UK considers aerial refuelling for helicopters IHS Janes

[Heathrow Harry]

Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
19 January 2016

The United Kingdom may field a helicopter aerial refuelling capability for the first time under options being considered following the recent Strategic Defence and Security review (SDSR), a senior official said on 18 January.

Speaking in London under the Chatham House Rule, the official said that air-to-air refuelling (AAR) of helicopters was one of a number of capability-enhancement options that were being explored by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), although it was too soon to say whether it would be adopted.

"I can't put [rumours of] aerial refuelling for helicopters to bed. We are looking at options to fly further, faster, and better as part of SDSR, and no decisions have yet been made," the official said, adding that it will be "quite a few months" before any decision is announced, one way or another.

The United Kingdom does not currently field a helicopter type that is AAR capable, although the Finmeccanica Helicopters (formerly AgustaWestland) AW101 Merlin HC3s fielded by the Royal Navy (RN) are provisioned for an aerial-refuelling probe beneath the nose. A number of the Boeing Chinook HC4/5/6 platforms fielded by the Royal Air Force (RAF) could be retrofitted also, although this would not necessarily be a simple task, or a number of MH-47G special mission Chinooks already fitted with an AAR probe could be acquired instead.

Besides not currently fielding a helicopter that is equipped with AAR, the United Kingdom is also hamstrung by not having a suitable tanker aircraft in service. Currently, all UK tanking needs are contracted to the AirTanker consortium which utilises the Airbus Defence and Space (DS) A330 Voyager, which flies too high and fast to refuel helicopters. The Airbus DS A400M Atlas airlifter has been found to be unsuitable also, due to airflow issues, and while the Lockheed Martin C-130J could perform the task, it would first require an amendment to AirTanker's contract with the MoD.

[Cows getting bigger]

Clearly the best option is to make Chinooks the tankersand fit probes to Puma? :}

[salad-dodger]

...and while the Lockheed Martin C-130J could perform the task, it would first require an amendment to AirTanker's contract with the MoD.
Brilliant. Every time I read about this it astounds me. If we want to modify the C-130Js that we own and operate we need the agreement of Airtanker, which has nothing to do with our C-130Js. The MoD gimp that agreed to this has probably received a knighthood. May even be working for.....

S-D

[BEagle]

No - it's quite simple. Just tell the £1M+ per day AirTanker consortium to provide the necessary service! They can then go and find a suitable platform to act as a helicopter refuelling tanker!

Now, where did I put those KC-27J and C-295K helicopter refuelling tanker feasibility studies I did several years ago?

[GlobalNav]

"Now, where did I put those KC-27J and C-295K helicopter refuelling tanker feasibility studies I did several years ago?"

I would be surprised if these models have enough capacity, but perhaps so. Certainly more than a helicopter could offer. The C-130J just seems to be the obvious low risk, high capability answer.

[billynospares]

I always understood that we procured the MK 5 (short) J model hercs for this very reason but the funding for helicopter tanking was then pulled.

[KPax]

Just read an article by Maj Gen Richard Felton, the head of Joint Helicopter Command (JHC) talking about AAR for rotary assets. The main gist is what would they use for AAR. He ends with saying that C130J would be the most likely aircraft to utilise. How long would it take to get crews and ac ready for this.

[VX275]

Are the probes bought for the Merlin 3 still in store or did they get sold by someone who thought they'd never be needed?

[MPN11]

As an ignorant old bloke, am I not right unthinking that A400M isn't a suitable AAR donor due to prop-wash, which is why the FAF are looking to buy some of our old C-130s.

So what is the imagined refuelling aircraft?

[CoffmanStarter]

I've just found this ... Airbus seems to think the A400M is Helicopter AAR capable ... If only said in 'headline sales speak' ?

http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/portals/0/Images/Missions/Military/AAR/Helicopters.jpg

Image Credit : Airbus

Military Aircraft Airbus DS | Missions (http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/Missions/MissionsMilitary/Refuelling/Helicopters.aspx)

But a Chinook might be a more tricky AAR proposition ?

[GlobalNav]

I think the plan was, even an operational requirement, for the A400 to be able to refuel helicopters, but trials were not successful or promising. Perhaps there is a remedy. Otherwise a different airplane is needed for helicopter refueling.

[MPN11]

CoffmanStarter ... nice PR picture. Are they actually plugged in? :cool:

Or do they actually need a 10 metre probe to be able to get close enough to the basket?

