Fury at Def Sec over Helicopter Shortage

[ORAC]

The Times: Fury over MoD refusal to buy more helicopters for Afghanistan troops (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6667333.ece)

The Defence Secretary today faced a furious reaction after ruling out buying more helicopters for the British forces in Afghanistan. British military commanders have been clamouring for more helicopters since the operation in Helmand province was launched in 2006.

Last month Brigadier Ed Butler, who commanded 16 Air Assault Brigade in Helmand province in 2006 told MPs that the lack of helicopters meant the Taleban had been able to force British troops off the roads by using roadside bombs. He pointed out that in Northern Ireland there were 70 helicopters for 10,000 to 15,000 troops but in Afghanistan, with casualties rising steeply in the fiercest fighting since the Korean War, there were far fewer.

Today Bob Ainsworth said up to eight Merlin helicopters would be transferred from Iraq to Afghanistan and eight Chinooks which are being converted from special forces’ aircraft to basic troop carriers would also be sent. But he said he had no plans to buy extra aircraft and said helicopters were not the answer to improving mobility for the troops.

He was speaking after the Ministry of Defence announced another death in Afghanistan - the seventh in a week and the 176th since the campaign began in 2001.

His remarks, after giving a speech on Afghanistan at Chatham House in London, brought a furious response from a former senior diplomat in the audience who said the troops in Helmand province had been forced to “borrow” ten American helicopters in order to launch Operation Panther’s Claw, which currently involves 3,000 British troops in battles with the Taleban.

Sir Brian Crowe, deputy chairman of Chatham House, said the helicopter issue was “a real scandal” and told Mr Ainsworth that his son, who was serving in Helmand, had had no helicopters when he was sent on a dawn assault more than a year ago.

Mr Ainsworth acknowledged that British troops in Operation Panther’s Claw had used American helicopters but said Britain was part of a coalition and that it was invaluable to have the Americans in Helmand. “We could never match the helicopter assets of the Americans,” he said.

Mr Ainsworth also made an indirect verbal swipe at General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, when he was asked whether he was going to send more troops to Afghanistan. “We’ve got 9,000 there at the moment. We have to get the balance right. Those who want to send more are the same ones who warned that current operations could break the Army,” he said.

This was a comment made by General Dannatt in an interview when he was talking about the strain of running simultaneous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, in an interview with The Times, General Dannatt revealed he wanted to send another 2,000 troops to Afghanistan. His recommendation to ministers was rejected by Gordon Brown.

In his speech at the Chatham House think-tank - his first since taking over from John Hutton as Defence Secretary last month - Mr Ainsworth called for patience from the public over the campaign. He insisted progress was being made but warned there would be more casualties and praised the Armed Forces for the sacrifices they were making. He revealed that more than 200 had been wounded this year, a fifth of them seriously.

However, he warned: “If we leave now the Taleban will take control and al-Qaeda will return. “In the face of the casualties we are seeing, it is understandable when people ask, is this too difficult. But this is not the message I got in Afghanistan. People don’t want the Taleban back and we must stay and finish the job. If you come you must stay.”

Referring to the controversy over protection for the troops, Mr Ainsworth insisted heavily armoured vehicles were not always the solution. “Sacrificing manoeuvrability for heavy armour in every circumstance is not the answer,” he said.

Everything was being done, he said, to target the bomb-makers behind the Taleban’s roadside bomb campaign. He said success in Afghanistan would be measured by “how safe the public feel and how far peaceful life can be resumed”.

[Wander00]

If it was not that they would be an instant liability, any potential Armed Forces Minister or Def Sec (Prime Ministers as well) should be made to serve 6 months in theatre with British troops, or have had real military service - they might then sound as they know something of what they speak! Saw part of Ainsworth's speech on the News - only instance of reality was when he said that operations in theatre would continue, and that (sadly) there will be more deaths of UK service personnel.

Wander00

[cornish-stormrider]

AndI can clearly see any of those spineless money grabbing chisellers doing something real.....

Not

[SVK]

Mr Ainsworth also made an indirect verbal swipe at General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, when he was asked whether he was going to send more troops to Afghanistan. “We’ve got 9,000 there at the moment. We have to get the balance right. Those who want to send more are the same ones who warned that current operations could break the Army,” he said.


Exactly Mr Ainsworth! The same Bosses who have warned you there aren't enough helicopters are the same Bosses who have warned you that 9000 troops aren't enough. They are the same Bosses that have warned you that to do the job properly will overstretch the Armed Forces and yet the Government is not willing to procure / spend more. If you want a successful campaign then the treasury should pay for it in cash and not with the lives of exhausted, under equipped personnel.

[hulahoop7]

Note also the lies:

"Today Bob Ainsworth said up to eight Merlin helicopters would be transferred from Iraq to Afghanistan and eight Chinooks which are being converted from special forces’ aircraft to basic troop carriers would also be sent. But he said he had no plans to buy extra aircraft and said helicopters were not the answer to improving mobility for the troops. "

If an extra 8 Chinooks are sent out, I'll eat my hat. If they are these particular beasts I'll eat your hat.

[MaroonMan4]

Oh dear Mr Ainsworth, you really should get a better brief before going in front of the cameras and if I read previous posts correctly then someones son should be able to give you the 'home truth' fresh from those that venture outside of the wire in Helmand and you certainly do not need me to tell you the position of risk that you are placing the service men and women on the ground due to your unbelievable failure to recognise and accept that you will have do battle with the Prime Minister and H M Treasury to secure funding for essential (and yes it is essential) equipment here and now (and not convieniently after an election when you will have handed your desk/CV enhancing portfolio to another incumbent.

Brigadier Butler was absolutely right and why have we all of sudden forgotten the valuable and costly lessons learned during Northern Ireland where the preferred terrorist MO was also IEDs.

How many remember how busy Bessbrook and Aldergrove were with helicopter operations due to the threat posed to the troops on the ground.

Of course 'borrowing' US helicopters for a deliberate mission as part of a Coalition Op is the norm, and there have been rare occurences when we have supported the US.

But the routine framework tasking, for routine British troops, remains the responsibility of Bristish helicopters and quite simply there is not enough which instantly forces a commander to look at other options (including road moves).

The Sec of State for Defence cannot have it both ways, in one paragraph saying that helicopters are not the solution:

But he said he had no plans to buy extra aircraft and said helicopters were not the answer to improving mobility for the troops.

and yet in the same interview saying neither is heavily armoured vehicles:

Referring to the controversy over protection for the troops, Mr Ainsworth insisted heavily armoured vehicles were not always the solution. “Sacrificing manoeuvrability for heavy armour in every circumstance is not the answer,” he said.


So if mobility (which assists in ground forces protection) in the form of helicopters is not the solution and manoeuvrability (defined as mobility + firepower) then what was really missing from Mr Ainsworths interview was an insight into what his department does think the solution to improving ground forces mobility is?

Would anyone like to re-visit the Battlefield Helicopter NAO report of 2003 (post 9/11) and see exactly what has been done by the Govt/MoD to satisfy the findings? 8 Danish Merlins (nearly) and 8 CH47s - (maybe nearly unlikely).

[chinook240]

If an extra 8 Chinooks are sent out, I'll eat my hat. If they are these particular beasts I'll eat your hat.

He's a politician - he said "up to eight" so if they only send 1 he'll be right!

MaroonMan - what happened to your prevoius thread on this subject?

[Sun Who]

Once more with feeling...

The man is an intellectual Pygmy.

[anita gofradump]

It is a fact that, regardless of which position in government that it occupies, you can not polish a turd.

Roll on the next General Election, hoping of course that, should Dr Fox occupy the office that he currently shadows, he remembers some of his time within the family that is the UK Armed Forces and is a change for the better.

There's a war on; someone tell Labour (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5771269/Liam-Fox-Theres-a-war-on---someone-tell-Labour.html)

[MaroonMan4]

240,

Removed as it was a thread too close to the spate of weekend deaths of UK personnel and the 'hypothetical' link between recent deaths in AFG that could be as a direct result of lack for those on the ground to use the option to fly/ re-supply by SH (as per Bosnia/ NI) was in itself too soon to family's that may be viewing the thread.

Now though I don't think you need random people like us to silently scream in despair on back water threads like this as eventually (and fortunately) the British people and media are not as stupid as some would like them to be and now the British public (whether they support the political intent of Afghanistan or not) now recognise the direct link between sufficient Support Helicopter lift v body bags.

[Hardly Worth it]

Embarrassing with a capital 'E' :ugh:

[Sir George Cayley]

Uh oh! Civvie on the thread, watcha.

But, in the world of suits, if one's tempo short of airframes then to the lease companies one goes.

Shirlely, some friendly state could wet or dry lease aerial assets to fill the gap?
MIL -8 anyone?

Don't hit too hard I bruise easily,

Sir George Cayley

[CirrusF]

We all know we don't have the right balance of equipment at the moment.

But whose fault is that?

It is wrong to blame the politicians of today for the mistakes of the politicians and military leaders of the past. The root of the problems that we have today lie in the inflexibility and mistakes of the procurement process in the eighties and nineties, when the foundations for our current equipment palette was painted. "Options for Change" was a military and political plan that was supposed to see us through to today and beyond, at the end of a major confrontation. We only got it partly right.

The army substantially divested itself of heavy armour, and partly invested in expeditionary and special forces - but not sufficiently, and woefully underinvested in equipment (except Apache - though probably Cobra would have been better for CAS and ease of maintenance). But overall they came out surprisingly well - maybe 8/10 overall for effectiveness of their strategic reform.

The RN correctly kept our core nuclear deterrent, but only reluctantly divested in aircraft carriers, and as a result were forced to underinvest in frigates which are our best asset for global diplomatic projection (note diplomatic, not power, projection). Maybe 6/10 for their efforts.

The RAF score maximum 3/10. With their heads firmly entrenched in 1941, they pursued a strategy of prioritising air defence procurement. SH, tropp transport and even AAR languished. It is not as if procurement lead times were too long for reaction to changing times. Typhoon was not irreversibly signed until a year after "Options for Change". Even then it was not too late - had Eurofighter listened to the French, we might have ended up with a swing-role aircraft (Rafale) that could be effective in CAS(TODAY), fly off carriers (TODAY), and still be effective in air defence (TODAY). Instead we ended up with enormous investment in a very impressive but entirely useless swingish-role air defence fighter which can only at great expense be converted to an inefficient CAS role and may never be adaptable to fly from a carrier.


But the most important question is why the RAF were able to win the argument in 1992 at the expense of the army and the RN? The answer lies with the politicians - RAF procurement supplies more jobs than the RN, and RN procurement supplies more jobs than the army.

So until we break the cycle of creating high tech weaponry to suit employment needs, we might never get out of the cycle we have been in since end of WW2.

[Archimedes]

had Eurofighter listened to the French, we might have ended up with a swing-role aircraft (Rafale) that could be effective in CAS(TODAY), fly off carriers (TODAY), and still be effective in air defence (TODAY). Instead we ended up with enormous investment in a very impressive but entirely useless swingish-role air defence fighter which can only at great expense be converted to an inefficient CAS role and may never be adaptable to fly from a carrier.


Had Eurofighter listened to the French, the RAF's current combat aircraft would be called the Squall FGR1 and built almost entirely in France, with French engines and French avionics. We'd have an aircraft which'd be able to fly off aircraft carriers we don't have too.

And, for the umpteenth time, the Typhoon was intended from the outset to replace the Jaguar so even though Max Hastings and Lewis Page can't get it into their heads, one would hope that most people here and thus familiar with aviation would appreciate the fact that a pure AD aircraft was never going to be selected for that role.

The air-ground capability is thus not an issue of adaption of a fighter aircraft into a poor attack aircraft but one of clearing the weapons for use; the sequencing of clearances was for the AA role first, with AG following. If you are going to brand the Typhoon:

very impressive but entirely useless swingish-role air defence fighter which can only at great expense be converted to an inefficient CAS role and may never be adaptable to fly from a carrier.

Then you're placing it in good company alongside the F-16 and the F-15, neither of which began life with an intended multi-role capability - 'not a pound for air to ground' in the case of the Eagle, neither of which seem to be doing too badly on ops with the USAF at the moment. And ISTR that the RAF has already impressed a very impressive interceptor aircraft into the AG role before - namely the Phantom. That didn't do too badly in the CAS role either (at least not according to the two IDF/AF ex F-4 pilots I've spoken to).

[spheroid]

the Typhoon was intended from the outset to replace the Jaguar

WRONG.

the Typhoon was intended from the outset to replace the Jaguar and the Tornado. If it was meant to replace the Jaguar then we would have ordered 112 of them. Instead we bought 232 of them.

[Archimedes]

I can see why you read it that way, Spheroid, thanks to my imprecise wording. The point I was making - badly - was that if the Jag was one of the aircraft types it was meant to replace, what was then EFA could not be just an air superiority type only since it wouldn't meet the RAF requirement.

While I'd want to check, ISTR that it was at one point also trumpeted as a replacement for the remaining AD Phantoms as well as the F3 and Jag.

[Guzlin Adnams]

Typhoon was supposed to replace the Jaguar and the Phantom and then after that was retired, the F3. Hence the numbers.
I keep ending up with the same problem with many threads on Prune. This Government will not fund the armed forces to the levels that are needed. There, I've said it. Bang goes my Knighthood....time for bed.:sad:

[CirrusF]

Had Eurofighter listened to the French, the RAF's current combat aircraft would be called the Squall FGR1 and built almost entirely in France, with French engines and French avionics. We'd have an aircraft which'd be able to fly off aircraft carriers we don't have too


Small talk.

Fact is that we have spend a substantial part of our ongoing defence budget on a useless, inflexible air-defence aircraft, when the budget should have gone to the army and to RAF SH, AAR, and Air Transport.


The French only got it mildly less wrong. At least they spent most of their budget on an adaptable air-defence/CAS/Carrier aircraft, even though their global priorities were less ambitious than ours, and even though their priorities should also have been expeditionary.

We have wasted several generations of defence budgets, not to mention many young lives, on the utter folly that is Typhoon.

The politicians of the early nineties are to blame for our current equipment imbalance. They had to rely on recommendations from the military chiefs of the time for advice. Unfortunately RAF advice won.

[knowitall]

"had Eurofighter listened to the French, we might have ended up with a swing-role aircraft (Rafale) that could be effective in CAS(TODAY)"


dropping a couple of LGB's with a legacy aircraft (etandard) designating for you is considered effective?

[Archimedes]

I'm so sorry, Cirrus. I didn't realise that my attempt to inject a few basic facts into the discussion was so unwelcome. I shall desist from doing so in future and shall accept all your pronouncements as gospel, even when I know them to be wrong.

[Departs tugging forelock and muttering 'patronising :mad:' under his breath...) :hmm:

[Modern Elmo]

Shirlely, some friendly state could wet or dry lease aerial assets to fill the gap?
MIL -8 anyone?

Problems for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order
Jun 1, 2009

By Sharon Weinberger

The U.S. Army signed off on an unusual procurement contract in December 2007: A $322-million order for 22 Russian helicopters bought through a U.S. defense company for Iraq. The contract was a rush order, designed to deliver Mi-17 helicopters in a bid to quickly reequip the Iraqi air force and allow it to perform counterinsurgency operations. But 18 months after signing, not a single helicopter has been delivered, despite full payment. The Army now concedes the contract is over budget and nearly a year behind schedule.

Such are the perils of buying Russian equipment through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, a unique requirement that is rapidly escalating into the billions of dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Buying Mi-17s, and other Russian equipment, for the Iraqi military seems logical. The Iraqis flew and maintained Soviet (now Russian) aircraft in the Saddam Hussein era. Another important feature: Russian rotorcraft are significantly cheaper than U.S. helicopters, at least in theory.
The Mi-17 is the export designation for the Mi-8 airframe (NATO designation “Hip”), and after 40 years the aircraft still has brisk sales, with new orders from India, China, Pakistan and Colombia, among others. That has been good news for the factories that produce Mi-17s: Ulan Ude and Kazan. Just a few years ago, work at the plants had slowed to a crawl, but now even getting a slot in the production line can be a challenge.
...
Problems for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/IRAQ060109.xml&headline=Problems) for U.S. Russian Helicopter Order

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Ares
A Defense Technology Blog

More Fours Sighted
Posted by Douglas Barrie at 7/8/2009 5:28 AM CDT

Activity is ramping up on the UK Paveway IV front with clearance trials underway on the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Royal Navy’s strike wing deploying with the weapon onboard HMS Illustrious.
The UK’s Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPA) 1 is being used for Paveway IV jettison tests covering a variety of stores configurations. A total of 15 drops are planned, with three carried out so far.
Meanwhile IPA7 has been flown from Manching in Germany to examine the aircraft’s handling characteristics while carrying six of the Raytheon Paveway IVs, along with AIM-120 Amraam and AIM-9 Sidewinder rounds. The aircraft is also being used for missile approach warning trials. Defensive Aids Sub-System trials are being undertaken on IPA6. ...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2a6e4cc0-fd05-4c63-bdb1-67d3706464e2 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2a6e4cc0-fd05-4c63-bdb1-67d3706464e2)

[Uncle Ginsters]

Is Typhoon value for money in the current climate? 232 is a shed load of AD....for every 4 of those you could have had another C17, and they're not a cheap platform either! Not to mention the equivalent Herc and SH force that could built for even half the Typhoon fleet cost!

[Jackonicko]

232 supports a forward fleet of 137. The arithmetic shows that this figure is sufficient for seven frontline squadrons over the planned life of the jet.

Now to me, seven squadrons does not seem too many. You need five squadrons for UK AD and the Falklands commitment, and two spare to allow deployed AD or for work ups and deployments in the A-G role does not seem excessive.

But we won't get 232.

Tranche 2 has effectively been reduced by 24 jets, and if Tranche 3B doesn't happen, then Tranche 3 is smaller by another 48. It really looks like we'll get 160-180 Typhoons to support a forward fleet of 123 aircraft - sufficient for the five squadrons currently planned.

And that certainly isn't too many.

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

Plus Jacko, the unstated fact that there'll more than likely be non-AD requirements that Typh is capable of & will be expected to take up.

Wither 232 then ?

[TOPBUNKER]

BUT, what's needed right now is more fixed wing and rotary air transport.

Our troops are being slaughtered and blown into small pieces not at 'work' but on their way towards 'work'.

Meanwhile, the new taxpayer employed boss of RBS is being paid an obscene salary.

[scientia in alto]

Last month Brigadier Ed Butler, who commanded 16 Air Assault Brigade in Helmand province in 2006 told MPs that the lack of helicopters meant the Taleban had been able to force British troops off the roads by using roadside bombs. He pointed out that in Northern Ireland there were 70 helicopters for 10,000 to 15,000 troops but in Afghanistan, with casualties rising steeply in the fiercest fighting since the Korean War, there were far fewer.

Ed Butler is a very shrewd man and excellent to work for. Also I'll bet that in Ireland the temperatures were not +45*C and the ground a minimum of 3000AMSL. All these things have a detrimental effect on performance and lift of the limited rotary assets. Then factor all the platforms are very old (barring Apache) and perform as such:mad:. Would you trust a 20+ yr old car to get you to work each and every day in a very harsh environment?

SIA

[NURSE]

Unfortunatley the Typhoon hasn't deployed yet on ops and when it does I think some individuals will be eating their words. Look at criticism the Apache was getting on here from the Chinook crews a few years ago!

Yes the Chinook fleet is over 20 years old, So is the sea King fleet and the puma fleet. The FV432 fleet and scimitar fleet are even older as are the Type 22's, Hunt class MCMV's, S & T classes of submarines. this obselence hasn't crept up its been known in the system since they were bought. Now why are programmes not being planned on a long term basis IE why wasn't the Sea King replacement not being planned and budgeted for 15 years ago same with the chinook's etc etc? I would sugest the short term mentality that has crept into the whitehall ministries were planning beyond the next election no longer happens.

[Mobile Muppet]

To get back on the topic of lack of helo support, perhaps the good minister should travel up to BHX to speak to the C17 load of injured soilders coming back and explain to them and thier families the need not to supply more helos. But no the media and ministers won't be anywhere near! Tw@ts

[GPMG]

---- wrong thread

[Front Seater]

Slightly off topic (but you will see where I am going with this)...

The Def Sec may want to visit those that are are ill in hospital, or recoverying without limbs from their illness and ask theses people if their illness could have been avoided if more helicopters were available?

I recently dismissed an article that speculated that the current government would be remembered in history as the government that 'just didn't get it'. What is it that they do not get about the desperate and essential requirement for not only more helicopters, but helicopters that have more performance than the current valiant efforts of the Sea King and Puma forces?

