service in 2012 (IIRC) and fill the gap until someone gets round to sorting a replacement.

How difficult can it be to pick up the phone to Boeing and say ' can I please have another 25 Chinook, pretty please with sugar on top'???

Weezer

10th Aug 2006, 11:42

[QUOTE

How difficult can it be to pick up the phone to Boeing and say ' can I please have another 25 Chinook, pretty please with sugar on top'???[/QUOTE]

It's not at all difficult to ask the question. The eye-wateringly difficult bit is coping with the shock of the bill for it all.

microlight AV8R

10th Aug 2006, 11:54

Weezer

Dead right, not very good value for money when considering the last lot we bought still don't work!!

South Bound

10th Aug 2006, 12:22

lol, buy G-models off the shelf - WAY cheaper than Merlin.

There was nothing wrong with the Mk3's until the UK tried to overcomplicate things - DPA messed that one up, not Boeing.

Rocket2

11th Aug 2006, 09:49

GBZ ""Civil Owned Military Registered"? Is that legal?"
Apparently it is legal, Bell 212's operated in Belize on behalf of the Army - follow the link to show the contract extension on them. http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=22cb8647-1d4e-4440-b651-88e7d4e2f07e

Mr-AEO

11th Aug 2006, 10:13

Just remember peeps that COMR lease solutions don't come cheap, plus there's problems with how we financially treat them etc.

So whilst a leased solution might provide you with an updated capability in quick flash to bang times, don't assume we could afford as many as we would need.

Re: 112 gazelle to 20 (other).

The gazelle's aren't deployable so are a waste of space and money. Better use the money on less, but more capable aircraft that we can deploy - post conflict of course!

nb: of course, they will have to be flown by the Army - lest we get a shed load of v.v.bored aircrew!:zzz:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

11th Aug 2006, 12:27

Rocket 2

I take your point but, even in that case, it's training support. This is proposing direct support to offensive operations. I should have clarified that point.

microlight AV8R

11th Aug 2006, 13:39

Rocket / GBZ

Add to 'COMR' list:

Bell 212 AAC, Brunei (Jungle warfare training)
Bell 412 RAF, Akrotiri (SAR/Support)
King Air RAF, Cranwell (multi-engine training)

Southbound

Fair comment re the Mk3. I really can't understand why we have to redesign everything we buy. Methinks this is a big factor in time and cost overruns we see so much of the time.

Would still like to know how the taxpayer will be stitched up in the event of operational losses. As the supplier has to make a profit it would seem that COMR will inevitably be more expensive than purchase off the shelf.
COMR makes sense for the two AAC examples and for stop-gaps (KingAir?) but large scale fleet renewal can't make economic sense, shirley?

BossEyed

11th Aug 2006, 13:58

And Griffins & Squirrels at Shawbury, Wallop & Valley.

South Bound

11th Aug 2006, 13:59

Doesn't make any kind of sense financially. Any kind of lease will always be more expensive, unfortunately due to massive cost overuns in most of the fully committed cat A projects, there is no capital to buy. Hence also the FSTA farce with leasing tankers. Whatever noises people make about the shortage of support helicopters, the only way we will be able to buy some is if Gordon opens his wallet and pays for them from a different budget.

I imagine that if we lose a leased cab, we will compensate the owner based on an agreed value of the aircraft at the time the contract was due to expire (ie what he could have sold it on for when we gave it back).

Autorev

11th Aug 2006, 14:27

Southbound
buy G-models off the shelf - WAY cheaper than Merlin.

Pray share your genius. :D :D :D
What price would Boeing charge MoD for a G model?
And when would the ac be delivered?
Would we go to the front of their order book?
What price a Merlin Mk3?
What would be the impact of the capability deltas?
There was nothing wrong with the Mk3's until the UK tried to overcomplicate things - DPA messed that one up, not Boeing
Again, what did the DPA do to mess things up?
What did they do to 'overcomplicate things'?
Do you suggest that having the safety of the ac independently assessed was an 'overcomplication'?:ugh:
Submit your plan to the MoD. I'm sure that they'll bite yer arm off!:ok:

South Bound

11th Aug 2006, 14:36

lol - do some Googling and then come back before you criticise. Just how big is the order book for Merlin? Boeing are inundated with orders right now, keeping the price to a minimum. Admittedly, that might impact delivery timescales, and oh of course we also have to keep British industry ticking along. Not getting into a fight about which is better, just IMO new Chinook are likely to be cheaper and provide greater flexibility than Merlin.

We do all get carried away with having a specific UK-capability - buying off the shelf and doing the bare minimum to integrate is so much cheaper. The Mk3 was over-specced and over-complicated, hence the absolutely essential (never suggested it wasn't) safety assessment has kept them grounded - DPA specced it and ordered it - whose fault do you suggest it is?

Autorev

11th Aug 2006, 14:53

Southbound

Fear not. I'm not criticising your opinion. However, timely delivery may be a rather large criteria, given current circumstances.

Unfortunately your opinion as to a Chinook being cheaper and having greater flexibility is insufficient grounds to commit several hundred million dollars of the treasury's hard earned dosh.