A challenging environment ... the solution may be interesting!

[CoffmanStarter]

MPN11 ... You need to be 'well endowed' it would seem :}

http://www.eucom.mil/Img/18395/HiRes/eucom-photo

[RAFEngO74to09]

Off the shelf KC-130J - complete with HARVEST HAWK kit - would be nice. It can also be used as a helicopter refueling point on the ground. Handy for SF helicopters perhaps.

KC-130J Tanker · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/c130/c-130j-variants/kc-130j.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERzT8KoVY7k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIodcKSIARU

[John Eacott]

I'm sure there was a thread on here a few years back? Italian C130J refuelling EH101 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/314120-italian-c130j-refuelling-eh101.html)

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh71/vicky10_photos/YK6R01751.jpg


http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh71/vicky10_photos/YK6R01771.jpg


DkayWPUCniY

and from the other end (a CH-53)

5GiIH1NHPKA

[Tengah Type]

The French were also doing trials with Pumas refuelling from an Italian C-130, over the lakes in the Medoc, last summer.

[Heathrow Harry]

which is why they are buying some more C-130's principally to refuel helicopters it seems

[SilsoeSid]

Surprised this one hadn't appeared earlier;

hcVb7reouzE

On a more cheerful note, fantastic footage later in this one;

gG2z8FrSCN8

[Jackw106]

another video of from the back of a C130J

https://youtu.be/hdqHTDKPzlA

[Brutha]

[QUOTE]Speaking in London under the Chatham House Rule[/QUOTE

Eh? Isn't the idea of the Chatham House Rule that you're not supposed to be identified?

(PS - no connection to military aviation myself, so please forgive this post!)

Edit - oops, had misread the original post, please ignore me!

[Frostchamber]

I'm sure I read somewhere that there is a let out from the AirTanker contract in circs where the Voyagers can't do the job - as would be the case in refuelling helicopters. Or perhaps I'm misremembering...

[Davef68]

Did the HC3 Chinooks originally come with IFR capability?

[switch_on_lofty]

So:
We'd like to do Heli AAR.
But we don't have:
1) An AAR-capable Heli.
2) A platform to provide the AAR.
3) Any spare cash.
4) Therefore much chance of this happening.

[dangermouse]

All Merlin Mk3 and Mk3A built for and with AAR, see the earlier post of the UK trials done in 2007,

Italians just done their trial including NVG ops for their RTS

http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/News/Pagine/20151007_Rifornimento-in-volo-dell%E2%80%99elicottero-HH101A-CSAR-da-velivolo-KC130J.aspx

agreed no UK tankers yet, but why not use an Italian one.

DM

[Sook]

Airbus are testing a C-295 HDU

Latest News : Aerospace Testing International (http://aerospacetestinginternational.com/news.php?NewsID=76799)

I would like to see the testing of the C-295 vertical landing capability!

[MG]

Yes, the Chinook HC3s (becoming HC5s as the cockpits are upgraded (again!)) were fitted for AAR, but the probes weren't bought with them.

[switch_on_lofty]

At the risk of being a bit picky; trials to establish technical feasibility do not make a capability (crew training, equipment support, assurance etc). From our talented pool of engineers and firms within the UK it is technically feasible to do lots of things that there is not a true military need or funds to pay for.

What purpose would you use an AAR Heli for? Something a bit special perhaps?
If yes, it's pretty unlikely that one would use an Italian tanker at all due to the lack of sovereign control. I.e. if your mission relies on AAR and the ITA govt doesn't want to risk it/be involved - no mission. For ad hoc missions also see lack of training above.
If we used an Italian tanker regularly (which it would need to be in order to be safe and proficient) it would suggest that:
1) we have a capability gap and
2) the Italians had something they didn't need, since they could lend some to us for an indefinite period.
Neither of which are likely to be politically acceptable from either side.

So I would venture that some UK CH47+C130 aircraft crews might one day do this but given the massive unrefuelled range on the CH47 I struggle to see a pressing military need. Just move the QEC a little closer to the target for the duration of the mission.

[MG]

I wouldn't say the the Chinook has a massive unrefuelled range. With 2 'Bob' tanks in, we managed 830nm from Tenerife to Dakar (about 7400kgs, with gravity refuel top up, landing with 200kg), but that took up just about all of the useful space available in the cabin. We had a few ground crew, with bags and a little kit, but that was it. Certainly not a combat load.