[GPMG]

Since when have helicopters been able to produce a magic forcefield that protect troops from mines and bullets?

Helicopters are needed but they won't stop blokes getting wounded, they could ensure that some are rescued to stay wounded and not end up dead though.

[Mobile Muppet]

Good point front seater. I wonder just how many people know of the c17s full and tristars of criticaly injured and wounded every day. Perhaps the media should pay a visit to BHX. Then they can see the true impact of under funding !

[Front Seater]

GPMG,

I did have a detailed answer to your post - but I have edited to just simply remind you of how the helicopter helped rapidly move men and equipment around the battlefield (as in NI and early days in Bos) in order to assist with protection through surprise and always keeping the terrorist guessing.

Sadly I know that there is no Clingon super cloak force field just as I know that a combination of environment (= aircraft performance) and not enough helicopters results in ground forces having to operate in predictable and slow patrols that are subject to dickers and IEDs.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

It is clear that a number of Contributors, here, are convinced that the only armed conflict we may be engaged in over the next 15 (ish) years will be against fanatical tribesmen in some (largely) landlocked s**t hole. There is no useful arguing with that mindset. They are convinced that if the unexpected does happen, we can buy the necessary missing asset off some obliging “shelf”.

We have, like it or not, obligations to overseas Dependencies and those that fall to Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. We also have National interest in natural resource assets in far flung places. Additionally, over half of our foreign trade is outside Europe and involves transport either on or over the high seas. A defence Force centred on even the best equipped Army on the planet would soon become very wet and very dead.

[Mobile Muppet]

Yawn GBZ, why every time subjects like this are brought up do the navy have to pipe up with the same old crap. I don't care about ships, this thread isn't about the threat on the high seas. It's about squadies being killed because of the lack of proper kit to help them ie helicopters!

[500days2do]

Amazing isn't it what the intelligent ones spout. Any amount of typhoons is too many if ground troops are dying for lack of proper AT.

The Typhoons are a legacy of Fastjetcentric commanders and wargame scenario Int O's/ Journos with too much time on their hands and not enough sand in their boots. Jackonicko you are an a**e.

5d2d

[andyy]

Don't blame the Int O's - they are usually very capable of taking the long term view, but in my view Commanders & Politicians often don't like the analysis.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Oh for pete's sake...

I normally don't post on this kind of thread as I have far better things to do, but I'm laid up with swine flu so I will!

500days et al:

Yes I agree entirely, we don't have enough SH or AT. You're entirely right. What you have to realise is that the lack of these assets is not the fault of those who wanted and signed on the line for the Typhoon, or indeed any other fast jet. What you also need to realise is, though we might not need them right this second quite as much as AT/SH, we DO need them, and in sufficient quantities to allow them to do something.

One of the main reasons why we don't have Typhoon in the sandpit dropping LGBs on some Terry is that we only have 2 squadrons of them, which is enough to maintain southern QRA (one of the RAF's core tasks, before you ask!) and to gently work up to the A/G role, but not enough to sustain a deployment of X jets to the sandpit as the mighty harrier has been doing. If they were there, doing that job, I suspect you would be singing a slightly different tune.

As for the funding they take up, I put it to you that it makes no difference at all (practically) if we don't buy the whole lot or not, as the contract is so watertight as to mean pulling out would free up no funds whatsoever. The only shame is that we were so strapped for cash we sold our lot to the Saudis early on, which has increased the length of time until we get a reasonable number of the things so we can let them out of the QRA/airshow circuit.

As for the lack of SH/AT, I would suggest that the responsibility lies not with those who bought Typhoon, but those who thought it would be (a) a bloody brilliant idea to PFI the replacement AT/AAR assets and (b) those who were responsible for the chinook HC3 debacle....

If you want more assets than what we have coming on stream already, then unfortunately that requires more cash.

If someone could have forseen quite how much we were going to have our budget cut all the way back when they signed on the line for the 230 odd typhoons, and used their crystal ball to realise what a series of cock ups would happen in all the procurement streams, as well as the fact that we were going to be committed to fighting a war in a country where nearly half of our existing SH assets are about as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard without significant money being spent, then I'm sure that person would have raised a hand.

Anyhow, rant over, don't blame the 'phoon! If we want more SH NOW, we need to put our government to put its' cash where its' mouth is. Unfortunately, there isn't any left, so we'll have to make do and mend, just like we always do. The result of that is that some poor lad somewhere is going to get blown up by an IED, which isn't really acceptable. I present no solutions to that problem, apart from spending more money we don't have.

[steamchicken]

A question that bugs: will there ever be enough SH, within reasonable assumptions? Is this trying to solve a strategic problem by throwing kit at it?

[PTC REMF]

I do find some comments strange ; I'm with the camp that says how about we make sure we can win the fight we're in and protect as many lives as possible ,before looking at capability to fight any others, shortsighted it may be but how many more troops have to be blown up by IEDs due to lack of SH?
I'm also confused as to why the first variant of Typhoon had to be the AD variant and not the GR ,considering the amount of live CAS sorties flown compared to confirmed RAF air-to-air kills over the last 25 yrs.
As a layman are to two variants that different that a change couldn't have been introduced into the production line when it was fairly obvious that the only wars we can afford to fight were going to be counter insurgency?

[Bob Viking]

And the primary role of the RAF is.....?!
It's easy to rubbish the Typhoon, but it seems it's impossible for some to admit that it might just have a role in the modern world. Even if that might not be in hot, mountainous places just yet.
BV:rolleyes:

[PTC REMF]

And the primary role of the RAF is.....?!

To support the boots on the ground !
I'm not rubbishing the typhoon , after chatting to the pilots and doing ET with it , I'm more than sure it is a very capable aircraft , but the requirement at the moment and for the last 6 yrs is for a capable CAS platform and not an Air Defender.

[Jackonicko]

'Credit' where it's due.

The shortage of helicopter lift in Afghanistan should not come as much of a surprise to anyone.

A massive 38% shortfall in helicopter lift was identified by the NAO years ago. Since then, the shortfall has been worsened as ageing fleets have been reduced by wastage and attrition, and as Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed that some platforms are actually worth not much more than the square root of bug.ger all in hot and high conditions.

And the Government's response?

To reduce the cash available for Future Rotorcraft from £4.5 Bn to a tad over £3 Bn, and then to spend most of it on:

1) The Royal Navy's Merlin CSP - an update to an irrelevant Cold War ASW platform - £900 m
2) FLynx - primarily for the Royal Navy's vital need to replace the Lynx HMA8 - another £1 Bn
3) Chinook fix to field £250 m to get just eight Chinooks back onto the books
4) SAR-H £750 m.

Total: £2.9 Bn.

not much left for support helicopters - Puma and Commando replacements, recapitalising Chinook and bringing Merlin to full strength.

We could argue all day about whether spending the lion's share of FRC money on grey funnel lines helicopters is or is not a good idea, but to do so on these particular platforms first, before sorting the identified shortfall in battlefield and amphibious lift would seem to me to suggest that whoever doles out the pennies from the pot marked 'choppers' has never heard of prioritisation.

[Mr Grim]

And the primary role of the RAF is.....?!
To support the boots on the ground !

No it isn't in the big picture, much to the army's consternation. You could call it defence of the UK and its territories or carrying out British defence policy or something similar. Sometimes that means supporting the "boots on the ground" sometimes it doesn't. Don't forget that at the end of the day the army is also just supporting the big picture political objective.

And how many times do people have to post before the thickos get it - Typhoon was always designed as swing/multi role. It has replaced single role aircraft so added flexibility as well as capability. It was planned to replace F3 first (the RAF's only A-A aircraft for the slow ones) so was always planned to get A-A capability first (when is it getting that btw :E?) It was considered that the Harrier and GR4 fleets would provide sufficient CAS/AI capability in the meantime. Even as recently as 2000 nobody knew that we were going to embroil ourselves in a long term tribal counter-insurgency war halfway around the world.

The AT/AAR problems were identified a long time ago, it is just the solution that sucks.

Helos have definitely been the poor relation for too long - but that partly, perhaps came from the fact that they were ticking along nicely, doing what the army wanted in NI and not seen as having a big role outside that. Lack of foresight and flexibility, perhaps.

People can whine about the wrong equipment as much as they like but defence procurement (and training) lead times are huge, we cannot wave a magic wand and get the perfect kit as a war kicks off. So for me the big lesson is that we cannot foresee exactly what form future wars will take (despite what CGS says) so we must have a balanced and flexible air force (and navy). Whilst the current war in Afghanistan is and should be our highest priority, we cannot let it lead us down the dead end of creating a counter-insurgency only armed forces.

[MarkD]

in Ireland the temperatures were not +45*C and the ground a minimum of 3000AMSL.Precisely. After all, we had this discussion before (can't UK just use Jags in Afstan?) on several occasions (we'll just fill the gap with SKs) and not just UK either (we'll just roll the Leopards off the An124s and go hunting Osama - wow is it hot in here or is it just me?)

The reality is that when most of this equipment was ordered it would have been considered a "waste" if it had been upengined or otherwise modified for those climates ("we're worried about Ivan old boy, not Rommel")

[L J R]

The numpty that compares A-A kills with CAS sorties as a stat for procurement misses the point that No A-A Kills MEANS that the last 50 years of QRA WAS successful!!!!! - sometimes a deterrent is a tactic (don't seem to recall any Live Trident launches either!).

[Ivan Rogov]

No doubt more SH is needed for UK forces in AFG but it is not going to stop casualties, the US have more SH than you can shake a stick at but are still suffering.

The EF have assessed our tactics and are targeting us as effectively as they think they can at the moment, their IED's appear to cause limited fatalities (plus injured) each time. If we change the way we do things so will they, perversely we could make ourselves more vulnerable.

[L J R]

....and they have membership to PPRUNE.!

[NURSE]

The lack of Hot/High capability can be traced back to decisions made in the 1970's not to operate east of suez. When another Labour Govt buggered up the economey and expected HM forces to cut back to bail them out. It was reinforced in the 80's by the Tories NATO centric defence policy. The whole way through operating out of area was never seen as a serious option. If you want proof speak to the poor sods on the Type 23's Patroling the persian gulf (and now of Somalia) before Iraq/Afghanistan even kicked of. In a Frigate designed for the North Atlantic with limited to non existant airconditioning. The armed forces as a whole are paying the price for decades of cuts and lack of political will or vision.
I wonder does Ainsworth mean that troops will have to walk as helicopters and armoured vehicles aren't suitable?

[Bob Viking]

No it isn't old chap.
As much as I agree it is an extremely worthwhile and important role, it is not the primary role of the RAF.
In suggesting otherwise, you are rubbishing the Typhoon by inference.
I agree we need a good CAS platform. Amongst other things.
Defence of UK airspace remains a vital role and a GR9/GR4/A-10 just doesn't cut the mustard in that respect.
BV

[MaroonMan4]

Oh dear, how very sad indeed.....

No wonder H M Treasury and spin doctors win every time as every time there is anything that requires unity someone somewhere has to start infighting...

Very depressing indeed and is probably why we will end up being run ragged by the Treasury and Politician's spin doctors.

This has nothing to do with Typhoon, or the Carriers or Trident.

It is about helicopters for a war that we are fighting here and now.

And to answer GBZ - I believe that you are missing the point that the shortage of helicopters is not just about AFG, but for future conflicts as well. AFG is sadly highlighting what pathetic aircraft you have (although through no fault of the operators and support personnel). Littoral Manoeuvre my back side - when you have something that can lift a decent payload over a decent distance over all environments (not just Norway), then you may recognise that the shortage of helicopters is as a result of some appalling indecision and delaying that will effect your sphere of expertise as it does mine (and remember I am also with you on many an occasion and end up doing most of your lifting).

Again, it appears so obvious that here and now helicopters are needed, and historically as the NAO said that there were not enough Battlefield Helicopters and therefore I am pretty convinced that whatever service or political party or government advisory board you come from it is a dead cert that the future Defence Review will also say (again) that the UK needs more Battlefied Helicopters.

So with that decision staring us in the face....FASH/SABR/FCR/FMH being slopey shouldered and delayed so many times....lets just get on and make the decision to procure and/or replace more helicopters-soon-very soon.

And Ivan, I really do hope that your comment is posted from personal experience and not as a voyeur as I most certainly beg to differ and both Northern Ireland and Bosnia saw the rapid mobility afforded by helicopter lift not only assist in protecting the guys on the ground, but also reducing the over land supply requirement.

The 'EF' may have assessed our tactics, but at the moment we have very little 'golf clubs' to choose from as the cliche golf bag has some very limited clubs. It would be a tactical advantage to our servicemen and women to be able to give them the tactical choice - maybe move by air, maybe move by land, maybe a bit of both, maybe a deception plan, maybe routine frame work VCP patrolling....who knows....but at the moment it appears that due to the lack of helicopters the choice offered to to the servicemen and women is limited and therefore more predictable moves by land.

Helicopters are not the panacea, but I would suggest that they are long overdue, will be involved in nearly every operation in the next 20 years at least and far more importantly can add value, make a difference and provide the commanders on the ground with a choice of how to manoeuvre in an operation that has many boots on the ground.

[Melchett01]

Ok, having watched this with interest over the past few days, I was at a meeting in Town where a member of the DEC community made a comment which planted a seed.

Playing devil's advocate - what if it were to be suggested that the lack of rotary has less to do with the Govt refusing to fund / deploy them and more to do with MOD internal management?

At the end of the day, there is a finite pot of cash for Defence; some of that will go on salaries, some of that will go on maintaining infrastructure etc and some of that will go on procurement. What the element of funding earmarked for procurement and equipment development is spent on is down to the capability managers, scrutineers and various heads of capability right the way up to the respective heads of service. Is it not the responsibility of capability managers and heads of capability to argue their corners and fight for the necessary funding to ensure their capability is both qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient for the tasks the sharp-end are being asked to perform? If the requirement is pressing enough, and a robust enough case is presented, then funding could/should/might be able to be taken from other capabilities that are less pressing in the current circumstances.

Following this line of argument to its logical conclusion, is the lack of rotary assets in theatre not down to a failure of the capability managers up to heads of service to argue their cases robustly enough, as well as the MOD's complete inability to manage its budgets and procurement strategies to ensure that finite funding lines are not squandered?

Or should we just take the view that the principle of collective responsibility runs throughout Govt, and therefore, as SoS Defence is part of that Govt, then the Govt as a whole is responsible for the abject failure to address the NAO BH audit report findings in a meaningful manner?

[Tappers Dad]

Short of helicopter's ? Perhaps this sobering document might shed some light on it.

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/pdf/UKDS2005Chapter4.pdf

And these figures only go up to 2004.

Go here Defence Analytical Services and Advice Website (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&pubType=1&thiscontent=350&PublishTime=09:30:00&date=2008-02-15&disText=1990-2007&from=listing&topDate=2008-02-15) for figures 1990-2007

[Jackonicko]

"At the end of the day, there is a finite pot of cash for Defence; some of that will go on salaries, some of that will go on maintaining infrastructure etc and some of that will go on procurement. What the element of funding earmarked for procurement and equipment development is spent on is down to the capability managers, scrutineers and various heads of capability right the way up to the respective heads of service. Is it not the responsibility of capability managers and heads of capability to argue their corners and fight for the necessary funding to ensure their capability is both qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient for the tasks the sharp-end are being asked to perform? If the requirement is pressing enough, and a robust enough case is presented, then funding could/should/might be able to be taken from other capabilities that are less pressing in the current circumstances.

Following this line of argument to its logical conclusion, is the lack of rotary assets in theatre not down to a failure of the capability managers up to heads of service to argue their cases robustly enough, as well as the MOD's complete inability to manage its budgets and procurement strategies to ensure that finite funding lines are not squandered?"

Spending money on RN priorities like Merlin CSP and FLynx has stuffed the more urgent priority of recapitalising helicopter lift, in other words.

Just as spending money on carriers and Trident replacement will divert finite resources from other more relevant and important priorities.

You have to admire Grey Funnel Lines. They always put their case well, and they always offer compelling arguments.

You only have to look at the 100th anniversary of Naval Aviation, which overshadowed the RAF's 90th birthday, and which will doubtless outshine the true 100th anniversary of military aviation in the UK in 2011. (The Air Battalion of the Royal Engineers was formed on 1 April 1911).

So what exactly happened in RN Air in 1909? What exactly are we celebrating 100 years of? Not the RNAS, which formed in July 1914. Not even the Naval Wing of the RFC (12 April 1912). Not even the start date of Navy pilot training (1911).....

So what was it? What is this glorious event whose anniversary we salute?

It was on 7th May 1909 that the Admiralty first set aside £35,000 for the development of an airship. Not for the rollout of that airship (which was hardly an event worth celebrating), nor the first flight (um, it didn't fly). But the anniversary of getting the funding for what turned out to be a farcical failure.

The airship in question was the HMA 1 (the Mayfly), which was initially too heavy too fly, and after it was lightened it was too weak and was broken by a gust of wind whilst being moved out of its hangar.

Isn't that what the Israelis call Chutzpah?

[Modern Elmo]

And the primary role of the RAF is.....?!

Quote:

To support the boots on the ground !

No it isn't in the big picture, much to the army's consternation. You could call it defence of the UK and its territories or carrying out British defence policy or something similar. Sometimes that means supporting the "boots on the ground" sometimes it doesn't

So close air support and most tactical transport aviation ought to be Army functions under Army control, don't we all agree?

True for British Army as well as AUSA.

[Jackonicko]

No, we don't.

[MaroonMan4]

Jack,

So let me get this right - you are saying that the reason why there are not more (or more capable) helicopters on operations today is because the Fisheads decided to have their birthday to celebrate conception rather than the actual birth?

Let us assume that all of the Merlin CSP and FLynx fundings were rational and strategic decisions from DEC ALM and MoD Main Building, and that they have managed to justify it to those that question and also attempt to rectify the Battlefield Helicopter NAO report. Let us also assume that there really is no longer any funding for more capable Support Helicopters to deliver lift to the troops on the ground.

Whether the money has gone on birthday parties or Typhoon or Flynx - if the money has really gone and the DECs/MoD and the politicians really do believe that there is no requirement for immediate funding for more capable Support Helicopters to provide more lift to the troops on the ground then.....

Someone in the MoD should re-align the Foreign Office, Coalition and nations expectations as the tactical tasks on the ground and the quest for success at the pace that is being required by politicians (to avoid the Vietnam comparison) is not being resourced.

I fully understand the requirement for military ethos Jacko and I look forward to our celebrations, especially in a society that has very little understanding of what its military actually does for its nation (both today, in the future and silently). This bears no relevance as to why we are so short of capable helicopters - and I look forward to our celebrations (and actually am surprised that the one nation one air force contingent didn't get in there first!)

What I do not understand is that if the DECs/MoD have prioritised other spending whether Merlin, FLynx, Typhoon or whatever and there is no funding left for more capable helicopters, and the Sea King and Puma fleets are going to continue to 2022 (according to open press) then we cannot be surprised by the perceived stalemate on current operations and the inability to conduct current and future operations on a global scale in all environemnts (amphibious support helicopter lift-I think not). Lets be honest, and again in the open press, there are some Support Helicopters capabilities that are really struggling (even in GTI mode with a go faster stripe) that are limited when temperatures or altitude are increased which is pretty much the kind of environments that will be on the threat assessments today and for the years ahead.

As long as everyone knows that the FASH/ SABR/ FCR/ FMH elephant in the room has been growing in size for 10 years (which the NAO report did let everyone know about) and that it will undoubtedly continue to grow until 2022, then so be it - the commanders on the ground will do the best job that they can with the resources that are being delivered by those in positions of funding authority.

[tucumseh]

What the element of funding earmarked for procurement and equipment development is spent on is down to the capability managers, scrutineers and various heads of capability right the way up to the respective heads of service. Is it not the responsibility of capability managers and heads of capability to argue their corners and fight for the necessary funding to ensure their capability is both qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient for the tasks the sharp-end are being asked to perform? If the requirement is pressing enough, and a robust enough case is presented, then funding could/should/might be able to be taken from other capabilities that are less pressing in the current circumstances.

Following this line of argument to its logical conclusion, is the lack of rotary assets in theatre not down to a failure of the capability managers up to heads of service to argue their cases robustly enough, as well as the MOD's complete inability to manage its budgets and procurement strategies to ensure that finite funding lines are not squandered?


Spot on. So much so, that the principle is enshrined in permanent instructions from the Chief Accounting Officer.

