Helicopter Replacements?

[Razor61]

Okay i know there are plenty of threads on here recently about the various orders and lack of airframes.
But as of January 2007 the British Forces had the following (together with their Out of Service Date)
It just shows an insight of what we have and won't have.
112 x British Army Lynx AH7/9 and 73 x Royal Navy Lynx HAS3/HMA8 with an OSD of 2012. Total of 185 (+/- a few)
To be replaced with 70 x Future Lynx, 40 for the British Army, 30 for the Royal Navy. This is costing over £1bn.
So, the £1.2Bn going towards the new MAN 4x4 and 6x6 utility trucks to replace the Bedford 4 tonner (and other variants - a lot of which are still going well) could have gone towards another 75 Future Lynx to bring the replacements back up to 145 atleast... still short of the replacement order but better than 70!
44 (ish) x Puma HC1 of the RAF with an OSD of 2010. We currently have no replacement on order as i am aware of. It's now nearing 2008 so why haven't the MoD pulled their finger out for an urgent requirement?
115 x Gazelle AH1 of the British Army with an OSD of 2018. These are dwindling already with some Gazelles being replaced i believe by the Lynx AH7 in the Scout role. So what helicopters are filling the gaps for the Lynx?
We currently have no replacement on order for the Gazelles either.
33 (ish) x Seaking HC4/6 with the Royal Navy with an OSD of 2012. We currently have no replacements on order. We have 4 years left to acquire it.
4 x Agusta 109 of the British Army for the SAS. OSD of 2008. We currently have no replacement on order for next year.
6 (ish) x Lynx AH7 of the Royal Marines. OSD of i take it the same as the Army airframes. No replacement on order, and no replacement on order for the Gazelles they lost either.
34 x Chinook HC2 with an OSD of 2015. We currently have no replacement for these on order. We have 6 more HC2A's downgraded from HC3 standard which have been sitting in a hangar for 8 years and they still haven't been re-configured, this will take a few years. OSD for these will be 2025.
I have left out the Merlin HM1 and HC3/HC3A as these won't be mothballed until atleast 2030.

[dum_my]

Puma HC2:

10 Jul 07: Contract looks into longer life for Puma

Eurocopter has been awarded an Assessment Phase contract for the life extension programme, which will include up to 35 of the helicopters getting new Turbomeca Makila engines, ‘glass’ cockpits, and new communications, navigation and defensive systems.

The new Pumas, which will be designated Puma HC Mk2, will not only have their life extended, but their performance and payload will also be significantly enhanced, particularly in hot and high conditions. The assessment phase, scheduled for the next 12 months, will consider the detailed technical, operational and cost implications of the upgrade. Successful completion will lead to a full development and manufacture contract for delivery of the main programme.

Source (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/index.cfm?storyid=AF8A62E2-1143-EC82-2E0EA651DB8B083B).

[Razor61]

This includes i take it, airframe fatigue being sorted out in all the aircraft, so basically a big overhaul with enhancements and new engines. Not exactly a replacement though just an MLU which will need addressing later on down the line which is like saying "ahh sod it, lets put a new engine in it, make it a bit more powerful and worry about replacing it in a few years time"
By then we will still be in the same situation as we are now, strapped for cash and no incentive to procure anything 'new'.

Lets all overhaul the old Seakings, fit Carson Blades and worry later on...
:hmm:

[PlasticCabDriver]

33 (ish) x Seaking HC4/6 with the Royal Navy with an OSD of 2012. We currently have no replacements on order. We have 4 years left to acquire it.

Or put some Carson blades on it and extend it to 2017.

44 (ish) x Puma HC1 of the RAF with an OSD of 2010. We currently have no replacement on order as i am aware of. It's now nearing 2008 so why haven't the MoD pulled their finger out for an urgent requirement?

44? You wish! OSD is 2012. There is no replacement as we cannot afford it. See below for the urgent requirement.


airframe fatigue being sorted out in all the aircraft

The fleet leaders are at just over half life in terms of airframe hours, and its taken us 36 years to get that far, so another 10 or so won't run them out.

Not exactly a replacement though just an MLU which will need addressing later on down the line which is like saying "ahh sod it, lets put a new engine in it, make it a bit more powerful and worry about replacing it in a few years time"


Not too far off, more like "a life extension programme which will need addressing later on down the line which is like saying "we can't afford a new helicopter now, so lets put a more powerful and fuel efficient engine with anticipators in it, about 25% effective extra payload, about 20% more fuel, add in a glass cockpit, sufficient nav and comms equipment to make it CNS/ATM (or whatever its called this week) compliant, and sufficient, open architecture, secure comms to enable to it work properly in theatre, and worry about replacing it in about 10 years time along with the Sea Kings in one big buy".