[Cows getting bigger]

Don't we still have some spare Andover ferry tanks kicking around?

(Sorry, harking back to HC Mk1 days).

[sycamore]

CGB,probably all in Red Bull drinks now; single skin tanks...H & S,dangerous...,and I guess the ones in the -10 went the same way..

[switch_on_lofty]

MG, I'll bow to your expertise on the CH47's range!

Realistically though, what mission requires a 200nm+ helicopter round trip? If it's that far away are we really going to send in the boys with just SH? Take Op Eagle Claw as an example where a long range helicopter mission has been required, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw you could argue that with heli AAR it could have been a success but I think that really it just leaves you open to more hostage-taking and losses.
Maybe I'm not thinking optimistically enough!

[MG]

The Son Tay Raid is a better example.

[KPax]

What about the Osprey?

[MG]

Very expensive, and actually quite small.

[chinook240]

One benefit of AAR is that you can take off cargo heavy, fuel light and top the fuel up once airborne when you have more power, subject to MAUM. Useful hot and high or overwater with no refuel options. How about the unrefuelled range of a Mk 3/5 with 2 bobs?

[Cows getting bigger]

Chinook240, I didn't realise a helicopter had more power when airborne? :hmm: I was alway taught it was about things like translational lift, reduced induced flow (ergo greater AOA), recirculation, efficiency etc. :)

I agree with your point though; far more efficient once going forward. :)

[BEagle]

As I told the relevant people at the time, if you can't fit wing pods, then you need a second FRU otherwise the mission is at risk of single point of failure...

Thus a worthwhile C295K would need a twin FRU installation and additional cargo bay fuel. Preferably without the need to open the cargo ramp in order to trail the hose, to reduce drag and turbulence. Plus its own AAR probe.

Reasons for helicopter AAR? Special Forces work, Combat SAR, humanitarian relief - quite a few in fact.

[Evalu8ter]

Yes RW AAR/IFR has a place. For the locations you can't get to un-refuelled from a QEC, or you can't land a C130 FARP or CH-47 "Fat Cow" due to terrain/threat. In an odd case of forward thinking, both the T45 and T26 have CH-47 capable flight decks so you could put one "up threat" further than a QEC.

How about a HDU from the ramp of another CH-47 for "buddy-buddy"? Granted, the downwash might well cause some hose stability issues but has anyone ever tired it? The USMC have made a big play of using the V-22 to IFR F-18s et al. Perhaps yet another niche role (along with COD, MITL, ASACS) that eventually add up to a fundable requirement for a small batch of them.

CGB,
As C240 will attest to, I'm certainly no "trimmer" but lifting "light" and IFR gives you far more flexibility over where you start from - including the potential to lift with adequate power margin to get to SESS quickly. Handy if the start point is a urban HLS and there's no room for a cushion creep or running take off, or an aircraft carrier. I think you can also reduce overall fuel burn by transitioning and climbing to cruise altitude light then topping up. Better ask a crewman to answer that one...;-)

C240,
I recall doing an IFR leg from Odi to Leeds in a Mk3 with 1xBob; on overshoot we were still holding Div fuel for Stavanger.......

[West Coast]

Realistically though, what mission requires a 200nm+ helicopter round trip

Operation Eastern Exit. NEO evac from Mogidishu in the early 90's. Two CH-53E's launched 400-500 hundred miles offshore due to deteriorating political conditions. AAR'd twice from C130s enroute.

[BEagle]

Realistically though, what mission requires a 200nm+ helicopter round trip...

Or closer to home, with thanks to the US: U.S. aircraft key to complex sea rescue off Ireland - News - Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-aircraft-key-to-complex-sea-rescue-off-ireland-1.92906)

Which illustrates why helicopter AAR is necessary - as is the ability for the tanker to be able to operate in the receiver role itself.

[chopper2004]

Hi guys

Has there been any trials done with Merlin in the last 24 months ?

Laughingly been reading Arrse forum and there's some regular Contributor / fountain of all knowledge to all aerospace defence topics and other stuff whose supposedly an scope jockey from the Fighter Control branch claims that Merlin AAr trials already been completed ? This is in the thread about the UK and the V22 and how it be useful for the CHF. He's state the obvious about lack of cash in the inventory and there's more pressing needs of the realm. He also says why would we need v-22 when the Mk4 hs capability for AAr due to trials already completed with the Merlins prior to transfer to CHF!


Cheers

[ORAC]

10 second search using Google..... almost 10 years ago...