Problem is, and despite a highly critical internal report 13 years ago, the posts whose job it was to implement this policy were not resurrected, having been chopped in 1989. One of the more interesting jobs I've had. (It would surprise you at how low a level this was delegated).

[kaikohe76]

I was under the impression that, in certain circumstances & when the military situation warranted it, the Chief of the Defence Staff was able to approach the Queen direct. If this is the case, should not the CDS hot foot it to the palace, thus bypassing the present shower at Westminster & explain to HM the Q directly just how dire the present situation is. I am sure the gracious lady would take the appropriate action & have word or two in Gordon's ear.

[Jackonicko]

MM,

I was using the 100 years celebrations merely as an illustration of how adroitly the Navy put their message across.

Even when it's complete bol.locks.

The point is that prioritising the spending of money on RN priorities like Merlin CSP and FLynx has taken all of the money from the helicopter pot, leaving the more urgent, more important requirement (to address the shortfall in helicopter lift) unfulfilled and unfunded.

The point is that (again and again) the Admirals seem to have been able to shout loudest and to get their priorities (which are often exceptionally costly) funded - often at the expense of higher priority capabilities. And with CVF, JCA, and Trident replacement, I predict that it will continue to happen.

That's great for the RN, but disastrous for the UK.

[andyy]

Jacko, interestingly for many years the RN have complained that its the RAF that is the service most adroit at getting its way in Whitehall.

[Gainesy]

What is so difficult about stripping the pinger kit from the navy Merlins and using them in the Jungly role?

[onevan]

The issue gents is that all the services have capability gaps. Merlin CSP and FLynx will leave the RN with no grey fleet 2012 - ? apart from the bags (ASaC). Their upgrade/ lifex has been in the pot for years. I'm sure the other Services have their long term plans c0cked around by budget cuts:(.

Culdrose and Yeovs are fairly quiet airfields at present with all their frontline squadrons deployed whether in Stan (Junglies and baggers), Gulf of Oman (lynx and Merlin). They are doing what is tasked. :D

I'm sure the troops in Stan need more SH, but as the govt insists on fighting many wars on many fronts everyone is now seeing the awful truth of 'stretch'.:ugh:

In fighting does not help. Look outside your own domain and see where all the other services are being deployed, then we can constructively move forward.:ok:

[Mister-T]

What was it that Tony Blair said about equipment for deployed Ops a couple of years ago?

[fact_attack]

Cough... Puma 2 then?

Coral are giving 35 - 1 unfortunately

Isn't the decision out today by the way?

[Trance2]

The point is that prioritising the spending of money on RN priorities like Merlin CSP and FLynx has taken all of the money from the helicopter pot, leaving the more urgent, more important requirement (to address the shortfall in helicopter lift) unfulfilled and unfunded.

The point is that (again and again) the Admirals seem to have been able to shout loudest and to get their priorities (which are often exceptionally costly) funded - often at the expense of higher priority capabilities. And with CVF, JCA, and Trident replacement, I predict that it will continue to happen.

That's great for the RN, but disastrous for the UK.

I don't often post, but I had to comment on this being one of the most retarded comments I've seen from you Jack.

[Gainesy]

That would be like stripping the kit out of an AWACs to use it for passenger flights
There you go, AT and SH probs both solved.:)

[MaroonMan4]

Sadly at the back end of Radio 4 Today programme this morning a Mr Pickup (a lecturer from Sandhurst, ex Lt Cdr) attempted to defend the whole Battlefield Helicopter issue by saying that it 'takes time' to procure helicopters and it is not realistic to expect an instant solution in this area.

So why wasn't the decision way back with FASH/SABR,and if not then at the second 'warning sign' of the NAO report? As does the belief that a decision on an increase to Battlefield Helicopter capability does not need to be made now and can wait for the Defence Review.

18 months for the review, followed by another 18 months (at best) of rapid procurement, still puts us 3 years away from any increase in lift potentially coming out of MoD.

Whereas today, if a decision was made it would be extremely interesting to see how quickly the Puma and Sea King forces could re-role to provide a capability for current operations, and be in a position to potentially expand when (not should or if) the Defence Review echo the NAO report 10 years later and also state the requirement for more Battlefield Helicopters for the wider future strategic defence of our nation across the entire spectrum of conflict.

Timely decision making followed by swift execution to deliver a capability is what is required, not paralysis by analysis hoping that the media will drop the bone and find something else to focus its attention on.

[Jackonicko]

Trance 2.

Retarded?

But how exactly is it wrong?

[Dengue_Dude]

So . . . why are we in this position, in somebody else's sandpit?

If our lads and lasses weren't there in the first place, they wouldn't be suffering OPERATIONAL shortages such have been detailed here.

Notice how the key characters have slunk away . . . free, safe and secure in writing their memoirs and receiving their pensions, not a trace of sand on them and their offspring - squeaky clean.

God I sound like Michael Moore.

[Jimlad1]

If I was feeling mischevious tonight, I would suggest journalists should go and watch "air force Afghanistan" and spot the bit where the RAF 1* asks General Petraeus (on his way to London) to lobby the UK to provide more helicopters of all types.

RAF most senior officer in Afghanistan admits helo shortage - now there would be a good headline!

[muppetofthenorth]

If I was feeling mischevious tonight, I would suggest journalists should go and watch "air force Afghanistan" and spot the bit where the RAF 1* asks General Petraeus (on his way to London) to lobby the UK to provide more helicopters of all types.

RAF most senior officer in Afghanistan admits helo shortage - now there would be a good headline!


Especcially as he was doing so while wearing a poppy... Meaning the lack of has been felt for at least 9 months.

[Tiger16]

I really don't know what the fuss is about. Personally I'm hugely reassured that our new SecDef has the intelligence and clarity of vision to see what every Brigade Commander since Brigadier Butler could not - that the numbers and capabilities of UK SH in Helmand are quite adequate, thank you very much. For Uncle Bob to be better able to grasp military realities than experienced and very capable Brigade Commanders, after so little time in the job, surely demands our unswerving respect! It would also be scandalous to suggest that the UK Government would ever jeopardise our troops lives by buying lightly-armoured vehicles such as Viking in preference to vastly more expensive support helicopters.

Or b)....

[The Helpful Stacker]

Whilst I enjoy having a crack at the RN as well as the next right thinking RAF/ex-RAF man the complete failure to provide decent SH assets isn't really their fault.

JHC and the assets contained within/required for are now and have been for a number of years at the whim of HQ LAND, the budget for said assets is also controlled by HQ LAND and it is the heads of shed within its predominately brown CoC that have failed to budget for or push the case for SH assets. It could be that as long as SH assets are operated by RAF/RN squadrons they will continue to be under-resourced, perhaps because elements within LAND consider them not 'their' assets.

That said though ultimately the government should be taking the lead, over-ruling any possible 'cap badge blinkers' and ensuring that the funds to support the task requested of the Armed Forces to untake are provided. The term 'on the cheap' would apply aptly to this governments approach to Afghanistan if it weren't that as a matter of fact its been so costly, in the lives of brave service personnel.:mad:

[Trance2]

But how exactly is it wrong?

You are now blaming the RN for the shortage of battlefield helicopters. I know you are Anti-RN, but don't you think you're going a little too far with it this time?

[Jackonicko]

I'm saying that of the £3.1-3.2 Bn allocated for Future Rotorcraft, almost £2 Bn has already been allocated to Merlin CSP and FLynx.

Is that wrong? Is that what you call 'retarded'?

I'm suggesting that upgrading the grey Merlins and replacing the excellent grey Lynx 8s is a lower priority than replacing the Pumas and Commando Sea Kings.

Is that wrong? Is that what you call 'retarded'?

It's not a case of 'hating' the Navy, just recognising that RN programmes are taking a massive share of scarce funding, and that some of those programmes are of questionable relevance to ongoing ops.

[minigundiplomat]

8 guys dead in Helmand in 24 hours.

RIP Guys.

Thank you Jacko for steering the thread back to rotary. Of this thread, at least 3 pages are full of posts justifying either carriers or typhoons.

That is why we have too little SH. The RAF are only interested if it's fast and pointy, the RN only interested if it floats or belongs to someone else.

Whatever the solution to the current shortage of SH, it's criminal that it is so late in coming, and needs to be pretty damn quick.

[Jackonicko]

Criminal indeed when the shortfall was very publicly highlighted by the NAO five years ago.

That's when priorities should have been set.

[The Helpful Stacker]

But Jacko, 5 years ago was too late.

The lead in times of 'big ticket' military expenditure projects is decades. Your own, much loved Typhoon had its contracts to purcahse signed, sealed and delivered in the 90s and the planning and budget allocation for the Merlin CSP and F/Lynx were also likewise put in place many years back.

As I said, the blame (in part) lies with LAND for failing to put a strong case forward many years ago for suitable funding when they became the lords and masters of JHC. They've never really seemed to accept ownership proper of RAF/RN SH, mainly I believe because the RN/RAF operate them and as a result they've been the poor relation in LAND. But overwhelmingly the blame lies with the government for failing to take heed of those on the ground in Afghanistan in lieu of those Whitehall warriors fighting purely for their capbadge rather than the 'bigger picture', failing to over-rule such petty politics and failing to provide the resources required to do the job asked.

You can almost forgive a brown suited organisation for a lack of airmindedness but I cannot forgive the government for sending service personnel overseas into a war without the means to carry out the task.

Lives are being lost so that Mr Brown can play the world stage on the cheap.:mad:

[NURSE]

Maybe there would be more SH if the RAF hadn't sulked when it got Merlin then spent years trying to prove how it didn't work only for its deployment to Bosnia and Iraq to prove otherwise!
As for money wasted I think Chinook HC3 is an excellent case in point one of the most Botched procurements in history.
The Sea/Land/Air arguments are proving a distraction the underlying problem is caused by successive govts cutting budgets but the eager spaniel of the Armed forces working harder and harder to please its uncaring masters to the point it exhausts itself the sooner the chiefs of staff stop playing Political games to win favour for next CDS the better I would sugest they resign on mass at the same news conference with Bob in attendence.

[VinRouge]

BBC NEWS | UK | Five more UK dead in Afghanistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8145603.stm)

RIP Lads. :(

[Al R]

I hope to god there won't be any more undermining of what the lads are doing out there because of this. We are taking the fight to the enemy and that means we are going to lose lives. Many commentators will correlate the loss of life with incompetence but we must remember that to destroy these bastards we have to take risks out on the ground. Sometimes, we will sacrifice armour for manouverability but that in itself, is a form of protection. I hope that the troops continue to extract a good price for our loss and that for every one of ours who dies, many more of those evil bastards die.

These guys will.. (whatever we say) will fade from our own day to day memories but not from those who worked with them and who raised them and loved them. Those who they died trying to help over there will never know them either, and that might make it 'pointless'. But their lives weren't pointless - they knew friendships and experienced things that a slimy Nick Clegg never will. What he thinks he has in common with them, is beyond me. Nick Clegg by being the first politician to break ranks, is simply applying his tried and tested Speaker Martin model of making headlines. This is why, not only would I never vote for a Lib Dem politician, I would never even listen to one.

My heart goes out to the families of those who will spend this weekend in a mute, numb haze. I wish to god I could do something to ease their pain, but I can't. That makes me so angry and helpless, even though I'm past it and thousands of miles away.

[VfrpilotPB/2]

I wonder if any of this current shoddy lot would ever let their offsprings place a foot in the sand of Helmand,...... some how I think not.... they would fein illness or weakness in their spines and/or wear pink frilly things! what an absolute shower of Shysters.

Peter R-B
Vfr

[blaireau]

Not only would they not let their offspring in harms way, but not one of this tawdry government has ever worn a uniform.

[MaroonMan4]

Mr Milliband on Radio 4 this morning - did not answer the question and did not provide any acknowledgement or recognition that his department should be assisting the MoD to resource/ fund operations that we are conducting on behalf of his department's request.

And if he and Mr Ainsworth really do not believe that more capable helicopters are not going to add and assist the protection of ground forces then I remain totally lost for words - as I am sure the British public now recognise.

[Wander00]

Back in the mid 90s I was working in Resettlement and associated training - I tried explaining to those leaving the Services that very few employers or recriters knew anything of the Services except the misconceptions from TV programes like "Get Fell In", "Ain't 'Alf Hot, Mum" and even "Dad's Army".

Nothing has changed, and for those on the Front Line, it is worse, because their political masters do not have a clue of the environment in which they fight, the importance of equipment or lack of it, or the ethos that is required to be able to do the job effectively. I wonder if a Minister even bothers to go to Lyneham now to meet the increasingly frequent of C17 arrivals. As the political leaders of a country engaged in a war they are a collective disgrace.

Do I feel angry - too right I do

Wander00

[isaneng]

Lyneham repatriation ceremonies policy is family only, to avoid any political gamesmanship and allow proper respect to be shown.

[Bronx]

Al R My heart goes out to the families of those who will spend this weekend in a mute, numb haze.
So does mine, to the families of those on BOTH sides who will spend this weekend in a mute, numb haze. those evil bastards Yeah the politicians on both sides of the pond that got us into this mess.

B.

[Wander00]

Isaneng - your post 91 - Politicians at Lyneham - fair point, but I just wish polician's utternces showed they had SOME idea...

As ever, sincerest condolences to the families having their worst ever weekend

[8-15fromOdium]

MaroonMan4Mr Milliband on Radio 4 this morning - did not answer the question and did not provide any acknowledgement or recognition that his department should be assisting the MoD to resource/ fund operations that we are conducting on behalf of his department's request.

Whilst I agree SH needs far more money, going to the FO (or even DFiD) isn't going to turn up many pennies, the FO budget is less than £2 bn. (F)Ire needs to be turned on the organ grinder, as Guthrie did yesterday. Also the top uniforms in defence need to stop fighting amongst themselves and do what they are paid to do, ensure this country is adequately defended against all threats. Defence needs more money, the country can afford it, it just needs to stop subsidising the very rich (Bailouts, PFIs etc) and the very lazy (social security).

[Al R]

Bronx,

There is a difference between people with no mandate who target innocent men, women and children, and those involved with fighting them. I would rather spend effort grieving for the families of those who had no choice out there, rather than the families of the terrorists who might foster them.

[Modern Elmo]

If we change the way we do things so will they, perversely we could make ourselves more vulnerable.

... said Gen. Haig in 1916.

... On the morning of July 1, 1916, 110,000 British infantrymen went “over the top.” In a few hours, 60,000 of them were casualties. Nearly 20,000 of these were either dead already or would die of their wounds, many of them lingering for days between the trenches, in no man’s land. The attacking forces did not gain a single one of their objectives.

Even so, a staff colonel had the cheek to write: “The events of July 1st bore out the conclusions of the British higher command and amply justified the tactical methods employed.” ...


Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig: World War I’s Worst General HistoryNet (http://www.historynet.com/field-marshal-sir-douglas-haig-world-war-is-worst-general.htm)

[WhetandSven]

Hi all

I've hopped over from the Green side of things and would like an answer to a debate Ive been having over there.

Some have been contending that servicing of aircraft on ops has been regularly compromised in order to get aircraft turnaround faster. Although out of service (groundcrew, green skin) for 20 years I dispute this happens. Can someone give me an answer as to whether this happens and if I'm wrong I'll toddle back, apologise and wind my neck in.

Thanks in advance gents.

[Archimedes]

Those looking for the context behind W&S's above post might wish to look at this thread on the army means (http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=127982/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=160.html); about six or seven pages in.

[MaroonMan4]

Throughout the day I have read from and listened to politician after politician spin their way out of the 'are there enough helicopters for Afghanistan' question.

I still do not understand why the mobility (and therefore assistance to protection) afforded by helicopters for the troops on patrol appears to be such a hard concept to grasp - despite years of Northern Ireland and Balkans experience that (re) proved the concept in very recent times.

Surprise, random patrol routes and footprint, re-supply by air instantly to me highlight why helicopters afford the commanders on the ground the flexibility to choose their method of manoeuvre.

Although not wishing to sing my own aircraft's superb lift capability (in comparison to the usual suspects), but with sufficient numbers of CH47 we may not be able to conduct Air Manoeuvre, but routine Air Mobility yes and with sufficient numbers could assist patrols lift with medium armoured vehicles (which I think is the compromise that the Def Sec is looking for) to minimise the use of roads and tracks.

I await for CGS or CDS or CAS or even down to a tactical commander on the ground to go on Sky or BBC or interview in the media and say that the politicans are right and actually no more helicopters are required - now or in the future and that stopping the funding and 10 years of delaying decisions has been the right policy.

Again, I reiterate that helicopters are not the panacea but to brush them off as though there is enough of them and actually no more are required I find incredulous. The Merlin re-roling to theatre was always going to happen anyway, so please do not hide behind that as a magical 'look what we are doing now' as the MoD/political spin doctors used the Merlin rabbit out of the hat when the lack of helicopters in Afghanistan last hit the media/public spotlight.

As to the post on compromising technical flight safety for quick turn arounds - with a girlfriend and a responsibility to kids do you think that I would strap in to an aircraft that I knew or even thought had been rushed through a servicing?

The issue is that there are no 'spares' so if I did go u/s on start I cannot just strap into the fully prepped spare on the line, waiting to go.

So no - to my knowledge from a light blue perspective minor snags are carried (medium if there is life at the end of it), but there are no short cuts going in theatre, just the frustrations of not enough aircraft, let alone if I need the the imaginary 'spare'.

[Riskman]

From the Times on line today, re insufficient helicopters and troops in Afg;

Labour clashes with army as Afghan death toll mounts - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6689952.ece)

A Labour minister said: “General Dannatt has crossed an important line. He is playing a high-risk game.” David Crausby, a Labour member of the Commons defence committee, added: “It is not appropriate to play party politics at this time. Dannatt should just get on with the job. After the conflict, if there are lessons to be learnt, we should do so in a considered manner.”

Lesson number one might well be 'Listen to your CGS'.:ugh:

BTW what risk is a soon to be retired CGS taking?

R

[anita gofradump]

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has rejected claims UK troops in Afghanistan are ill-equipped, saying more helicopters could not remove risk.

BBC Report - Helicopters 'do not end war risk' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8146546.stm)

No, they do not end the risk but they don't half reduce the risk from IEDs and suicide attack.

I'd like to bet that we are witnessing the worst Secretary of State for Defence in a very, very long time. In a similar manner to Brown, he can't blame the guy who was in before him, as he was part of that very (broken) machine. Causby's quotes in Riskman's post simply emphasise how out of touch these idiots are when they publicly slur their own subject matter expert. :ugh:

I am growing very tired of listening to the pure **** that comes from his mouth, routinely. (Sorry about the use of the word '****' Mods, but there's no other way to describe it and apperently, it's ok now, some sciencey-blokes said so Keele University Research) (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Scientists-Find-Swearing-Helps-Us-Lessen-Pain-Keele-University-Research-Investigates-Bad-Language/Article/200907215336122?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Regio n_2&lid=ARTICLE_15336122_Scientists_Find_Swearing_Helps_Us_Lesse n_Pain:_Keele_University_Research_Investigates_Bad_Language)

[Sunfish]

I wonder how many helicopters could have been bought with all the money spent on dodgy Parliamentary expense account claims?

[kaikohe76]

I was under the impression that, both the Government of the day & the most senior Military Staff (CDS etc) had a `duty of care` to all the members of the Armed Forces. I would suggest, that by knowingly sending the Armed Forces into any active operational zone without the right & best equipment for the job, this `duty of care` has not been met.
Would there be a case therefore, for the familiy of any of our Service Personnel who have tragically lost their lives, where it was obvious that this loss of life was due to poor equipment, for example the use of under defended Land Rovers as against far more robust vehicles, to sue the Prime Minister, Defence Secretary & the Chief of the Defence Staff amongst others, as they had or not, totally failed in their `duty of care`.

[mystic_meg]

From today´s Torygraph: In response to the criticism over a lack of helicopters Mr Brown insisted that British forces “have almost twice as much helicopter capability as two years ago”.
Quite possibly a true statement, (although the words "truë" and "politician" seem alien together) - BUT: the real question surely is, was there enough SH two years ago? :ugh:

[Jackonicko]

And the answer is clear.

NO.

There was a 38% shorfall in lift, and an 87% shortfall in amphibious lift in 2004, and there has been no substantive increase since then, although the number of helicopters available/suitable for hot and high has increased, though I cannot work out how the claim of that capability having 'doubled' could possibly be justified.