I'm affraid that these boards are a tad too full of people like yourself who "do some Googling" and become experts on the topic. I attempt to refrain if I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I also think you may find that the Mk3s were originally built to US-Mil Specs and that is where the problem started ;)

South Bound

11th Aug 2006, 15:16

lol - it is always difficult not to give one's identity away by being too 'expert'! You continue refraining and I will carry on speculating like most others on here - that is half the fun!

Don't care what spec the Mk3s were built to, DPA should have checked that would be suitable for use in the UK first. The fact the aircraft is unusable in the UK is not Boeing's fault...

Dangerous without the facts I know, but risk it and share what you think would be the best solution for the UK's hard-pressed SH force.

Hilife

11th Aug 2006, 16:41

Every time I’ve ever stepped into a helicopter I can’t say I’ve ever thought about who had legal ownership of the machine, but I do like to think that it offered some of the very latest standards in safety and performance not to mention somewhere to brew a cuppa.

I’m not suggesting that a lease is the perfect answer, but the beauty of a COMR/lease option for the Treasury must surly be that less money is required up-front - money we are told we do not have.

Over a long period leasing is not the solution, but the terms should offer the MoD an extension or get out clause after say 10-years and the latter would allow the military an opportunity to upgrade to another platform as needs change in say 2018, and not be stuck with a model for 30 or so years without any realistic hope of financing a replacement.

I suspect that manufacturers will be tripping over themselves to offer the MoD the very latest they have in shop, and even if the MoD were to elect to go for revamped machines - whether they be utilised in the sandpit or just lugging fuel bollocks around Salisbury Plain - this must be better than the status quo.

Wait for it laddy!!!

Could be the last?

12th Aug 2006, 14:59

The Helpful Stacker

12th Aug 2006, 16:44

Boeing are inundated with orders right now, keeping the price to a minimum.

Lol, and the cornerstone of capitalism goes flying over Southbound's head.

Ever hear of supply and demand driven pricing?

Companies will keep putting prices up when demand is high to make hay whilst the weather is fine. If they rise too high and it puts customers off or if they have competition from another manufacturer they drop their prices. With Boeing's order books for Chinook's plump and no-one offering a serious alternative I can't see us getting a few cheap in quick time.

Yes there is a point when if orders drop below a minimum prices have to rise to off-set loss of profits but I don't think Boeing will have to worry about that from the Chinook line for a while.

Stick to talking bollocks about things you know nothing about Southbound, oh you are.:rolleyes:

South Bound

14th Aug 2006, 10:06

lol - another well-considered response.

Not interested in a fight, just funny how 'the corner-stone of capitalism' seems to suggest exactly the opposite based on my experience (but clearly I know nothing and shall keep talking bollox). More orders=more bargaining power with sub-contractors=bigger discount, pushing price down. Works for the civil airline industry, works for Boeing - see C17...

As I said earlier, clearly there will be an issue with timelines, and that will come down to when someone makes a decision, but in my completely naive experience it is far easier to add in an extra shift, speed up deliveries and hence increase output to support what would be a comparatively small order than it would be to start or significantly increase production on a small line.

Getting back into my uninformed box now, prostrating myself at the feet of those of you with the commercial knowledge you so clearly have....

Not_a_boffin

14th Aug 2006, 12:15

Rumour has it that the Puma fleet and the entire CHF will be replaced with the "Cougar 2" or what ever the technical name is. Have a look on the Eurocopter website, awesome bit of kit!

Got to be happy with that.............:ok:

Provided that either Cougar 2 is properly marinised, or that CHF SK4 are replaced by properly marinised helicopters (preferably with folding main & tail rotors) and no shipboard EMI issues......

cyclic_fondler

14th Aug 2006, 19:55

Imaginary scenario but what if Gordon Brown shocked us all by saying that he's just bought 20 Merlin helicopters (just for the sake of argument) and they'll be available in UK spec ready to fly in 3 months time.

Would we have enough people, pilots,engineers etc to crew these aircraft straight away or if not, how long would the lead time be before this would happen?

I'm not military and not wanting to start a debate of which service would be able to man them the fastest but just curious to know how quickly we'd be able to utilise any new helicopters.

Thanks.

Could be the last?

14th Aug 2006, 19:57

N a B,

It is my understanding that it is, good for the CHF, bad for the Puma fleet.

Not_a_boffin

15th Aug 2006, 08:15

Who-hoo a chink of sunlight at last! If all marinised and foldable, then more flexible and easier to deploy (even in C17).

Still, I'll believe it when they rock up.

forwardassist

15th Aug 2006, 08:53

CBTL
Any particular reasons it may be bad for the Puma fleet or would the flexibility to be able to operate to and from ships fill the light gray with fear? Since CHF (and other deck capable SH) have spent most of the time since 2003 in sandy places, rather than embarked, it wouldn't be much of a worry. Surely a ship-borne capability is another string to your bow, rather than a stone around your neck? :confused:

The Helpful Stacker

15th Aug 2006, 09:10

Isn't the Cougar 2 based on the Puma? Don't they suffer from the same 'wobbly on deck' problems as the Puma?

Could be the last?

15th Aug 2006, 17:12

The Cof G is an issue with the Puma HC1 and coupled with the AP (excuse the pun) it is not cleared for deck landings. However, the Cougar and Super Puma are cleared; therefore, it would be safe to assume the the C2 may have the same clearances. Obviously a check of the small print in the RTS would be required. But hey, the guys who sign the contracts would have that covered anyway............or B.