Lockheed, Agusta demo Merlin air-to-air fueling | News: Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2008-02-23/lockheed-agusta-demo-merlin-air-air-fueling)

https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s640x640/sh0.08/e35/c90.0.900.900/14726481_653647358137226_7307796268988760064_n.jpg

[Evalu8ter]

Chopper,
There are a lot of reasons why you'd like a V-22 over a Merlin Mk4. Speed, range, height and payload all spring immediately to mind (and have a look at the improved range/payload specs for the CMV-22B) .....The Merlin has two main advantages over the V-22. It is expensive, but not quite as expensive as the V-22, and it's nailed together in Yeovil....

[Archimedes]

The poster in question on Arrse is PPrune's own Magic Mushroom (not seen lately around here). He'd have been, if memory serves, a tad distracted by incoming mortar fire at the time of the trials, so his memory of them (as he has accepted) was incorrect - because it was a green airframe, he'd assumed it was an RAF Merlin with an Italian KC-130.

I'd respectfully suggest that you've misinterpreted his argument, Chopper - the fount of knowledge problem is the (former?) Merchant Navy (or possibly RFA) contributor who comments on all matters armoured, aviating and maritime. MM's point is that V-22 isn't endorsed, and given that the CHF's cab (if not the cabs themselves) have undertaken AAR trials, and given that studies were done into this in terms of Merlin for JPR - I don't know how far they got, but I was asked for (very, very minor) input, so someone was definitely thinking about it - wouldn't that be a more obvious first step than going out and attempting to buy V-22s for an AAR-capable capability?

[chopper2004]

The poster in question on Arrse is PPrune's own Magic Mushroom (not seen lately around here). He'd have been, if memory serves, a tad distracted by incoming mortar fire at the time of the trials, so his memory of them (as he has accepted) was incorrect - because it was a green airframe, he'd assumed it was an RAF Merlin with an Italian KC-130.

I'd respectfully suggest that you've misinterpreted his argument, Chopper - the fount of knowledge problem is the (former?) Merchant Navy (or possibly RFA) contributor who comments on all matters armoured, aviating and maritime. MM's point is that V-22 isn't endorsed, and given that the CHF's cab (if not the cabs themselves) have undertaken AAR trials, and given that studies were done into this in terms of Merlin for JPR - I don't know how far they got, but I was asked for (very, very minor) input, so someone was definitely thinking about it - wouldn't that be a more obvious first step than going out and attempting to buy V-22s for an AAR-capable capability?

Thanks Archimedes

You have just triggered my memory of the time - around 21 years ago did we not try to pitch the 101 to the USMC as a Phrog replacement? I did see an artists conception of a grey 101 in their colors flying over an LPH in AirForces Monthly.

Cheers

[Davef68]

Thanks Archimedes

You have just triggered my memory of the time - around 21 years ago did we not try to pitch the 101 to the USMC as a Phrog replacement? I did see an artists conception of a grey 101 in their colors flying over an LPH in AirForces Monthly.

Cheers

AW pitched it a few times, as well as for other US programs (Coastguard, USAF HH, Navy)


Was the idea of a MV22 for UK AAR not as a giver rather than a receiver?

[Tinman74]

The poster in question on Arrse is PPrune's own Magic Mushroom (not seen lately around here). He'd have been, if memory serves, a tad distracted by incoming mortar fire at the time of the trials, so his memory of them (as he has accepted) was incorrect - because it was a green airframe, he'd assumed it was an RAF Merlin with an Italian KC-130.

I'd respectfully suggest that you've misinterpreted his argument, Chopper - the fount of knowledge problem is the (former?) Merchant Navy (or possibly RFA) contributor who comments on all matters armoured, aviating and maritime. MM's point is that V-22 isn't endorsed, and given that the CHF's cab (if not the cabs themselves) have undertaken AAR trials, and given that studies were done into this in terms of Merlin for JPR - I don't know how far they got, but I was asked for (very, very minor) input, so someone was definitely thinking about it - wouldn't that be a more obvious first step than going out and attempting to buy V-22s for an AAR-capable capability?

Meerkatz is ex Merchant Navy.

[dangermouse]

The Italian CSAR variant has a full day/night clearance behind the KC130J, I believe done with a joint LH and AMI team, so it cant be too difficult fro LH to extrapolate to a UK variant, especially as the first trials were done with QQ involvement

Just need to get some tankers now...

DM