[mystic_meg]

Jacko, I was thinking/writing specifically about the number of cabs in theatre, (whilst not knowing or wishing to disclose the actual number.)
So, our "beloved" PM can say - for example - 2 years ago we had "X" helicopters in theatre (acknowledged by all - except the politicos, of course,) to be a woefully inadequate number. Today, if we have (X times 2) minus 1 in theatre, (still a woefully inadequate number) then Gordo can issue such a facile statement with a straight face, as he is technically correct. :ugh: :ugh:

[cazatou]

I have just had a quick glance at the Parliament Channel on TV which was featuring Defence Questions.

I would estimate that only 10-15% of MP's were present and there was certainly no sign of the Prime Minister.

Did I not read somewhere recently that HM's Armed Forces were engaged in a shooting war and that there were severe doubts about the level of support the Armed Forces were receiving from HMG?:ugh: :=

[greycoat]

or as the recently serving Army junior officer, and recipient of the MC, pointed out on Radio 4, the lift may have increased but the numbers of military requiring that lift has nearly doubled in the same time period.

[Trance2]

Reading back through this thread it seems most here have come to the conclusion of where the fault for the lack of helicopter support lies.

Take note Jacko.

[airborne_artist]

I would estimate that only 10-15% of MP's were present and there was certainly no sign of the Prime Minister.


PM has got you there, I'm afraid - he was visiting the secret Oxon heli-base (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8148189.stm) today.

[CrabInCab]

I wonder if those Benson personnel were able to air their concerns or had to toe a party line?
:confused:
Any Benson pers at the visit like to comment?

[TheWizard]

I don't think too many wives and children frequent this site to make any comment:hmm:

[Sloppy Link]

Even if we get the helicopters, we need to do something about the pilot shortage or more importantly the constipation that is called the military flying training pipeline.

[airborne_artist]

I don't think too many wives and children frequent this site

And would they be voting for husbands/Dads to be away more, anyway?

[TheWizard]

PM has got you there, I'm afraid - he was visiting the secret Oxon heli-base (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8148189.stm) today.

To be fair, it doesn't say what time he visited said heli-base!:\
He could easily have been back in time for that Defence Questions.


Time for bed now:zzz:

[Epiphany]

Many viewers would have found it curious yesterday after reading the newspapers declaring that the military were woefully short of equipment and then watching an Army spokesman in Helmand (Lt Col) on lunchtime TV stating that the British Military DID have adequate equipment, both in number and quality to carry out the mission.

Was he simply towing the government line? The interviewer gave him plenty of opportunity to state otherwise.

Also I note that the US military contract civilian operators to fly routine tasks leaving military rotary free to fly combat missions. Is this not an option if the Britmil do not have adequate numbers of helicopters?

[Beatriz Fontana]

A new angle to the whole debate from this morning's Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5819832/MoD-budget-for-new-helicopters-falls-by-half-since-2001.html)...

[ORAC]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/7/14/1247560404737/iain-green--001.jpg

[Sgt.Slabber]

Twists that made Bob Ainsworth the least worst choice for the job - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6703566.ece)


“Bob is liked by the military,” a friend said. “They like his toughness. They like his occasional laddishness.”


Okay, own up. Which one of youse said he liked Bob?

Can this be true?

[kaikohe76]

If the CDS can't for whatever reason approach HM the Q directly, thus bypassing the present shower in power at Westminster, why can't the shadow Secretary for Defence undertake this task.
Surely under the present climate, the only way to improve the conditions under which our Armed Forces serve, is to go to the very top.

[sprucemoose]

Isn't there a great risk of a Vietnam-type future here? So let's get all the guys out of the expensive armoured vehicles that we've being buying in mass over the last couple of years and put them all in helicopters. What happens then? The Taliban will put all their efforts into shooting down our helicopters, that's what.
At least this whole argument is getting defence funding debated in the open at last - I don't expect any more funds will emerge though.

[Wader2]

Heard a Tory spokesperson (yesterday?) saying how some of our NATO allies were buying vehilces from South Africa. Now didn't the South Africans have a V-bottomed personnel carrier exactly because of road side bombs?

Indeed didn't we in the shape of the Saladin and Saracen? Just going out to check.

[Madbob]

http://uk.geocities.com/sadf_history2/c61.jpg

The Buffel uses a German Mercedes-Benz UNIMOG Model 416/162 series 4 × 4 chassis that was originally developed for a wide range of civil and military roles. It should be noted that production of this chassis was completed many years ago.The all-welded steel armour hull has a V-shape to provide maximum possible protection against anti-tank mines. According to ARMSCOR the Buffel provides the occupants with protection for the following anti-tank mines:Single Russian TM-57 anti-tank mine or equivalent detonated anywhere under the vehicleDouble Russian TM-57 anti-tank mine or equivalent detonated under any wheel station.When a mine explodes under a vehicle, the pressure wave and the flying steel do most of the damage according to ARMSCOR. This is why the Buffel was designed with a robust wedge shaped body that deflects the pressure wave and reduces the amount of energy transferred from the explosion to the vehicle.The effect of an explosion is also reduced in accordance with the distance or height of the target from the point of detonation.The rear troop compartment has an open top with the 10 infantrymen.


The South Africans made 2,400+ of these for their "little" bush war in Angola/Namibia - and they did it on their own.......:ok: Why can't we? It's got to be better than a snatch LR.:mad:

MB

[8-15fromOdium]

Back on the subject of the Helicopter shortage, does anyone know the reasons that we haven't taken part in the Boeing CHAPS programme detailed in this article:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/CHIN04036.xml

[baboon6]

Better than the Buffel was the Casspir, which the Force Protection Cougar is based on; the Cougar is used by the British Army as Mastiff (6x6) and Ridgback (4x4); so, indirectly, you do have some South African vehicles with v-shaped hulls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_(vehicle)

[Herc-u-lease]

It's not often i get the chance to watch the commons debates. two things struck me today:

the lack of politicians actually in the house.

the inability of Bob Ainsworth to pronounce the "aitch" in helicopter.

Bob's reply to Liam Fox was "any suggestions as to how the helicopter shortage would be addressed?"

Any suggestions? - answers on a postcard please

[MaroonMan4]

Some interesting posts, and as always we on this thread start mud slinging without offering a solution. I admit as I believed that that the CH47 line had a significant back log of orders that the options open to DEC ALM and JHC to make a difference within the next 18 months was extremely limited.

However, it is not about helicopters being the total solution but being a part of the solution and providing commanders on the ground the option to move their boots on the ground by air during a patrol or resupply should they wish to. Of course if helicopters become the only method of movement then the enemy will adapt and overcome, but it is the variation of means of manoeuvre that makes the difference - one patrol on foot, one patrol by vehicle, one patrol by helicopter and the numerous permutations in between that can see helciopters bounce foot patrols from grid to grid and if capable (i.e. CH47) can lift vehicle patrols around and add to surprise and mobility, which affords protection.

At the moment although helicopters are not the solution, there is not even the choice for the commander on the ground to routinely elect to manoeuvre his patrol using helicopter lift.

But with some political leverage, will and a true allocation of resources it appears that there may be a 'quick win' to the current and future helicopter shortage. We would have to accept what we have always known in crewrooms and that despite dreaming of Osprey or CH53s or some other platform in the very long winded procurement process that the future UK force mix will be AH, CH 47 and Merlin (with the side show of BRH to ensure that the Fisheads and AW kept a Lynx replacement on track and admittedly the really small one or 2 men moves that the Gazelle used to do that would see Merlin as an over kill).

So with that 'mind set' now over come it appears that there are Merlin availible (potentially more Danish models and the now defunct US EH101 Presendential version) and according to the CHAPS programme more CH47 (to add to our HC3 reversions when eventually they do arrive for tasking).

Theoretically with the correct political will the hardware could be purchased in sufficient numbers very quickly (a few months). This leaves the remainder of the 18-24 month 'UOR' window to train aircrew and engineers in a system that is already established but will just need expanding - and I am sure that if there was a true will that this can be delivered by 24/7 use of Benson Sims and relevant OCUs. Also, whilst the training was ongoing the hardware could be converted to UK specs - all of the technical hardwork and development cost has already been done in the conversion of the Danish Merlins and HC3s, so just use the same templates.

Where do the aircrew and engineers come from I hear you ask? Well again, a bold decision, with short term pain will see significant increase in gain. Stop the inter service willy waving and JHC make the decision - current Puma force to Merlin, Sea Kings to CH47 or split current Puma and Sea King force (one RN Sqn CH47 one RN Sqn Merlin) or just absorb both the Puma and Sea Kings into the current RAF Merlin and CH47 establishment.

As you know I detest the one airforce, one nation rubbish, but I do believe in best practice and if giving the Fisheads a true future amphibious capability also helps current ops then be so it (and may stop me having to go on the boat!) - but if JHC and the DEC believe that the Commando force should be absorbed into the current CH47/ Merlin establishment then again if that is the best practice then someone just make a decision and stop in fighting and get on with it - how long has everyone in the DEC, JHC and IPTs had to talk, discuss and 'navel gaze' about the options - stop the constant 'reviews' and just make a decision.

With a coherent and coordinated push and if we really are serious about increasing lift capability here and now as well as trying to put right some of the under resourcing for the future - Odiham, Benson and Yeovilton could all re-role and increase lift capability within 18-24 months if someone actually made a decision and put their money where their mouths were.

It will be interesting to see whether this is a load of political 'hot air' or if there is a real determination to right the wrongs of chronic under investment that is sadly having an effect on the frontline.

[Fortyodd2]

"coherent and coordinated"

What? From the current government?? :yuk: Your havin' a laugh mate!!

[sitigeltfel]

Liz Hunt gets stuck into the Deaf Sec in today's Telegraph...

He's supposed to defend our boys, not Brown - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/lizhunt/5828519/Hes-supposed-to-defend-our-boys-not-Brown.html)

Anyone who describes him as "NCO" material is gravely insulting the real NCO's.

[knocker88]

Its all very well buying loads of Chinooks but who will operate them? If im not mistaken the river is certainly dry at RAF Odiham. Unless they break open the emergency chinny crew box which robs Peter to pay Paul? Oh wait......that has already happened.....!!!!

What we could do is wait till the next bunch of brave lads pay the ultimate price and re hash the same argument again and again.

[Rob To Service]

Maroon Man, the US Presidential variant of the EH101 is completely unsuitable as a Support Helicopter. It was designed purely as a VVIP aircraft and has no ramp or cargo door.

[Al R]

Brown credibility and integrity called into question. Again.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | PM challenged in helicopter row (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8153129.stm)

Interesting too, because it'll be a chance to see how John Bercow handles his first media leak.

[chasbang]

Somebody should be asking the question as to why the MOD are going through an expensive excercise/review of upgrading RAF Puma HC to Makila 1A engines.
For the last 6 months PUMA 330s already modified, overhauled and zero timed in last 3 years, fitted with the powerful Makila 1A1 engines, Glass Cockpit, Sand Filters, wirestrike etc are available on the open market.These being ideally suited for Afghanistan.Up to twelve of these are available now.Adapted to service requirements under an urgency programme, there is no reason that at least six of these cannot be in service before the year end.

MOD procurment and IPT management executive were already aware of these last year.

These Helicopters are still available now, fully serviceable and doubltess can be obtained at a modest cost compared with what Eurocopter and its consortium are proposing under the present PUMA in service extension date review, a contract for which could be announced shortly? If so, at what cost and delay to our forces and the taxpayer.

[old-timer]

We need another Winston Churchill ! - I doubt we'd find one though.......


A modern day version of Winstons famous speech might read :

" we will fight them on the beaches within very restricted budegtry constraints "

Give the lads & lasses the kit they need for heavens sake, they deserve the whole nations complete backing including those at the top who control the purse strings.

[Guzlin Adnams]

Isn't the danger that if Brown does decide to provide more helicopters because it's deemed politically expedient to do so (as that's how he works :yuk:) what would have to be cut to pay for it? Sure as hell is a bit on the warm side, he won't come up with the extra cash.

[AHQHI656SQN]

All the talk is about buying more helicopters, great. The accute shortages of machines are there for all to see, if we do buy more how are the aircrew going to be trained to fill the seats to crew the machines?
The training system is max'd out training the numbers we need for the current fleet and coping with the steady stream of fokkered crews walking into the civil market.
The fleet of AH is training as many as it possibly can and we have fewer pilots at front line now, than we did two years ago! :ugh:
I dare say that other aircraft types are in a similar position.

[Jackonicko]

They are claiming an increase of 60% - what does this mean?

Channel 4 TV news just interpreted it as meaning as a 60% increase in overall helicopter numbers?

That can't be right.

Is it a 60% increase in the number of helicopters in Afghanistan itself?

That would seem at least possible.

Air Commodore Simon Falla (described as Chief of Staff, JHC) says we have enough to do key tasks, and that we can 'surge', and that we plan to do more.....

He declined to give a number of helicopters 'in theatre' but did give the snippet that it represented "25% of the useable total."

I'm starting to get a bit impatient with the lack of openness on numbers. I have every sympathy with legitimate military security, but I fail to see why the overall number of aircraft deployed should NECESSARILY be secret, and start to suspect that the reticence on this is more to do with preventing political embarrassment than with airing information that would be of any aid or comfort to the enemy.

Falla seemed to confirm this when he remarked that giving an accurate number would "leave us a hostage to fortune" - it being clear that he was referring to the media impact - and not to a security concern.

Following the Wildcat ceremony at Yeovil, I asked Quentin Davies about what the Government were going to do to address the shortfall in helicopter lift identified by the NAO. He listed the return to service of the eight Chinook HC3s, the acquisition of the six Danish Merlins, and the 12-Lynx UOR, and stated that this was all that was necessary, dismissing my concern that this (while a start) fell far short of addressing the 38% shortfall in battlefield lift and the 67% shortfall in amphibious lift). He dismissed my contention that there was any immediate need for a Puma/Sea King replacement.

If these clots can't see, or won't admit the underlying problem, then how can we expect a mature and intelligent debate about what is, in effect, a sub-set of that problem? (Since the shortfall in helicopters in Afghanistan must be a function of the overall shortfall......)

[northseaguy]

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | UK troops 'need more helicopters' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8153129.stm)

hmmmm....the Commons Defence Select commitee stating "the government should buy new craft, rather than revamping old ones".

I wont hold my breath!

[ORAC]

Torygraph: Shortage of helicopters undermining 'protection' of troops in Afghanistan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5841804/Shortage-of-helicopters-undermining-protection-of-troops-in-Afghanistan.html)

A shortage of helicopters is undermining the "protection" of British troops in Afghanistan, a group of MPs has warned.

The Commons Defence Select Committee also said that key battlefield operations were being inhibited due to a lack of air transport. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) must increase the number of helicopters and train more crew, the MPs argued.

The criticisms came in a specially-produced report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdfence/434/434.pdf), amid a row over military equipment sparked by the deaths of 15 UK service personnel in Afghanistan in just 10 days...........

.....committee chairman James Arbuthnot said: "It seems to us that operational commanders in the field today are unable to undertake potentially valuable operations because of the lack of helicopters for transportation around the theatre of operations. We are also concerned that operational commanders find they have to use ground transport, when helicopter lift would be preferred, both for the outcome and for the protection of our forces."

The committee said improved maintenance and support structures had been "paying dividends" in terms of the available flying hours for helicopters such as the Chinook in theatre. But it added: "Nevertheless, helicopter capability is being seriously undermined by the shortage of helicopters, particularly medium-lift support helicopters, capable of being deployed in support of operations overseas. We believe that the size of the fleet is an issue, and are convinced that the lack of helicopters is having adverse consequences for operations today and, in the longer term, will severely impede the ability of the UK Armed Forces to deploy."

The MoD's plan to bridge the "capability deficit" by patching up "ageing" Sea Kings and Pumas before the introduction of a new generation of helicopters was "not the best option, either operationally or in terms of the use of public money". "Only a procurement of new helicopters can meet the original objective of reducing the number of types of helicopter in service within the UK Armed Forces," the MPs insisted.

Referring to concerns about the military's ability to protect troops and undertake key operations with current helicopter availability, the MPs said: "We are troubled by the forecast reduction in numbers of medium and heavy lift battlefield helicopters, which will make this worse."

The committee warned that the intensity of the campaign in Afghanistan had "stretched the manning of the helicopter fleet". "It is therefore unfeasible to surge helicopters into theatre," it added.

There were also worries that crews were training in aircraft which did not have the same equipment as those in the combat zone. "It is unacceptable for personnel to encounter new equipment for the first time in theatre," the report said.

Later today there will be a full-scale Commons debate which will give MPs a fresh chance to air their misgivings......

Session 2008-09, 16 July 2009 -Publication of Report: Helicopter capability (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdfence/434/434.pdf)

[andyy]

If we accept the fact that the UK Govt are not likely to buy any more helos, and even if they did, the lead time for getting them in service and training sufficient maintenance and aircrew would be significant, how do we provide more (suitable) helos to the front line? The UK is reported to have c500 helos but I assume that includes a significant number that are in storage or deep maintenance. Are there lower priority tasks which could be set aside (or contractorised) in order to divert existing aircraft & crews to 'stan?

Also, are there a reasonable number of recently retired (PVR) aircrew and maintainers who could be compulsory recalled to back fill?

[Madbob]

The real trouble for Gawdon is that, like on many other things, his credability with the public is now totally blown by spin and nobody believes a word he says.

He pledges that the govenment will "listen and learn" but his Tx button is stuck and he plainly cannot Receive.......

When a military commander is denied the option of making a manoevre by air because of the unavailability of suitable helicopters and is forced into doing so on the ground (perhaps also with unsuitable vehicles i.e. snatch LR) against his own judgement and soldiers die, then, ipso facto, lives could be ( or already have been) lost bacause of a direct consequence of the lack of helos.

All he needs to do his heed the advice of his military advisers who've been saying so for months if not years. :ugh:

Mark my words ... he'll regret his spin at the polls in less than 12 months' time....

MB

[ORAC]

Afghanistan: James Arbuthnot bombards Gordon Brown (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100003564/afghanistan-james-arbuthnot-bombards-gordon-brown/)

James Arbuthnot, the Tory chairman of the Defence Committee, has Gordon Brown pinned down under heavy fire over the Government’s backing for the Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

Mr Arbuthnot is hardly the flashiest of Commons performers. Lugubrious is the word most frequently attached to him. But he knows the subject and his deliberative approach is ideal for the committee room. Today’s session of the Liaison Committee was an excellent illustration.

Quizzing Mr Brown on Afghanistan, Mr Arbuthnot asked whether the PM would admit that he rejected a request from the Chief of the Defence Staff to send another 2,000 troops to Afghanistan? (It’s hardly a secret: we’ve been reporting it since April.)

But would Mr Brown admit it? Here’s his answer:

“We discussed, both in Committee and together, a number of options and we decided on the mission we are now engaged in.”

That’s a “yes” then. Not that Mr Brown would say so. Pressed to be explicit about the 2,000-soldier request, all he would say is: “A variety of options were discussed.”

The obfuscation was too much even for Mr Arbuthnot. It wouldn’t be fair to say he snapped, but his words to Mr Brown were damning: “There are two ways you deal with select committees. You can answer the questions or you can appear not to answer the questions.”

Most people watching the exchange will be clear which of those two approaches Mr Brown prefers.

[chopper2004]

Video: British Army chief forced to use US helicopter in Afghanistan - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6714777.ece)

The head of the Army was accused of playing politics after he flew around Afghanistan in an American helicopter and demanded more equipment for British troops.
General Sir Richard Dannatt made clear that he would have flown in a British helicopter if one had been available and called for greater urgency over the supply of new equipment.
Hours later David Cameron confronted Gordon Brown in the Commons about the provision of helicopters. In furious exchanges, Mr Brown was forced to reject accusations that the shortage of RAF Chinook or Sea King helicopters had contributed to soldiers’ deaths.
General Dannatt, who retires on August 28 as Chief of the General Staff, travelled by Black Hawk helicopter to visit troops in Sangin. Operation Panther’s Claw has claimed 17 British lives, and troops taking part have been ferried by American helicopters.
Related Links



Army had to use a US Black Hawk to transport Dannatt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6715513.ece)
'Helmand forces are ill-equipped to succeed' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6715524.ece)
The Light Brigade is back for a one-off tour of duty (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6715447.ece)

Multimedia


Pictures: Bodies of eight British soldiers arrive home (javascript:;)
Graphic: helicopters in the British forces (http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/choppers.pdf)


When asked why he flew in a Black Hawk General Dannatt replied: “Self-evidently . . . if I moved in an American helicopter it’s because I haven’t got a British helicopter.”
He said that Britain and America shared assets in Helmand. “But we’ve got to put as much into the pool as we need to take out of it,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme: “I would like to get more energy behind it if we possibly can.”
Labour seized on his remarks as a deliberate political comment on the shortage of British helicopters in Afghanistan. One senior Labour MP said: “The Army has a proud record of keeping out of party politics and the Chief of the General Staff should be very careful about his interventions.” A junior minister went farther, accusing General Dannatt of “playing politics” and saying: “This is a very difficult time and he should know better.”
Ministers fear that General Dannatt will launch an all-out attack on government policy when he retires as head of the Army next month. As a senior civil servant leaving a sensitive post he will receive a formal reminder of the rules limiting what he can disclose.
Downing Street said that the Prime Minister had “full confidence” in General Dannatt. Asked whether his remarks were “purely military”, Mr Brown’s spokesman said: “Yes.”
Ministers, however, made clear that they were angry that General Dannatt briefed Tory MPs about the request — rejected by Mr Brown — for an additional 2,000 troops for Afghanistan.
Earlier, Mr Cameron confronted Mr Brown during Prime Minister’s Questions. He said: “Isn’t the reason why we don’t have enough helicopters that we didn’t plan to have enough helicopters? When [Mr Brown] looks back to 2004 and his decision to reduce the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion, does he remember that the National Audit Office said that year there was a considerable deficit in the availability of helicopter lift? Does he now recognise that decision was a bad mistake?”
The Prime Minister replied: “I believe we are making the provision that is necessary both for helicopters and equipment on the ground. We will do everything we can . . . to support our brave and courageous Armed Forces, who are professional and determined and will have our full support.”
He said that the number of helicopters had risen by 60 per cent in the past two years. He added: “I ask the Conservative Party to look at the statements being made by those who speak for our Armed Forces on the ground. They have made it absolutely clear that in this particular instance, while the loss of life is tragic and sad, it is not to do with helicopters.”

Here is my analysis:

At a rough guess, how many exchange pilots that went to sunny Rucker, over the years have got H-60 stick time? 10, 15 ,20 in the Corps? I am hoping not counting the ones retired and ETPS staff nor RAF SHF

Where I am leading up to is what if the DoD loaned us x amount of Blackhawks say a squadron's worth, trained up the aircrewman and its good if there are 15-20 pilots already have flown the H-60 while on exchange. Or put it under RAF markings, obviously under the JHC umbrella with mixed crews than fingers crossed the numbers may (thats a big may).

Then there is the training of the ground crew to consider (this was raised in 1994/1995 when during ops in Bosnia, the US Army offered to loan A model Apaches as there was sufficient aircrew already trained on exchange but the ground support for the aircraft were not equipped or trained to handle the AH-64A)

[onthebumline]

from the defence committee report by afm


......"We take the training requirement very seriously and do not want our men and women to go out to Afghanistan and run any risk at all because they are suddenly confronted with something on which they have not already been properly trained. It is an absolute principle that before we send anybody out to a war zone they are given the best possible training on exactly the kit they will use in theatre......."

What a load of complete :mad:ocks.

[hulahoop7]

"He pledges that the govenment will "listen and learn" but his Tx button is stuck and he plainly cannot Receive......."

I disagree, Brown is actually very weak. He's has caved in on a number of issues in the last few months. Ghurkas, Post Office, ID Cards to name a few. If this pressure can be maintained I'd expect an order for Merlins in the next week or so. Particularly as the MOD was already looking to buy new rather than keep the Pumas going. Bin the Pumas and start training their crews etc on Merlins. Push the levels of availability up on Merlins by turning on the spares tap.

[spindrier]

Merlins! Just what we need, another Labour procurement wonder (read expensive dead duck).
Buy CH47 and reap the long term benefit.

[ShyTorque]

We were talking about replacing the Puma with Blackhawks in the early 1980s. Rolls Royce even modified the RTM 322 to fit and first flew it in 1986. After over 25 years I think the replacement now a little overdue.

[dazdaz]

Just thought.....In WWII we never had helicopters, paras/soldiers were dropped from a/c. Having said that, and after viewing CNN/BBC news footage (I might have missed something) but I've not seen any tanks?

The (possibly edited) clips I've viewed are soldiers firing 'one to one' against the Taliban. Where are the tanks? Surely they are still used to attack enemy lines (on open ground) before the soldiers advancement.

[MarkD]

given the way the polls are going and the casualty count in dead as well as physical and mental injuries is rising, the Canadian public is going to want boots off the ground from Q1 2011 - but maybe the shiny new CH-147s could stay if HM had a conversation with her respective PMs...

Photo Archive | Image Gallery | National Defence and the Canadian Forces (http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/potd/photos-eng.asp?id=170)

[althenick]

As a matter of interest, If the govt were to extract their collective thumbs from their colective A*ses and realise that a servicemans life is worth more than the support of British industry then what would be (a) available immediately and (b) cost effective?

[Evalu8ter]

Mark D, those CH-147s are not "shiney new" but very "second hand". Your "shiney new" CH47s are not even on contract yet....

Yes, the UK has c500 helicopters. But, in typical Nu Labour spin, this includes all the gazelles (useless in Afg), Pingers and SAR birds (ditto). The SH/CHF force is a fraction of that total (c 100 RAF SH & 30 CHF). Naturally, of those helicopters a significant number are in depth maintenance, and others are required for UK training. The 500 might even include all of the SK6 in storage.

Wrong to blame Labour for the Merlin, very much a last Tory government mistake, where the military advice for an all CH47 buy was ignored to play politics.

And as for junior ministers calling the CGS a "****", well, it kind of sums up the whole control freak mentality of this government doesn't it?

Nothing will be done, save, perhaps, a "scorched earth" act of sending more cabs prior to the election (and therefore destroying the long term health of the fleets). No new ac will be bought; it would be a tacit admission that Labour (and senior officers) were wrong to take £1.5Bn out of SABR, it would also prove that UK forces have not "had everything they've asked for" and, most importantly, no new assets would be in place before the election. Brace yourselves for more rounds of spin/smoke/mirrors using meaningless stats.....

[NURSE]

Ah the Merlin bashing starts again. Interesting it did such a sterling job in Iraq and Bosnia. But yet again the sulking about more chinooks raises its head There was more chinooks ordered remember the HC3!
Anyway where are you going to get your "New Chinooks from? I think Beoing helecopters are a bit busy at the moment with the CH47F programme so much so the Italians are getting to sort out their own. Even if we can get airframes we stand to create another fleet within the CH47 force.
The Puma/Sea King definitly need replacing and Chinook really can't be made a maritime Helecopter. Maybe the solution would be to order a version of the Merlin like the Italian Navy already have with all the folding bits for the CHF with the same engines and kit as the UK fleet and field it and flog the Seaking HC4's to death in the short term whilst they are being built?
RAF has Sea King Current pilots and instructors who could convert Puma Pilots/crews and there are loads of redundant HAS6 airframes that could be used for training in the short term.
As to a Puma replacement Aw159 or NH90?

[NURSE]

Just had a look at the Timesonline graphic on UK helecopter force were'nt the chinooks pulled out of the Falklands a few years ago?

[Snaga II]

DazDaz - I think you're looking at overkill here - a Challenger MBT versus Mahommad with his AK47. In order for the MBT to operate it would need to be accompanied by the Titan armoured bridge layer, because your MBT is gonna be too heavy for the local bridges, the Trojan, a combat engineering vehicle, the CRARRV, the Challenger armoured repair and recovery vehicle because they do get bogged down, break down and have even suffered damage by IED's. That all adds up to a very expensive exercise and before you rush to say that " our lads " are worth the cost consider why the Tories are offering tax cuts in order to get back into " power " - because no one wants to dip their hands in their pockets to pay for it all.

[MaroonMan4]

Let us just remember that DEC ALM, IPT, JHC and everyone involved with rotary wing procurement has spent the last 10-15 years 'scoping' and 'reviewing' and conceptualising what the UK's future Battlefield Helicopter force should look like and also what aircraft type.

The moment we start looking at other solutions than those that already have a logisitics, training and support system in place will mean even more of a delay and even more meetings, discussions, industry work shops etc etc.

The hardware is not the issue, and there are CH47s and Merlin out there, modification is not the issue, as the template is already in place. Logistics and spares should not be the issue as if the 'tap' is turned on now, by time this transition takes place the production lines would have spun up.

The key issue is the training (of aircrew and engineers), with what I see as the only 'quick win' solution being the initial procurement through the US Foreign Military Sales, with a graduated handover by Boeing to AW under licence (as per WAH 64) once 'steady state' is approached (ultimately a win all round for both defence and industry). Experienced UK aircrew (not ab-initios) and engineers roll through the training system in the states, and conduct a differences/CR package on return. In parallel, Benson commits resources to increasing its training pipeline in anticipation of the delivery of more Merlins. One could argue that the Merlins should delay their much advertised deployment in order to increase the training fleet for the (suggested mothballing) Puma force, allowing the Commando Sea Kings to do the best they can an in the interim to make the transition as seamless as possible (and if quick in a decision, at least the Sea Kings will have the initial advantage of winter temperatures in theatre, and the much advertised Lynx GTI will be able to assist).

When the Puma force is re-roled, then there should be the capacity to either roll CHF crews through the pipeline or knock CHF on the head and absorb it into the RAF Merlin/CH47 system - and as is known I personally do not want to go on the O Boat anymore so hope that the UK retains some rotary maritime expertise, but it may prove best practice just to absorb it. Yeovilton, Odiham and Benson are all so close, with a cutting edge simulator complex at Benson, means that retaining the current locations remains viable (it is just the big decision on what aircraft type (s) is CHF going to replace its tired Sea Kings?)

And that is the question for JHC - if you delay and prevaricate much longer you will add to the debacle, if you can make a timely decision and know what kind of a Battlefield Helicopter force will best deliver effect for the troops on the ground, then there is every possibility that this chronic situation can be turned around in as little as 24 months.

[Ian Corrigible]

UK to Spend £6 Billion on New Helicopters (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/106845/uk-to-spend-%C2%A36-billion-on-new-helicopters%2C-puma-and-chinook-fleet-upgrades.html), or so the spin doctors claim.

£140 million just to re-engine 22 Lynx? No wonder you're short of lift.

I/C

[spheroid]

we are now spending around £140M putting more powerful T800 engines into 22 Lynx Mk9 helicopters

£140m divided by 44 is just over £3,000,000 per engine.

Me thinks someone is being ripped off.

[Yeoman_dai]

Jacko, are you Lewis Page or someone?

It would explain the constant anti-RN tone of everything you write.

Retarded is right...

[NURSE]

MaroonMan Agree with in the near term keeping on types currently in service By using Seaking HC4 in Afghanistan and replacing them with Merlins like the Italian Navy Amphibious assualt there by retaining the capicity to deploy of Ocean. But Using SK crews from the RAF & RN and converting puma crews to SK and using reserve HAS6 airframes as training aircraft. But in the longer term isn't there a need for a helicopter falling between Lynx & Merlin?
As to liscencing AW to build for UK forces more Chinooks which model would they build? would we be looking at introducing the F at this time? creating a fleet within a fleet? or would we be looking at a rolling programe of upgrading our chinooks to F standard?

[spheroid]

If we need Helicopters purely for transporting people around then surely these are ideal...?

http://www.guncopter.com/images/mi-8-landings.jpg

[NURSE]

I think they worked so well last time they were deployed on a large scale basis in Afghanistan.

[Yeoman_dai]

Aircraft between Lynx and Merlin? Easy, NH90, I believe already used by other nations who are very happy with it?

[MaroonMan4]

In that case then, if the Puma LEP is going ahead (as per IC's post 159 above) and the Puma force is going to rise like a Phoenix with an improved capability, then lets get the ball rolling with the Commando Sea King aircrew and engineers. As soon as the Merlin arrive in theatre, then thin out the (majority of the) Sea King and start the process as soon as possible and start pushing the Sea King air and groundcrew through any spare capacity in the UK/CH47 training pipeline, and if no spare capacity off to the states. Depending on the proposed JHC structures, either Commando Sea King crews could go through both Merlin (it will get a deck clearance one day!) and CH47 (survived this long without folding blades!) training, or the 'spare' Puma crews could remain at Benson and take up any spare capacity with the Merlin training system (depending on how much of a draw down of Puma experience during the LEP was required/permitted) and the Sea King crews could focus on CH47. In extremis, the entire conversion of experienced Sea King crews could be conducted in the states, with a bespoke UK differences and CR course back at Odiham before returning to Yeovilton, which should see less of a burden on the already strained resources at Odiham. Again we return to what kind of force structure does JHC want in the future?

Concurrently the hardware is procured and modified, and as an added benefit trained crews are already in place for the 8 HC3s when (eventually) they do come on line.

If a decision was made today, I personally believe that the ground forces would potentially start to see an increase in lift in 18-24 months, notably through more CH47s (re-modified HC3s and those procured through CHAPS/FMS). This is further increased when the Puma LEP aircraft roll off the line.

Puma first for re-rolling, or Sea Kings - it really does not matter as long as we see an increase in lift as quickly as possible to enable support to the ground forces. If the Puma LEP is confirmed, then naturally Sea King should be first off the block (and yes, it is a race with a very real operational requirement) If there is a political will, and the DECs/IPTs have clear airspace (unhindered by civil serpents) then there is a real opportunity to sort this shortage out.

As a by product of sorting the chronic shortage for today's war, a JHC that has CH47s, Merlins, Post LEP Pumas (and a smattering of BRH), with the security of AH will be a potent force for the future.

A quick read of the posts above - although NH/MRH 90 sounds lovely, just ask the Aussies or the Swedes what they think (especially with technical/development project risk, delivery times and spares supply) - as to Robenexport/Mil or the AW139, maybe a great aircraft (I have not flown it) - but regardless of any of these suggestions if we are going to be able to deliver a sustainable increase in lift within 18-24 months, whilst simultaneously ensuring a weather eye on future operations and capability requirements once (if!?) AFG finishes, then I genuinely believe that we have to look at expanding the systems that we already have in place, rather than designing new ones - hence why I accept Merlin and Puma (Post LEP) as part of the solution alongside CH47 as they already have a training system/logistics/TLS in place.

As to which Mk of CH47 - initially it should not matter (especially if the Commando Sea Kings re-role to CH47s and remain at Yeovilton, as beggars cannot be choosers and any CH47 will do - but this is where a review of future CH47 Mid Life Upgrade which is just around the corner will be the peg in the sand to ensure that all CH47s go to standard fit. This should not be a show stopper as look at the fleets within fleets we have now - all awaiting the standardisation of the MLU. When we look at the work done with the HC3s, that surely must be the worst case scenario/experience of modifying aircraft, and anything we manage to procure will be an easier process, with the corporate experience in place when that airframe goes through its MLU?

[NURSE]

The thing is Maroon Man the CH47C is no longer in production and if we want more airframes we will either have to buy second hand with all that entails or bite the bullet and start to upgrade to CH47F which in my humble opinion is what we should have done with the HC3 airframes as the first tranche of Chinook HC4.
With your Idea of the CHF going to Chinook are we going to have less airframes per sqn like the Harrier force? Personally the the Puma MLU should be binned along with the Puma and the Future Helecopter Programme be brought forward with in the short term SK HC4 being replaced with Merlin's like the Italian navy's Amphibious assualt. And the Puma "Replaced" with the SK HC4's. And in the longer term a new airframe.
If the SK 4 is being chopped how will that impact on the rest of the SK fleet? And with the other SK fleets in service the pool of SK trained ground & Aircrew is already in existance same goes for Merlin.

[MaroonMan4]

Nurse,

I am not a Sea King expert and you do make some valid points (especially regarding the HC3 where I wholeheartedly agree, and the only solace is that when we go through the CH47 MLU that all of the costs and experience would have been gained from this debacle of a procurement). I assume (only through the open press) that the Puma LEP is a given and a non reversible.

This decision alone changes the dynamic, as I too would agree that the Puma force should be binned, but I do see the requirement for an aircraft that has a footprint/disc less than a CH47/Merlin, and as the Puma system is in place I can see why DEC ALM/JHC decided to continue with this plan.

Therefore we are left with the Fisheads to sort out as they (without LEP) are really hurting and need something that makes them more capable (such a waste of a superb bunch of aircrew and groundcrews, that actually deliver (on the whole ;) ) not a lot through no fault of their own. They also potentially provide a source of aircrew and engineers that can be potentially pushed through the system the quickest, especially when Merlin arrives in theatre and instantly doubles (probably triples?) what a Sea King can lift.

As to whether CHF re-role as Merlin or CH47, that is very much a decision for DEC ALM/JHC (and boy have they had long enough (10-15 years!) to think about this!). Do they go down your plan of Merlin in amphibious role, or down a CH47 route, or do they have one squadron of each at Yeovilton, or does CHF take a bow and they absorb into Benson/Odiham as an amphib squadron (one Fishead squadron per aircraft type and the CHF staff officers absorbed into the relevant SHF HQ). Regardless, in answer to your question the reduction in airframes/squadron numbers cannot be allowed to happen (as per Joint Force Harrier) otherwise we have facilitated a low cost smoke and mirrors that only appeases H M Treasury and the Prime Minister's spin doctors. So 28 would sit along side 845 and 18/27 would sit alongside 846 (for exampe), with the Commando training squadron being the only sacrifice with an enlarged Merlin/CH47 OCU made up of the QHI/QHCIs (or whatever the RN call them) from 848.

I hasten to add that I am all for keeping CHF, and in the ideal world letting them have a force mix of CH47 and Merlin as that would truly make them an organic amphibious force, that not only prevents me from going to sea, but also falls into the operations plot like 3 Cdo Bde, so at some stage Odiham does (hopefully) get a break.

The only reason why I could possibly see CHF and Fishead squadrons having to re-locate to Benson or Odiham would be to appease the logisticians/fleet managers as there appears to be a a belief that operational capability is not sacrificed by fleet nodes (as seen by all of the AH to Wattisham, CH47 at Odiham and green Merlin at Benson). I do disagree, and as the AH found when moving from Dishforth and losing their Lynx/training areas there is every chance that trying to appease the logisticians by simply putting all aircraft types on one station would actually reduce operational capability.

In answer to the CH47 - the answer is yes, of course F - and it really is amazing that countries like Canada and Australia have been on the ball as to the requirement and funding, and yet here we are with our pants down. Hopefully our HC4 MLU will get us in the ball park of the F. But, if there really are no F models out there any CH47 will surely be better than the 'mighty' Sea King, and as long as downstream it is standardised during the HC4 MLU, then there is an interim fleets within fleets. Bottom line, ask a Sea King driver if he would prefer an older non-standard CH47 or his current aircraft, and once the loyalty and nostalgia and history was put to one side, for doing the job he/she would say CH47 I am sure.

But as I have indicated, where there is a (political) will there is a (DEC ALM/IPT) way and I believe that given the 'special relationship', operational requirement and Mr Boeing just loving to have his product on operations for marketing purposes, that there is every possibility that all is not lost if UK MoD really did want to acquire more CH47F in a very short time frame. It may cost extra or we may owe another nation a 'favour' but I believe that it is genuinely possible and to me is the true test of whether H M Govt/MoD are taking this seriously or just hoping that it will be lost in the long grass when the media finds something else that grabs a headline.

If the Commando Sea King fleet is rapidly re-roled to either/or both Merlin/CH47 on arrival of the current established Merlins in theatre, then a combination of the SAR and SKASaCs will be able to form a training pipeline. With the Commando Sea Kings gone there are only a few Sea Kings that require a training pipeline. Worst case use the ex green painted ex ASW airframes (Mk6?) and take a few of the 848 squadron QHIs for the basic conversion down at Culdrose, colocated with either the SAR or SKASaCs squadron. That should keep the Fishead basic Sea King training pipeline going, with a differences and CR course when on type.

[NURSE]

Maroon Man
For the FAA Merlin is the best option they have it in service alread and have the crews and infrastructure to support it with the ASW/ASV fleet It could also take on the AEW role as the Italians have also done. The draw back with the current HC3 Merlin fleet is how ship compatable is it? in its current form can the Merlin HC3 be maintained on Ocean and Ark Royal without modifying the airframe?
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/darrenpyper/cavour-aviator-f27.jpg

wouldn't something like that be a better option for the Navy?

I agree there is a need for Chinook support to CHF and the current arrangement appears to work. Or if more airframes were available IE in a new buy situation then the formation of a dedicated squadron would be a good option.

The SAR sea kings will cease to be a problem when SAR is privatised.

[spheroid]

If the Commando Sea King fleet is rapidly re-roled to either/or both Merlin/CH47 on arrival of the current established Merlins in theatre, then a combination of the SAR and SKASaCs will be able to form a training pipeline

The trouble with that of course is that the SAR and ASaC pipeline is currently toppers with both Squadrons spinning plates trying to train and regenerate crews in Afghanistan..... If you want that plan to work then you need to withdraw the Bags from Afghan and thats not going to happen.

[NURSE]

with more sea king HC4's in A'Stan wouldn't that help ease the pressure on the ASaC maintainers?

[MaroonMan4]

Nurse,

I am with you, but although you and I wax lyrical and attempt to balance some of the doom mongerers on this thread by offering possible solutions, we all must recognise that we are just 'shooting the breeze' and ultimately this is a MoD/DEC ALM and JHC HQ decision.

If there really is a requirement, and there really is a political will (read funding) then we all know that at the squadron level we can make it work - whether it is your amphibious Merlin idea, or my Chinook idea or a combination of the 2.

One thing I am pretty sure about, and that is whatever you and I discuss on this blog, has already been discussed and placed in context in town and Wilton.

If the politicians really have put the funding back into helicopters, then the ball is very much back in DEC ALM's and JHC HQ's court to make a decision.

This I fear is where we could lose vital time as single service 'protectionism' as those in the DECs/JHC revert to their service politics.

This is where good leadership will cut through this staff officer single service mentality for a true best practice/combat effect/operational capability-however painful it may be for an individual service/fleet in order to achieve the greater good.

If not - and all we have done is a media frenzy exercise and in one month nothing has happened and only confirmation of the Puma LEP is the only quantifiable increase in lift capability, then I am sad as we will still have removed the option of helicopter lift to the commander on the ground and thereby forcing his hand to go by land.

Spheroid - still not a show stopper, very simple - when JHC and Navy Command do the maths, they will work out what the RN Sea King training requirement is and divide 848 up accordingly (personally, for all of the increase in tactical lift capability, the loss (or reduction) of one RN training squadron appears a sound discussion point?). If it means that a few of the younger Sea King HC4s become conversion trainers for the SAR/SKASaCs then so be it. Any resources (air/ground crew) that are left once Navy Command has filled its projected training requirement can be re-allocated/alloted to either Merlin or CH47 OCU. Same principle applies, just colocate the necessary 848 aircraft and personnel at Culdrose to satisfy the RN Sea King trg requirement. Lets be honest,from a pure Sea King training perspective Culdrose is where the RN Sea King simulator and ground school is any way

[the funky munky]

If only our lords and masters hadn't cut SABR! FRC was the worst thing to happen to the Rotary wing world over the last 10 years. Cutting the budget from £4.5 Bn to £3 Bn put us back to square 1 thus we have had to LEP the aged Sea King and knackered/dangerous Puma.
The only reason we are in this mess is because the budgets have been squeezed, the original thought was to lease new aircraft but guess what its unaffordable so LEP came along.
One thing that does jar though, you are all discussing giving CHF Chinook, it can't be folded and struck down in the hanger of CVS/CVF or Ocean. It is just not suited to the littoral environment or are you assuming CHF will always play in the sandpit?. SABR heavy was going to be CH53 which is fully folding and is perfect, just ask the USMC.:)

Perfectly agree we should have a version of the 101 MMI but where are you gonna find £1 Bn to buy replace Sk4? And then a further £2 Bn for the rest of FMH?

Face facts the MoD is broke. Treasury are making us pay for UORs out of our own budgets so the spiral is becoming more vicious. Therefore either we extend what we have or take them out of theatre all together.

[MaroonMan4]

Funky Munky,

If we are broke, then lets re-align our expectations. If you are broke, do you go out on the town? Equally, if we are that broke then the politicians shouldn't be asking us to 'go out on the town'.

Their choice, they want the tactical success.

[jim2673]

LX3/8 is going to be replaced with SCMR (Wildcat).
How about we pull all Merlin MK1 from the ass end of the T23.
Replace T23 flights with LX3/8 as applicable and let them run the Lynx fleet down.
Fish head ship tours will be heavily constained by lack of funding....Real world events in AFG....lots of diembarked LX Flights
Take a dozen or so Merlin Mk1 and convert to Merlin MK1C for theatre.....How difficult is it to remove and/or disable the whale hunter/radar.
Not an ideal solution but a possible one none the less in advance of a order for CH47/NH90/Merlin Mk 4/AW139 ETC
LX7 is shagged in theatre until LX9A with T800 is cleared.

OR

Urinate into wind.

[NURSE]

Unfortunatley Jim2673 the Merlin Mk1 & Lynx 8's are also busy looking for pirates and smugglers in various parts of the world.

The RN Merlin also isn't fitted with the Ramp or has anywhere near the carrying capicity of the HC3 when its in the "Utility" role unlike the Italian Navy Transport/Assualt version.

[Modern Elmo]

SABR heavy was going to be CH53 which is fully folding and is perfect, just ask the USMC.

No, they're not. The H-53's the USMC currently has are rattletraps.

Furthermore, The tandem rotor or coaxial main rotor design is better than single main rotor and tail rotor for the heavier lift/transport role.

Instead of building H-53K's, the DoD should be requesting wider, upgraded Chinooks, with Navy, powered folding rotor versions of same available.

I am diplomatically avoiding any comments on the hover payload fraction of the British Merlin.


... Several of the previous posts err in assuming that:

(a) Any helo in operation now will be desirable fifteen or so years from now;

(b) Fifteen or so years from now has much relevance to operations in Afghanland NOW. At times, the future is now.

[Jolly Green]

The US Marine Corps CH-53E (3 engine, 1980's procurement) fleet does have folding heads and tails. The CH-53D fleet (2-engine, 1960's buy) was designed with it, but may have been modified to the non-folding rotor head. The 53 is designed to operate off of a ship.

The the CH-47 was never designed to fold. The US Army has figured out how to make it fit best on a ship, but fold and spread is a manual operation requiring a lot of time and a huge deck footprint. I don't see any navy buying them, ever.

[HectorusRex]

Helicopter fleet to be reduced to save £1.4 billion The Times learns
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
Helicopter fleet to be reduced to save £1.4 billion The Times learns - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6718583.ece)
The Armed Forces helicopter fleet is to be reduced by more than half over the next ten years to save £1.4 billion from the defence budget, The Times has learnt.
Under the Ministry of Defence’s plans for the future the total fleet will be reduced to 291 by 2019. This will involve the Fleet Air Arm reducing from 166 to 66 helicopters, the Army Air Corps from 198 to 112, and the RAF from 138 to 113.
The revelation came after the country’s most senior military officer emerged from talks with Gordon Brown to say that the deployment of more helicopters to Afghanistan would save lives.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, gave the Prime Minister a “shopping list” of equipment and troop demands for Afghanistan from Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army.
The involvement of Sir Jock and the decision to go direct to No 10 highlighted the drama of a week in which General Dannatt has grabbed the headlines by making public his concerns about the campaign in Afghanistan during a visit to the troops in Helmand province.
Speaking in Downing Street after requesting more helicopters, additional troops and extra spy-in-the-sky unmanned surveillance drones, Sir Jock said: “In this situation where you have lots of improvised explosive devices, the more you can increase your tactical flexibility by moving people by helicopters, then the more unpredictable your movements become to the enemy. Therefore it is quite patently the case that you could save casualties by doing that.”
With two of the most senior military chiefs making public statements about the requirement for more helicopters and other equipment for the troops in Helmand, the Prime Minister was left in no doubt that the three services are now allied in demanding more resources for the campaign.
Downing Street said General Dannatt’s recommendations would be looked at “very seriously”.
Asked on the Radio 4 Today programme whether the Army had now become more political, General Dannatt replied: “Military business is always through a political framework. Whether it’s political with a big ‘P’ or a little ‘P’, it’s naive to think that soldiers can just do rifles and boots and whatever, we have to sit within a savvy, wider envelope.”
“Yes, of course, there is a line which generals speaking publicly should not cross. If some people think I crossed it that’s their judgment and I respect their judgment, but I don’t believe I crossed it,” he added.
General Dannatt said that he had warned the MoD that he would be bringing back a shopping list of demands from his Afghanistan trip, and that there would be a “financial cost” involved. The “strategic enterprise” in Afghanistan would be at risk, he said, if the troops did not have the surveillance equipment they needed to try to catch the Taleban planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs). “If we fail in our offensive counter-IED campaign it’ll have strategic consequences because, quite rightly, if we were to carry on the number of casualties that we had last week the people of our own country might say, ‘hang on, I think this is a price not worth paying’ — but that would be a disaster in strategic terms,” General Dannatt said.
“We have got to be able to see what the Taleban are doing better [with] overhead surveillance — we have a certain amount of capability — we’ve got to be able to target where they’re laying these things. We’ve also got to have sufficient people on the ground to build up our human intelligence picture so that we know what’s going on with the Taleban laying their IEDs so we can kill or capture people who are doing this to deter them from doing it again, or just simply to remove them. It’s really critical we do that,” he said.
General Dannatt, who retires on August 28, said that if more money was not going to be forthcoming from the Treasury, the MoD would have to “reorder some of our internal priorities”. He admitted that this would not be welcomed in the MoD because more money would have to go to the Army, to the detriment of the Royal Navy and RAF.

[MaroonMan4]

Jolly,

You are right, which Navy would buy CH47? But then again, which Navy has its Commando/amphibious assets cut down so much that it has to borrow Air Force CH47 to get the job done, all under the premise of a Joint Command. Also it is widely recognised that in most cases the CH47 satisfys most of the lift requiements for both amphibious and land forces.

I am sure that if we do embark (forgive the pun) down the re-roling of CHF to CH47 then either deck space will be made available (off load the other rotary wing assets to other boats (Albion/Bulwark/RFAs etc).

If we assume that CHF (as part of JHC) will also support land as well as amphibious forces (as 3 Cdo Bde currently does) then as per the CH47's operations from the back of the O Boat since 1998/9 (including Al Faw) it has proven to increase lift considerably without a blade fold in sight.

And I believe that CH47 will still be a requirement in the battlespace in the next 10-15 years, and can cope with all environments. Of course I am naturally going to be a supporter of the CH47 - to me it is one of the few aircraft that genuinely does what is advertised on the tin.

My main reason for dismissing other aircraft types is that the UK IPT, DES, DEC ALM and JHC already has experts on its staff, has a system in place (training, logisitcs, TLS), has the experience (both good and bad) and therefore has better chance at seeing the industry hoodwinking and contractual poo traps.

In order to deliver a timely increase in battle helicopter lift effect to ground forces I would suggest that the solution is to increase the system that we already have in place. That is the main challenge I believe.

From a personal perspective I believe that we can all do 'blue sky thinking' and yet again re-visit the 'what if' but I believe the moment we start to go over the old (and new) ground of Mi 17, AB139, CH53, NH90 etc then we instantly add years and years onto any procurement, when actually when we look at the operational analysis, physically go on operations (across the entire spectrum of conflict) and do the job then a force mix of CH47, Merlin, and AH are doing a superb job, just not enough of them.

It is the Puma and Sea King that are currently the airframes that have been woefully neglected and patched up like your grandma's car. Although not my personal choice I can see why the funding for Puma LEP has been approved as the Puma does have a smaller disc area/loading than the CH47/Merlin.

Therefore by default it is the wheezy Sea King capability that needs not only the immediate attention, but could potentially deliver the quickest turn around of air and groundcrew to deliver an increase to the troops on the ground (and along the way satisfy the NAOs concern regarding a 60% (?) shortage in amphibious lift). The arrival of the Merlin and Lynx T800 could give the majority of Sea Kings fleet time/breathing space to re-role (in time to pick up the downgraded HC3s or to take on the new CH47Fs?).

Again, back to DEC ALM/ JHC - when the decision is made to re-role the Commando Sea King, what does DEC ALM/JHC want from the amphibious capability? Does it want a CHF force mix of Merlin (i.e. Nurse's Italian assault) and CH47? Or does it want a single capability for logisitics/fleet management purposes (i.e. CHF all Merlin or all CH47)? Do the crews return to Yeovilton or are they absorbed into Benson and Odiham?

When this fundamental question is answered, then a truly efficient and rapid transition can take place. As I have said, these are not new questions.

[NURSE]

The figures would appear to be the worse case scenario in Flynx and Future support helecopter don't happen.

The helecopter fleet will reduce with the privatisation of Search and Rescue loosing about 30 aircraft.

[NURSE]

Maroon Man I would totally agree with a CH47 equipped CHF instead of the Merlin assualt if the chinook could be adapted to work of ships fully including being able to be put below into hangers and not just be deck cargo. If the Chinook was capable of being given folding blades i'm sure Beoing would offer that option. Most of the Assualt ships and modern RFA's were built with chinook in mind and the decks are of the dimensions to operate them its the space below where the problems lie.
However is the UK going to go down the route of a specialist chinook fit again? I would suspect not. But the sooner descisions are made on the long term future of chinook the better the Aussies and Cannuks were very quick to jump on the CH47F programme and the sooner we do the same the better.
And I do agree there needs to be a fundmental change in attitude to SH in all 3 services with some long term joined up thinking. I think SH sqns have been on operations constantly since the 1960's. The CHF will have to borrow not only Chinooks but also Apache in order to conduct future operations. But then all ops now are ment to be joint enterprises.

[Evalu8ter]

Nurse,
SABR heavy was going to be a marinised folding-head CH47 (with fat tanks/radar etc etc...). -53 was looked at but -53E was out of production (and ruinously expensive to run) and -53X was too far in the future. The real pi**er is that SABR CH47 would have been arriving next year if the SABR budget hadn't been raped by £1.5Bn......

RAF Merlins don't fold - the capability was removed in an effort to boost its' lift capability (no sniggering now....). Therefore, to marinise Merlin you'd need to buy back that weight just to stay even. Happily better engines/xmsns do exist thanks to VH-71, so any CHF Merlins would need these. I agree that the Italian marinised Merlin is a good option for CHF, as long as the booties still have access to CH47 for the really heavy stuff.

The Aussies, Dutch and UAE have all ordered CH47F; the Canadians are not yet on contract. Even if we were to order now we wouldn't see an ac for 3 years and, as MM4 points out, they would be yet another fleet within fleets - unless we decided to recapitalise the whole fleet on a -47F basis. The Mk4 Chinook is not the MLU, it is a palliative measure to address issues with certain kit at the moment- though it could provide the basis for the MLU. The MLU is not planned to start for a few years yet.

We undeniably need a Puma sized ac for certain land-centric tasks, though, hopefully, any future medium buy will have some littoral capability.

[NURSE]

I know the RAF merlin doesn't fold and that the Italian ones have different engines I hope at a future date the HC3's get a better one. And do totally agree that both the marines should have access to the chinook (and apache) as needed and the Future support helicopter needs to be littoral capable. The best option being 1 standard buy instead of an RAF version and a Fleet Air Arm version.

[MaroonMan4]

Some really good points made, and I hope that maybe DEC ALM and JHC maybe consider some of them (if they haven't already done so, which I suspect is the case).

The key decision remains - what does JHC want to look like in the future, as it has the real opportunity to right the wrongs for today, and position itself for the future.

If we all agree that if the Puma LEP is a wise move and that the Commando Sea King fleet should be the first to be re-roled, then the powers that be need to make a decision on how it wants to deliver its amphibious lift capability, as well as supporting current land operations.

Although I admit I have a vested interest in leaving CHF as an autonomous (under JHC - but dedicated to 3 Cdo Bde), organic (lift and strike) capability because I really am one of those light blue that hate the O Boat. But also I do recognise that the maritime environment does require specialist skills, knowledge and experience. I also like the idea of CHF supporting 3 Cdo Bde on land operations that would potentially give our SHF and the Army AH a rest.

Sadly I believe that the AH and to a certain degree the CH47 fleet are not that bit interested in maintaining a true amphibious capability, and probably in the AH case would have to start from scratch every time it wanted to embark as the whole double earmarking concept has just not worked.

Before any talk of re-roling the Commando Sea Kings and CHF can take place, someone has to make that much awaited, much delayed, but vitally important decision on how JHC wants to deliver its amphibious capability, as well as continue to support and improve the lift to current operations.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Of course if the British Army were allowed to fund, procure and operate their own fleet of battlefield support helicopters, as do all the armies in the rest of the civilised world, there probably wouldn't be the shortage we are now experiencing as they wouldn't have given undue priority to large numbers of sexy but redundant fast, pointy things.

I now await the usual welter of outraged abuse from the perpetrators of the current insanity!

[NURSE]

I do agree there is a need for CHF to be kept with its amphibious focus and capibility that can be deployed on ships if we still have an amphibious fleet in the future!
As it seams that the Puma LEP is the way ahead Maroon man's idea is a good way ahead but I would sugest that FSH programme be split to purchase a version of the Merlin with more powerful engines folding rotors and tail to replace the Seaking HC4 preferable on a 1 for 1 basis of the HC4 fleet. hopefully sorting out some of the HC3's short commings and when the HC3 is refurbished it gets new engines etc.
And at the earliest opportunity the future of the chinook fleet be decided when it goes to the CH-47F and wether we go down the route of all having folding rotors.
The Puma replacement can be deffered slightly but it should have Littoral capability.

[Tappers Dad]

Quick make a note Bob tells the truth re eight Chinooks!!!

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 July 2009 (pt 0021) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090716/debtext/90716-0021.htm)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Bob Ainsworth):


16 July 2009 : Column 550

Let me tell the House what I will do. I will, if necessary, bend people out of shape to ensure that the Lynx has all the necessary capability from this October, so that we do not have to withdraw it in the spring. I will consider again whether there is any way in which we can bring the eight useless Chinooks that we bought back in 1996 into service any more quickly. Our plan is to get additional Chinooks out there next summer, and if we can do it more quickly, we will. I will consider again whether we can squeeze more out of every frame that we have. When troops are in the field, I am going to satisfy myself that every single muscle is being flexed in every single part of our helicopter capability.

[NURSE]

Clockwork mouse not all armies in the "civilised" world have their own SH the Canadians, Dutch, New Zealanders all rely on their airforce. The Split the UK has makes things that bit more complicated. and this infrastructure needs sorting.

[CrabInCab]

Clockwork Mouse - No welter of outraged abuse, just correcting the facts.

Hate to be the one to break this to you but the British Army does fund, procure and operate SH and even prior to the formation of JHC the Army was responsible for funding and procuring as all SH came from the Army Vote. Helicopters v Infantry/Armour/Arty it's hardly a surprise we're in the mess we're in is it...

If you think putting a load of AAC pilots in CH47/Merlin et al is instantly going to make life better you are both deluded (Lynx and AH manning hardly rosy at the moment) and undertaking a grave disservice to the SH aircrew and what they achieve on ops alongside their equally committed and brave Green and Dark Blue brethren.

:ugh:

If you want to debate fast pointy wizzy things v AT then I completely agree that the Crabs got the balance wrong (but still acknowledging that F3 and Jag had to be replaced).

[Clockwork Mouse]

The British Army does fund, procure and operate SH and even prior to the formation of JHC the Army was responsible for funding and procuring as all SH came from the Army Vote

An interesting statement. Not when I was in MoD they didn't.

[Front Seater]

I am afraid that the whole maritime pre-embarkation training and currencies do not fit well with the 16 Air Assault Brigade operational and exercise plots, amphibious operations just do not factor in the AH training or mindset. We cetainly no longer have the experience or the crews to sustain a true amphibious capability (agreed, double earmarking was a ruse to convince the Navy to let go of their Lynx sqn).

Clockwok Mouse,

What is your point and relevance? Of course Land run all BH, through JHC :confused:

If as has been said there is funding available and if there is a real chance of trying to rectify some of the previous issues that historically could not be tackled due to lack of resources/money, then I would agree that if CHF was to be taken seriously and JHC did really want to deliver an amphibious capability (that also assisted with the land campaign and current operations), then maybe instead of cobbling together RAF CH47 and AH that are really not interested in or resourced to sustain a maritime capability, then maybe replace the RM Lynx with AH at the same time as sorting out the Sea Kings.

I too do like the idea of Wattisham having a rest (with CHF taking up the weight when the RM Bde deploys) - and I also am not too sure how concurrently doing 16 Air Assault's business (on operations and NOCP) and also supporting the RN will go down with Mrs Front Seater.

I do not get paid enough to make these decisions, but there are people out there that do, and as per the whole SH debate I agree we really cannot progress anywhere with any efficiency or speed to rectify the present situation unless we know where we are going and how we want to fight our wars and campaigns in the future.

[spheroid]

Spheroid - still not a show stopper, very simple - when JHC and Navy Command do the maths, they will work out what the RN Sea King training requirement is and divide 848 up accordingly (personally, for all of the increase in tactical lift capability, the loss (or reduction) of one RN training squadron appears a sound discussion point?). If it means that a few of the younger Sea King HC4s become conversion trainers for the SAR/SKASaCs then so be it. Any resources (air/ground crew) that are left once Navy Command has filled its projected training requirement can be re-allocated/alloted to either Merlin or CH47 OCU. Same principle applies, just colocate the necessary 848 aircraft and personnel at Culdrose to satisfy the RN Sea King trg requirement. Lets be honest,from a pure Sea King training perspective Culdrose is where the RN Sea King simulator and ground school is any way

In general terms that plan works but the domestic arrangements would probably put a stop to it....

Getting JHC and NC to do the maths is the first stumbling block.... Move 848 to Culdrose.... easy in principal but Culdrose is toppers.... the Wardroom is full .....Squadrons are sharing buildings...the place is a mess.... (it probably something as significant as this to shake it into the 21st C)...... Your plan makes perfect sense but I'm just concerned that once the bean counters get hold of the idea then they would stop it.

[Lima Juliet]

Sticking neck out...

Isn't just more helicopters the wrong answer? What is the point in rounding up Pongos in bits (or worse) when we should be attacking the IEDs and Terry?

Neck back in...

Seriously, more SHs is not the only answer. More, C-IED capablity, armed overwatch (both UAV and NTISR), attack helos, more ISTAR (SIGINT, GMTI and SAR) are all in short supply and SAVE LIVES - if the UK wants to do this "on the cheap" then MQ-9 REAPER and MQ-1 PREDATOR offer up the "lion's share" of these capabilities to varying degrees. Furthermore, the RA's H450/WATCHKEEPERs could deliver some of these if funded correctly. Furthermore, "Direct-Fires" air platforms such as AC130 or A-10 would also be v-useful and SAVE LIVES.

Does anyone know what else was on Sir Jock's shopping list from the Air perspective??? :confused:

LJ

[CrabInCab]

An interesting statement. Not when I was in MoD they didn't.

Clocky, fair point old boy, the Hoverfly and Sycamore were indeed both bought with Light blue money!
:}

[MaroonMan4]

Leon,

Yes, yes and yes to everything you say.....but please read the entire thread before posting and you will see that many on here (including myself) agree that more helicopters is not the solution, but I think the majority of people on this thread see an increase in helicopter lift as an essential part of a solution.

The very fact that commanders on the ground have the choice in the way that they conduct their business rather than being forced down one road move solution is enough for me as an operator.

Of course more UAVs/UCAVs, of course more ISR - yes yes and again yes. But in my comfort zone of helicopters, on a military aviation blog, I focus on how we in the rotay world can rapidly and efficiently deliver an increase in lift that may (and I use the word deliberately) provide increased protection to the ground manoeuvre commander as he can elect to bounce his patrols from grid to grid avoiding high threat canalised roads and vehicle choke points. In certain circumtances with enough CH47, true air mobility will allow a commander to drive out of Camp Bastion in vehicles, conduct a patrol and then be air lifted randomly and with complete surprise to the next patrol objective. And if not CH47 to lift vehicles, then even more Merlins or Puma LEP will be able to bounce foot patols around the Area of Opeations, randomly, and again adding surprise to the enemy as areas identified as a high threat by the int community are flown over to an area identified as a lower threat for landing and re-establishing a patrol dominance/security. As per Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I say again, where did we throw away those Lessons (hard) Learned from those campaigns? South Armagh was humming with helicopters because of the road side bomb/ IED threat.

Not rocket science.

That alone Leon must surely add to protection?

The message that it adds flexibility and choice to the commander on the ground - something that sadly we are not capable of at the moment (and on the current forecast will not be able to for the forseeable future with 10,000+ boots on the ground)

[Oldlae]

If the Government was really serious about buying more helicopters they could buy the fleet of WG30 helicopters that were up for sale not too long ago. It would require the agreement of AW to support them. Apart from the certification issues it is probably the quickest way to supply SH and they are British. There are also a few ex-military Wessex around which could be flown at short notice. Crewing is another problem.

[gingergreeny]

Like the idea OLDLAE,stick new engines in them and a DAS suite and you've got a very quick fix all you need then are the crews,groundies and engineers to fix them and you've got a new regiment of support helicopters all for a relatively low outlay.

[Tiger_mate]

There are probably dozens of capable helicopters in storage in Arizona that could be put back into service, however there are not the (UK) qualified crews, nor the defensive toys that they need in sandy places. To suggest WG30 or Wessex is I hope a tonque in cheek comment.

An option may be to employ aircraft without defensive toys on UK training and routine tasking to enable fully equiped aircraft to deploy en-masse. Though mixed standard fleets is not what UK mil plc normally approve of.

Bottom line; we now pay the price for a lack of investment in the last 20 years. Even Chinooks date back to about 1982, Pumas 1971 and Sea Queen about the same. The Merlin fleet should be the be all and end all these days supported by upgraded Chinook. The HCII Puma is well overdue is place in the RAF Museum, and should have been replaced years ago.

Quick fix would be to contract the likes of Bristow & British Intl on contract for rear echelon bus runs, or make use of short rough landing strips for the likes of G222/Spartan fixed wing.

[Hilife]

Never too certain of the truth in these stories, but an interesting and relevant article in today's press on Helicopters.

MoD rejected three deals to buy Black Hawk helicopters | UK news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/19/mod-reject-black-hawk-helicopters)

[MaroonMan4]

Undoubtedly Blackhawks are doing a superb job in Theatre, especially the ones that sit alongside us and the MERTs.

But they are not your average Blackhawk.

Although I can see why people may instantly throw their arms up when industry has made such a quick and substantial offer (and I am impressed), but if the posts are re-read above buying the hard ware is not the issue. Where there is a political will, MoD/DEC ALM and IPTs will find a procurement way.

Unless Blackhawk was going to be a complete Foreign Military Sales that saw UK air and ground crews trained in the US to an LCR standard, with all of the spares and TLS included, with the UK modifications, with crews travelling across the pond to do the Simulator, then it would not be viable.

The long term cost of establishing another fleet and training/supply system, combined with a simulator etc would be cost prohibitive and I believe would not deliver an increase in lift for a number of years yet.
The same goes for a WG30 :p or Wessex :p or Mi17, or AW 139/149 or NH 90 or any other new airframe that would require a completely new system (training, logisitics, TLS etc).

This is why although I understand, but not necessarily agree, with the Puma LEP as the first step to ensure a disc and foot print that is smaller than the CH47/Merlin in the UK inventory.

If we really do want to rapidly increase lift within 18-24 months I believe that as soon as the Merlin and Lynx T800 arrive in theatre, then the majority of the Commando Sea Kings (or all of the Commando Sea Kings if some of the specialist roles are handed over to the re-fitted SKASaCs/or re-fitted Lynx T800).

By next Autumn Sea King crews could be using every bit of spare training capacity in the UK Merlin and/or CH47 training pipeline ready to take on the 8 HC3s or the new CH47s (hopefully F fatboys) that have been procured by some true international smart procurement by DEC ALM/IPTs. If there is not space in the UK training system and a surge is not possible, then off to the states they go for a conversion and conduct a differences course/CR on return.

1 CH47 equals approximately 3 Commando Sea Kings - now that is a quick win and if a one for one exchange of aircraft was conducted as a crew came off the training pipeline, the tranistion of Commando Sea King crews alone over a 24 month period would see a significant increase of lift.

If everyone gets a move on and actually makes a decision, I believe that there could be the first re-roled Commando Sea King crews flying CH47 in theatre next summer.

In comparison to the other types suggested this option is sustainable with the complete system in place. It will just need significant expansion.

[ORAC]

IoS: The defence cuts bleeding our forces dry (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-defence-cuts-bleeding-our-forces-dry-1752296.html)

[barnstormer1968]

I just followed your link, and have to admit that one one the banners underneath has left me with a sickening feeling in my stomach.

Banner reads:
US condemns video of soldier missing in Afghanistan

This was the first time I had heard of this, and am hoping this situation ends as well as is humanly possible.

(Sorry for thread creep and glum link anybody)

[NURSE]

Maroon Man I agree with your plan however with 1 modification at the same time the Sea King fleet is run down an order is placed for its replacement not some future Jam tomorrow project but an immediate order for 1 for 1 replacement of the Sea King HC4. As the scrapping of CHF would be seen by many as a move to chop the FAA.
I have to say the 1 CH47=3 Sea King HC4 analogy is a bit dangerous as 1 Chinook can only be in 1 place at a time where as 3 Sea Kings can be in 3 seperate places at once!

[MaroonMan4]

Nurse,

Agreed, and that is where we retun to the question of how the DEC/JHC want to deliver lift - and in most cases operational evaluation has the the CH47 as the capability that best suits the tasks.

I would suggest that why have 3 Commando Sea Kings, with 3 crews and 3 when one aircraft could do the job - especially as those 3 Sea Kings actually do not lift anything as near as much as the CH47.

I reiterate a one for one swap during the re-role (I too believe that in sorting the current operations lift deficit, we should also rectify the NAO reports findings which was most scathing with the lack of amphibious rotary lift - especially if it means that I will not have to go to sea ;) ), and therefore you could have 3 'Commando' CH47s in 3 different places (each with approx 3 Sea Loads per 1 CH47), which surely must increase lift capability significantly than the 3 Commando Sea Kings in 3 different places?

[NURSE]

Agree'd
The Tech issue is now wether the CH47 can get a folding rotor. (I would sugest if it was feasible it would have been done already)
Or Wether we get a Proven capability in the Merlin.

Given our history of specialised Chinooks I would sugest Merlin would probably be the result. However if/when the folding rotor hub is perfected it should be included in all UK Chinooks.

[NURSE]

Having read through the Papers this morning it would appear the MoD turned down 12 ex UAE Pumas I wonder why. And also there has been 3 rejections of the Blackhawk.
I know the Blackhawk was rejected as a wessex replacement. Can anyone enlighten me why the Blackhawk keeps being rejected? Apart from the Logistics/training support needed to support the aircraft in service?

[Evalu8ter]

Nurse,
A folding head for the CH47 was designed by Boeing for SABR. Why has nobody else taken the Chinook to sea? Because few forces have a true amphib capability (and truthfully only the USMC really do...). Of those that do play at LitM they all use small/medium platforms and would probably consider the CH47 too expensive, and certainly wouldn't want to fund the NRE for developing blade fold by themselves.

Interstingly,I hear the new Dutch Amphib vessels are all designed to operate CH47s (non-folding). Boeing are also wary of losing potential V-22 exports by having fully marinised CH-47s available.

Folding Merlin in the CHF role is not combat proven. You could almost argue that until the Merlin has done a year in the 'Stan it's not fully combat proven. Not wishing to criticise the efforts of the guys and cabs in Bos/Iraq but, bluntly, neither were the same kinetic theatre that AFG is. When the Merlin has sucked up RPGs, multiple SA/HMG/Frag hits and carried on flying after heavy landings then it'll be combat proven.

As to why we keep turning down UH60s, IMHO it is quite simple. Until this week, helicopters were not vote-winning and, more importantly, not pet projects for the individual services (which I believe is really why we are where we are..). Nobody wants to grow the RW force long term as it would impact upon budgets for procuring and running the projects that the services really want - Typhoon, F35, CVF, Astute and FRES. The RAF, in particular, don't want to see too much of its' future strength in RW in case the "ownership debate" is reopened and it leeches a critical amount of manpower to the army - thereby risking its' independance. Oh, and the Blackhawk is too capable and not designed/built in Yeovil.....That said, the UH60 is still a small cabin - however remember that many platforms flatter to decieve hot n high - a SK/merlin might have 24 seats in the back but they'll not fill them in the current theatre - 12 seats anywhere in a UH60 sounds a better bet to me.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Nurse

A cynic would suggest it's been rejected as it's manufacturer is not based in Yeovil...

I'm not one of them obviously... but a cynic might suggest that!

[anita gofradump]

I'd bet you're right pba, but a solution has been worked around that situation previously, by licencing to Westland.

The politics involved in the issue are the most sickening aspect of it. I could rant for hours on this subject but it's pretty much all been said before. Old one-eyed Broon must be chuffed to bits that this has pushed the "MP's Expenses" argument into the shadows.

[MaroonMan4]

Nurse,

Let me make one thing clear - although I respect the history and the ethos of the FAA, I really do not care 2 hoots about loss of Fishead squadrons, just as I despise the one nation one air force concept.

But from a pure delivery of capability perspective then of course it should be a replacement of one Commando Sea King for one CH47. If HM Treausry believe that they can re-role 3 Commando Sea Kings for 1 CH47 there is no real net gain in tactical lift, and it is only H M Treasury/H M Govt spin doctors that win, not the troops on the ground.

The only concession I would make is that CHF does not need a forward fleet (as Jacko terms it) of 29 CH47s. I think that the Commando Sea King squadrons have 10-12 frontline, so 24 CH47s at Yeovilton. The remaining 6 should be alloted to the UK Joint CH47 OCU.

As previously discussed the Fisheads do not lose a squadron name as 848 is retained, with Sea Kings re-located to Culdrose to ensure that the RN SAR and SKASaC conversion pipeline is maintained and as already identified this requirement will reduce in the near future when SAR H comes on line. If (as Spheroid suggests) Culdrose needs a kick up the bum, then so be it and I am sure that Navy Command will pull its weight to assist JHC.

Therefore taking a step back with non-bias Joint perspective, with the sole purpose to efficiently and rapidly increase sustainable tactical lift for current operations, as well as rectify the shortfalls in the NAO report for future Battlefield Helicopter lift, then as soon as the Merlin and Lynx T800 arrived in theatre I would initiate the transition of the Commando Sea King fleet to CH47s.

If the SKASaC and/or Lynx T800 can be equipped for some of the specialist roles, then not just some, but all of the Sea King air and ground crew can be pushed through any spare capacity in the UK CH47 training system. If there is no spare capacity then agreement is sought for US CH47 conversion training and a UK differences/CR on return. If a timely decision is made then the first Fishead crews should be flying the first of the re-modded HC3s in theatre by next summer.

In this timeframe the initial re-modded HC3s should be available for operations at Yeovilton (aren't the old Sea Harrier hangars still empty or available for modification?), and also procurement of extra CH47 (ideally F fatboys). Yes there will initially be fleets within fleets (until a MLU rationalisation programme) but has anyone looked inside all of the UK helicopter cockpits around at the moment and seen how different they all are?

I believe that for the Commando Sea Kings that a split CH47 re-modded HC3 and CH47 F fleet will actually be rationalisation for them! Recent conversations have highlighted that they fly an ex ASW green Sea King, and also a bog standard Sea King HC4, also a GTI version with the new blades and then a GTI version without the blades, all with a simulator that apparently is from a version of the Sea King that is out of service! Work all that out and you see that 2 variants of CH47 appears to also be a significant improvement to a fleet that has obviously suffered the brunt of cost cutting measures.

[Seaking93]

In this timeframe the initial re-modded HC3s should be available for operations at Yeovilton (aren't the old Sea Harrier hangars still empty

Empty hangars on the south side at VL?

Guess you have not been over there recently, move CH47(already deemed too expensive to do) to VL, where would all the private aircraft go? :)

[spheroid]

I understood that the Grey Lynx fleet were moving over to the southside. You are correct though. Over ther southside there is a mahooosive hanger whcih is currently home to 3 grobs....a pair of hawks and about 15 variations on a cessna.



already deemed too expensive to do

The expense is accommodation.... The Wardroom is full..... the lads mess is full....there are no Family Quarters available.... thats why it is too expensive.

[N707ZS]

Have we really got 500 flyable military helicopters? David Cameron seems to think so.

[NURSE]

Nurse

A cynic would suggest it's been rejected as it's manufacturer is not based in Yeovil...

I'm not one of them obviously... but a cynic might suggest that!

Neither were the Dragonfly/Whirlwind/Sea King/Puma they were all liscened production of foreign designed products. Even when Westlands had the Liscence HMG wasn't interested in them to replace the Wessex which was even the clapped out.

I would agree re the cabin size.

[jim2673]

Quite easy to make room at Yvl.

5 hanger full of Serco doing MK3 surveys get shot of them back to Crabfat land.
847 hanger full of Lx 7 doing not a lot.....On the way out
3 hanger full of crap, get it refurbed another hanger spare.
South dispersal full of not a lot (Grobs, couple of Hawks & the private flying club) Close the flying club down.....
Move 815/702/LOEU/847 to South side...lots of free space on the Tech site.

Alternatively:
Close the Private Flying club down it bring sweet FA in terms of TAS Ops.
Move Lynx Flts back to somewhere by Portland.....lets call it NAS Osprey
Disband 847.... LX7 OSD coming soon.
Move all of CHF in whatever format to South Side.
Get shot of ASG RM and convert Yvl block to new J/R SLAM Accom.
DES VL move out to AW/Abbeywood. Convert complete DES site to new accom or MQ.

[Front Seater]

There must be room at Yeovilton for Chinook or Merlin or both? Apart from what you are all terming as south side which appears to be a significant waste of (ex Sea Harrier?) good hangar space then surely if the current JHC thought bubble is to move all of BRH there then there must be either the space, MQs/SLAM already in place?

Why not just stop the closure of Dishforth and retain Dishforth as not only the rotary wing FOB of the north (Catterick superbase/Spadeadam/Scottish Highlands), but also it is already a Lynx establishment (less simulator).

Failing that, with Wallop looking more and more likely as though it is not going to be needed (Lynx OSD and MFTS results in only 1 x AH trg unit) then make Wallop the Wildcat/BRH hub, only just up the road from Yeovilton so RN/Army can have a joint CTT, but independent CTRs.

With the hangarage freed up for whatever JHC does with the Commando Sea Kings, then with Wildcat aircraft and families taking over the infrastructure at Wallop means that there should be no reason to build or increase infrastructure at Yeovilton as it is a purely a one for one swap, and the families already live there?

[NURSE]

Re the unsolicited offer of Blackhawks. Under compition legislation the UK govt cannot respond to an unsolicited offer. The offer must be in response to an invtation to tender that must be advertised openly. If the sikorski offer had been taken up then the government would be left open to being sued by any interested company who felt they could have submitted a tender.

[Just This Once...]

Nurse,

Not quite true - we have a number of exemptions from the competition rules and we can choose to go single source for a host of reasons. Without such exemptions the UOR process would fall on its arse.

[Widger]

If SK4s are swopped for CH47, one for one, then would the RN not need twice as many pilots to fly them? Also, do not forget that SK4s are not LAND assets they are JHC and CHF assets and CH47 cannot operate off several platforms that the Mk4 can. Yes the CH47 can lift heavy objects but, the Mk4 has many positive attributes including agility(relative) and flexibility of operation that CH47 does not. (I will leave it to those more qualified to validate this point) Fight "a war" not "the war" is the mantra.

[anita gofradump]

Yes the CH47 can lift heavy objects but, the Mk4 has many positive attributes including agility(relative) and flexibility of operation that CH47 does not. (I will leave it to those more qualified to validate this point)

Less downwash, yes. Smaller frame, yes.

Flexibility?

Ability to sustain flight on a single engine?

Agility?

Load capacity?

Endurance?

[Widger]

Double the amount of pilots?


I am not knocking the CH47 and not arguing against the procurement of more but, before you write off the Mk4:

2 pilots=2 Mk4s=similar passenger capacity to 1 CH47. The beauty of 2 Mk4s as mentioned earlier is that they can be tasked into different places. When I talk about flexibility, I am also thinking of the ability to fold both blades and the tail, which is an essential requirement for a force that is primarily there to support Commando Force.

Anyway, at least this thread has some mature and informed debate.

[anita gofradump]

Surely an advantage to carry an extra pilot, rather than an observer, when being shot at?

Not that it matters. I just can't see any mark of SK being chosen above the Chinook. My opinion may be wholly incorrect but it doesn't seem to make sense to me to buy/upgrade an underpowered, slower platform on the basis that the FAA choose to put a non-pilot in the LHS.

[Just This Once...]

anita - fair points, esp as the RAF does still fly with non-pilots in the LHS (inc Melin, Puma & Chinook), although we aspire to achieve all pilot front row.

[pumaboy]

Hi

I want to ask somethingabout the shortage of helicopters within the British armed forces and it is something we are hearing about for sometime now this is not new.

It can not be helping that the Puma fleet is ageing and must costing a hell of amount of public money to keep them flying and constantly upgrading them.

The puma seems to get the job done and if they are such a good transport helicopter has the MoD ever thought about replacing them with Eurocopter AS532 MK I Cougars I mean they are reliable you can purchase them of the production line and would be cheaper than upgrading 30 yearold airframes that are long well past there sell by date.

These would be far cheaper than purchaseing Merlins or even chinooks

I hope i'm not a long way out but it was just a thought but probably al-ready been thought off.

They are in service with many of the worlds armed forces all over the world and works well as an all round multi purpose transport helicopter with bags of power much more than the 35 year old Puma and more importantly they easier and less complicated than the new types available today.

Would this help the Armed forces in the future?

Any input would be welcome as I'm not that familiar with the military but just thought about the ageing Puma can not be helping the shortage of helicopters in the armed forces.

[NURSE]

Pumaboy
Puma & SK4 are ment to be being replaced by a single type circa 2015 which is going to be problematic enough in that time scale. I makes sense to do this cutting down the logistic tail and numbers of types in service (also looking at the figures numbers as well). Introducing the Cougar now would complicate the picture some what.
The Puma I keep hearingfrom RAF types has a footprint that is smaller than Merlin and the Seaking and can operate from some sites that are to small for either of thease helicopters. Noted that one in Belize. And the argument put forward is that this increases their flexibility. Which I would agree with. The cougar is slightly bigger than the Puma and I can see your argument its a good platform and one the RAF wanted instead of Merlin.
However the RAF now has merlin. The Puma upgrade will extend its life till the new helicopter is introduced.
I would sugest the media would have a field day if cougar was bought given the types recent history in the North Sea (the press will ignore its years of safe operation).
The danger in the future support helicopter is the spec is written round the Puma and the CHF find it a bit to small for their needs.

[hulahoop7]

A Bay class, stocked for war, would be expected to carry and operate two Chinooks over a surged period. As an ARG is unlikely to go anywhere without at least 1 Bay in tow, perhaps the CHF is covered for the heavy lift end of the spectrum - or bigger jump offs of Cdos.

[pumaboy]

Nurse

What you have to remember the types history is not that bad if you how many hours they have acheived in the North Sea

Most of the machines had flown over 30,000 hours and just as many many landings

If the Puma and SK 4 are to be replaced what will they be replaced with and do you think the Puma fleet can hold out for that long as I understand the puma are strugling down in Iraq and Afganistan due to the heat and sand.

Will be intresting though to see how the govt are going to solve the shortage of helicopters in this difficult time

[NURSE]

Ocean, Bulwark and the Bays can all operate Chinooks as can the last remaining Sir class. However they have to carry them as deck cargo as the last 3 have no hangers and on ocean the chinook with fixed rotors is to big for the lift. Argus also has the same problem. I wonder will the lifts on the CVF get over the problem?

Pumaboy I am well aware of the superpumas superb history in the North Sea however the Sun & Daily Mail would have a field Day.
The refit of the Puma fleet is ment take them through to that date. The Puma isn't in Afghanistan with UK forces by the way. However is the SK4 isn't refitted it won't last till its replacement! I would sugest that part of the future support helecopter needs to be brought forward (unfortunatley there probably isn't the budget to do it) to start replacing SK4/5/6 now to provide continuity of capicity.

2 projects that should be looked at asap is folding rotor head for chinook and more powerful version of the RTM322 for fitting across the merlin fleet

Basic answer is this govt will do nothing or next to nothing to sort out the underlying problems of the armed forces.

[Rotary Ramit]

I think you are missing the point of the debate - who thinks in reality that we are pressing ahead with life extension programmes because its a fashionable thing to do rather than buy new aircraft. We have enough helicopters but we have chosen to be tight about how many we modify for deployment so we have an artificially small pool to deploy from - average 25% of total number of aircraft in (modified) fleet is the current rule of thumb. This is even used by Treasury when UORs get presented to ensure that the MOD is not pulling on over on them. We plan on 50 hours per month per airframe when actually they can be sweated more with the same number of crews and techs - we should be pushing for 60-65 hours per month.

Do you really think that the Treasury is handing out new money over and above the declared Defence Budget. The Puma life extension is cheaper than a new aircraft buy (by the time you fund all lines of development funded, new simulators, spares, support equipment, training courses etc) and is actually low risk in terms of aircraft returning to service with trained crews and techs waiting for it. It also fills a particular gap in the lift market between Lynx and Merlin. How many times have we bought new aircraft and not had enough trained crews (Apache) or enough spares (Merlin and probably every other type thinking about it). In fact forget the cost of buying the actual equipment as £7-8M for a Blackhawk seems cheap. The cost of running the fleets is the actual killer in budget terms and we are looking to reduce the number of fleets (and fleets within fleets hence all Lynx Mk9 being fitted with new engines rather than the original 12 from 22) - on this basis Blackhawk is a stillborn so get over it. Look at the successful fleets we already have and watch us increase numbers. Top tip - don't hold you breath for Sea King as it is currently lifting 3 pax in Afghan summer heat. The fixed costs of operating a specific fleet are what they are, the more aircraft and the flying hours that you achieve the more efficient and 'cheaper' it gets.

ranting gets you courts martialled and a loss of seniority!

[Not_a_boffin]

The biggest problem with replacing the Puma / SK4 fleet is that whatever you get, it will have to lift an appreciable number (say half troop or 16) of Royals complete with bergens. Blackhawk won't do this, but neither CH47 or Merlin HC3/3A are suitable for prolonged shipboard use - non-folding aircraft knacker your deck spot/range and the Merlin has had all it's lashing points removed for weight-saving!

Gruntier RTM322s for Merlin are I believe a non-starter until the gearbox is uprated.

CVF lifts are sized for the Wokka, but thats irrelevant if you can't routinely operate it from the amphibs. Incidentally, the impact of CH47-sized lift size and spots pushes up the size of any future amphib ship (LHD type) considerably.......

[NURSE]

Boffin
The Italians have actually solved alot of the engineering issues with their transport variant of the Merlin with folding rotors and tails. The argument on here is the Merlin isn't powerful enough. I know the Italian aircraft has GE engines. And a better engine and gearbox would benefit the whole merlin fleet.

[Not_a_boffin]

Indeed, the IT amphib variant would definitely be the one to go for - danger is that the treasury would force a 3/3A follow-on build "for commonality" irrespective of whether they could be used afloat at all. Not sure that they've sorted the GB issue though and that is the limiter in terms of power.

[anita gofradump]

Rotary Ramit......

You present a very good argument for the Puma case, perhaps a little too well informed to be a casual observer (pprune 'lurker' since Jul 2006 but only 1 post in 3 years)?

ranting gets you courts martialled and a loss of seniority!

Would you care to explain what you mean by this comment, exactly?

[Modern Elmo]

Black Hawk being too small internally ...

So buy S-92's.

[Evalu8ter]

Modern Elmo,
Would you really want to be the launch customer for an SH S-92? The Canadians are not exactly enamoured with the CH-148 at the moment, though admittedly the mission system seems to be the cause of many of the problems.

S-92 is bigger inside than a UH-60, but it seems to have lost some of the ruggedness of the -60 as a trade to make it light enough to be viable commercially.

That said, there are some attractive points to the S-92. A decent, though not huge, cabin. It seems very economical to run, and is producing impressive availability stats. As it is a likely platform for SAR-H it would ease the training LoD and cross-fertilisation between SAR and SH. However, it would not be quick to modify the -92 to a UK spec (comms/DAS etc) let alone jumping through the Def Stan hoops.....

[Modern Elmo]

However, it would not be quick to modify the -92 to a UK spec (comms/DAS etc)

Oh, but UK avionics specs and software acceptance testing make it all so much better.

Or, how about modernized CH-46's?

CH-46 Sea Knight Helicopter (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-46-pics.htm)

[Modern Elmo]

Here's a page on Chinooks and Chinook variants. Check out the Model 347.

I'm looking for a photo of a CH-46 with rotors folded. Can anyone find one?

[StopStart]

It's an old one but....

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e147/JP5844/CH-46F157703HMM-4611977.jpg

[Just This Once...]

CH-47D with blades folded with ATK supports:

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/Folded_Blades/Folded_Blades_2.jpg

[Modern Elmo]

Check out the Model 347 Chinook variant here:

The Boeing Sea Knight & Chinook (http://www.vectorsite.net/avch47.html#m6)

Scroll down a little from the top.

[minigundiplomat]

This is great.

Collectively we are members of a bankrupt organisation with little chance of recovery in the short to medium term.

And yet, the RN are deciding where to base their new CH47. 3 Cdo Bde are a very potent force, yet they are one of several brigades, all requiring airlift support.

[Finnpog]

Which is almost an argument for organic rotary assets within the Army Bde structure.

[anita gofradump]

Did I just see the 'Army Helicopters' bandwagon go past?

[Lord Elpus]

Sorry if posted already:


Latest from Michael Yon's website (On board a UK Chinook):

Our helicopter roars in at low level. The cargo is not strapped down so that we can exit quickly. So loaded is the helicopter that the tail gunner sits on a box of cargo. The lack of helicopters have left soldiers on FOB Jackson without mail for three weeks, while other soldiers have been stuck here for at least two weeks while trying to get back to Bastion. The lack of helicopters is making this and other places into 'FOB Hotel Californias.' Even General Officers are having difficulty getting helicopters out of the main base at FOB Bastion. A British officer told me that the British military refused to haul Prime Minister Gordon Brown, citing lack of helicopter lift. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gordon Brown insists that we have enough helicopters. He is wrong.

[Modern Elmo]

The cargo is not strapped down ...

? Wonder if that's really the case?

About the shortage of helos: maybe the British Army should share some of the blame for not asking harder sooner. I don't mean more lift for only this specific operation. One gets the impression that your army has been somewhat reluctant to get its collective head and arms around the air cavalry/airmobile concept.

[TheWizard]

The cargo is not strapped down ...

? Wonder if that's really the case?


Quick, someone call STANEVAL!! Terribly gash operating. :}

[MaroonMan4]

Now back in blighty - and gosh I can see that there is so much activity as the whole MoD/DEC ALM and IPT rapidly spin up to solve the shortage of lift capability - or answer B!

So any opportunity to rectify and respond to the shortage of lift has been kicked into the long grass where those that do not support the military or do not want to open H M Treasury purse strings sigh with relief that at last the media has moved onto other stories - despite the fact that the essential requirement has not been removed and that the troops on the ground still do not have the choice to move, re-supply or patrol with the assistance of helicopter lift.

In response to minigundiplomat's post - we are from the same organisation and although I agree that there is more than one brigade out there, just look how JHC had us wed to 16 Air Assault Brigade, with other brigades not getting a look in. Although we in the Chinook force are aligned to 16 Air Assault brigade, we do support many other organisations. I believe that if the Fisheads got CH47 (with or without blade folding at the moment) then yes they would be aligned to the Royal Marines (and importantly conduct the ship stuff that we don't like), but more importantly they too would be a JHC asset that could be used as part of the operations plot to not only cycle through Afghanistan, but support some of the other NOCP tasks that we are finding it very difficult to resource.

And if we are that broke - then lets not go outside the wire, lets not attempt Panther's Claw or any future deliberate op.

This is the politicians and MoD's choice - either stump up or shut up, as we cannot continue to ask our troops for much wanted tactical success without putting our hands in the H M Treasury's pockets. If the funds are not released, then it is apparent that every word about giving 'our boys' every bit of equipment they need for the job is simply and quite starkly just not true.

I wager that we see absolutely no activity on increasing helicopter lift at all (and please do not cite Merlin or T800 Lynx as this is all old news - and was the smoke and mirrors that H M Govt used the last time that 'drastic shortage of helicopter lift' hit the headlines.

All they are doing with the Merlin, Lynx T800 is re-branding and re-cycling old news. The Puma LEP decision is maybe the only new news that can possibly be seen as recent.

All of my posts truly believe that if there was political, MoD, DEC ALM and JHC will, combined with timely decision making that this would result in a significantly increased number of CH47 in Helmand within 12-18 months (possibly 6 months if the training pipeline could be resourced to surge for that long).

[Evalu8ter]

MM4,
Chinook IPTL is a Gp Capt.
DEC ALM (now ALM Cap) is a 1*.
DG Hels & Cmdr JHC are 2*.

CinC Air, CinC Land and CinC Fleet are 4* - go figure why we've not ordered more CH47...

All of the above could rapidly move to buy more assets - but they'd rather ringfence their individual vanity projects than buy helicopters, particularly with a Defence Review coming up.....Please redirect your fire at more appropriate targets.

[MaroonMan4]

Evalu8ter,

No fire from me (the world looks rosey from where I sit/my cockpit) - but you are right, 'it does not figure'. But all of the starred positions that you mention (JHC, ALM, DG Hels etc) are not fighting the big 'vanity' projects (the old favourites of Carriers v Typhoon v FRES etc), as they have a very focused capability of Battlefield Helicopter lift - so what are the 'vanity projects' in the Battlefield Helciopter community that are clouding and delaying clear thinking and decision making?

With the essential requirement of 'how do we rapidly increase helicopter lift' being the master question, then I do not see any of your/our starred commanders in the key positions being able to stroke their 'individual vanity projects' without instantly standing out and looking a first class Melchett/Blimp?

This has been one of the few threads on PPrune where the debate has been well balanced, informed, and truly interested in the delivery of capability and not single service gains.

Who cares who flys what and how it is delivered, as long as it is sustainable, effective (in cost to the taxpayer as well as to the troops on the ground) and delivers what the troops on the ground require in the fastest possible timeframes (all with a weather eye on the simultaneous delivery for potential future wars and conflicts).

If there was any single service willy waving or obstruction then surely in the relatively closed communities of JHC, DEC, IPTs etc then it would be obvious and the offender (s) held to account and hopefully ignored/ over ruled?

As you have probably gathered, I am not a Whitehall Warrior, but your single service attitudes and land grabs/protectionism that you intimate must surely not be the stumbling block when the need is so great?

Please do not not depress me by saying that after all of this that the development and progress of future helicopter lift is being hampered/slowed down by say (for example) one of our Gp Capts putting their arms around 'their' aircraft or wanting any future uplift in capability to always go light blue?

I thought that after the whole 'one airforce - one nation' debacle that we had learned (and had become more savvy) and also, although I do have a great amount of loyalty to my uniform, I have more loyalty in delivering effect/support/lift to the troops on the ground.

The starred positions that you mention must ultimately see what their single service mentaility does to the whole procurement and delivery timescales etc.

[Evalu8ter]

MM4,
There are no BH "Vanity Projects" as there is little BH money at the moment. The £3Bn left after the £1.5Bn cut was largely pre-spent by the Govt (£1Bn on Flynx to sweeten the sale of Westlands to Finmeccanica), Fleet (£1Bn on the Merlin ASW upgrade - and nothing to do with ALM) and a fair chunk by ALM on the AH MTADS/PNVS upgrade (money well spent IMHO). What's left is nowhere near enough to buy new helicopters. ALM doesn't have a fixed budget - it is apportioned resource to meet the 4* endorsed plan for kit and support. If Flynx had been scrapped it would have been highly unlikely that the money would have stayed with ALM to purchase other assets.

If there is single-service attitudes in BH, then I'd argue it sits in the Puma/SK4 LEP debates as each force has strong lobbying power in and out of JHC, and both the RN/RAF want to keep the SO1 command positions.

The next big RW projects (FMH/Chinook & Merlin MLUs) will be the acid test of the MoD's committment to BH, even more so with an SDR coming up.

[NURSE]

MM4 Yes it has been an interesting thread. I would like to hope someone somewhere is thinking the same way.
The way ahead for JHC should be common airframes with the same capibility that can operate from ships/shore with no modification and with any shade of crew flying them.
It will be interesting if there is 2 SDR's in 12 months with a change of govt between them. Having watched during my childhood RAF and FAA support helicopters working hard in Northern Ireland and having seen in my service the state of the Helicopter fleet they have always been in my opinion a cinderella service to Navy and Airforce. But they have been on Ops constantly since the 1960's. The UK armed forces hopefully will grasp the concept that support helicopters are now mission critical.
I hope the LEP for Puma isn't going to kill of FSH though a mix of Chinook and/OR Merlin evolved for service at sea might help the capibility of CHF but long term could kill FSH.
As to alignments 16AA & 3Bde have always seen themselves as the prime users but all light role Brigades/battlegroups should be Air mobile and have suficient access to helicopters to allow training. This could cause issues with numbers deployed/in Maintenence/crew training and work up pulling on limited resources which would need to be addressed.

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

MM4,

I agree with you 100% about the political will required (or lack of it) to provide more SH assets, but IMHO Evalu8ter is correct in that it is the Service 4*s that need to endorse the requirement for more UK helicopter lift capability, over other "pet projects".

Even if that happened, and a contract to provide more CH47 was signed today, Boeing's ability to deliver a new Chinook to the UK would be measured in years, not months. The Canadian Forces are just about to sign a contract for 15 F+ CH47 (to be called CH147) and the first ac won't arrive in Canada for 48 months.

However, with a GBP 2B deficit in the Defence Budget and many projects looking for funding from now until 2015, maybe funding for RW MLU/LEPs is the best that can be hoped for.

Fortunately, the Canadian Forces (I left the RAF in March after 19 years, the last 7 associated with Chinook) do have a "one airforce - one nation" approach to air assets. They all belong to the Canadian Air Force, even the maritime aircraft, all operated and supported by airforce pers.
:ok:

[Madbob]

I agree with your common thrust. There was for a time a common medium support helo operated by both the FAA and RAF - it was the much-loved Wessex.:ok: What we need now is a modern equivalent.....

The arguement must be for a common airframe, compact enough to fit on board various ships, LPD, RFA's, Ocean, Bulwark etc. which can lift say a fully-equipped troop/section/patrol totalling up to say 12/14 "pairs of boots" - plus crewman and 2 pilots.

I would say it would need:

* two "big" engines rather than three as in the case of Merlin, CH53, Super Frelon.
* a wheeled, crash-worthy, undercarriage.
* Big doors on both sides of the fuselage.
* Folding main rotors and tail on a "hinge" to reduce deck space when embarked or hold space when being air transported.
* Provision for external stores/tanks for long-range missions/jamming pods/weapons
* Capable of fitting in the hold of a C-17 without main rotor head removal.
* Have enough performance to cope with "hot & high" places.

The Blackhawk ticks most of these boxes, but hasn't the cabin space of say a Sea King 4. Just as the F18 was scaled-up to become the Super Hornet the obvious answer, is to look at a scaled-up Blackhawk!

The sad thing is that we pioneered the use of helicopters in airborne ops, (remember Suez?) and the RAF and FAA used helicopters extensively in Borneo, Aden and the Falklands. Everyone seems to have forgotten how vital helicopters are in modern ops and that they really are essential, not just for inserting and extracting troops, but also re-supply, and casualty evacuation.

I know that there are other options, but the CH47 is perhaps too big and in any case a mixed fleet is inevitable as it is better to have the flexibility of say a fleet of 50 medium ac, rather than 25 heavy lift Chinooks. (How often do CH47's actually fly at max gross?)

Just my 2 pence worth.....

MB

[NURSE]

Madbob Blackhawk may tick your list but fails the first part of the spefication of being able to lift a patrol sized group+kit.
Where Blackhawk would have been useful was to replace the Lynx AH9 but Flynx will now fill that role.
As has been said earlier future support helicopter needs to be able to lift a half platoon/troop thats 15-18 bodies plus all their webbing, bergans, personal and support weapons. And its crew.
I think the assertion that we need a variety of airframes to fulfil the UK lift capability is correct and JHC shouldn't go into a single type fleet.
Blackhawk might have had a role in Brigade AAC Sqns as a light transport alongside smaller airframes like Flynx in the laison/recce/OP role. With medium/heavy lift still being found by the FAA/RAF.
Shouldn't we be striving to increase/improve the capabilities of our forces not just our service.

[Hilife]

As RR noted on post # 230 Top tip - don't hold your breath for Sea King as it is currently lifting 3 pax in Afghan summer heat.

Most of our medium lift platforms in theatre offer abysmal performance in the summer months – even with new blades.

The UH-60M’s are flying with every seat filled at 50°C and 6000’ DA which using RR’s numbers would require 4 Sea King’s to move the same amount of troops, so not so sure I would agree with you regarding bums on seats.

I wonder just how well the post LEP Puma’s and BERP IV Merlin’s will perform in similar conditions?

[NURSE]

Ok so the UH60 is lifting 10-11 pax is that with their bergans or just their belt order?
is the SK4 lifting 3 pax+ all their kit or just their Belt kit?

seperating troops from Bergans etc on a lift in is a receipe for a C&A party