Regards

PCD

[Razor61]

Thanks for clearing that up PCD,
Now throw in the number of years it will take to do those upgrades plus the number of years they will be delayed to get it started in the first place.

Not too far off, more like "a life extension programme which will need addressing later on down the line which is like saying "we can't afford a new helicopter now, so lets put a more powerful and fuel efficient engine with anticipators in it, about 25% effective extra payload, about 20% more fuel, add in a glass cockpit, sufficient nav and comms equipment to make it CNS/ATM (or whatever its called this week) compliant, and sufficient, open architecture, secure comms to enable to it work properly in theatre,

Other nations just bought the Cougar. But we can't afford too. We spend £1.2bn on trucks we don't really need instead.

[ralphmalph]

Razor,
Take your point about lack of future funding completley, however to say that replacement of a 20-30yr old vehicle with a modern and reliable workshorse is a little aviation centric!. Undoubtedly there will always be a bun fight over who gets money and new equipment, I suggest that the funds spent on new vehicles is money very well spent. The issue of new rotary platforms across all three services is one which has continually been highlighted over the past 6 years, since the NAO report.

That said....doubt it will make much difference. A lesbian single mother with one arm has a higher priority (A Vote) to Gordon Brown.

Ralph

[PlasticCabDriver]

Now throw in the number of years it will take to do those upgrades plus the number of years they will be delayed to get it started in the first place.


The process is already well underway. Timescales are tight, aren't they always, but much of the preliminary work has already been done so they are not starting from scratch right now. Whether all the Mk2s are in service by 2012 remains to be seen, but we should be good way along at least.

[mutleyfour]

Bit out of the loop at the mo but wasnt their a SABR project that was to replace Puma and possibly Sea King?

[Not_a_boffin]

M4

Once upon a time (~1997) there was FASH (Future Amphibious Support Helicopter), which in about (2001?) transmogrified into SABR (Support & Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft). There were also BLUH (AH7/9 & Gazelle replacement) and SCMR (Lynx HMA replacement)

SABR died in 2004 (ish?) and became FRC (Future Rotorcraft Coherence/Capability depending on who you believe) when "senior people" realised there wasn't enough money in the EP to replace SK4, Puma, Lynx AH & Lynx HMA.

Since then, we've had the Superlynx buy (after they'd decided that they really did have to buy another maritime helo and couldn't just assume that the 42 remaining Merlins could do the job). Sticking plaster fixes (Merlin 3A and Wokka fix to field) will deliver 14 new airframes in two/three years.

Meanwhile, SH hours are going through the roof, SH people are going through the door and Nero in Whitehall is still fiddling.......

[petop]

"Other nations just bought the Cougar. But we can't afford too. We spend £1.2bn on trucks we don't really need instead."

If its the Support Vehicle contract you are on about, then the £1.2bn we are spending on the vehicles is money well spent. We are in desperate need of these replacement vehicles. Its all very well buying new aircraft but the money needs also to be spent on the support of them. Although it may not seem it, the vehicles that get the spare engines, spares, food and even lads to service the new aircraft need to be up to standard as well. 20-30yr old vehicles we are using now just are not up to it anymore.

[Jackonicko]

The danger inherent in this thread is the apparent acceptance is that the rotary wing fleet is adequate now, with the numbers outlined in the first post.

It ain't.

With smaller commitments and the same number of airframes (no South African Pumas, but without subsequent attrition) the 2007 total is broadly the same as it was when the NAO reported on battlefield helicopters - identifying a 38% shortfall in lift, and a 67% shortfall in amphibious lift.

Piddling about with an extra Puma here, Six merlins there or eight Chinooks is a drop in the ocean.

What is needed is to boost numbers and address the shortfall with a really big buy of about 24 new helicopters (a fully folding Merlin would fit the bill) and then replace the aircraft being retired with new aircraft on a one-for-one basis. 44 NH90s or Cougars to replace the Pumas, a similar number of amphib Merlins to replace the Junglie Sea Kings and CH-47Fs to replace the Chinooks.

[Jackonicko]

I wonder how many helos one could afford with the £3.9 Bn earmarked for the construction of CVF, even if that number does not escalate?

Or how many more helicopters would be purchased if you got rid of JCA as well?

[JagRigger]

I wonder what % of airframes are necessary for front line ops, and whether the 'plan' is to bring in more civilian support for other taskings?

[High_lander]

I actually seem to recall reading a Flight International article about the SAS replacing their A109s.

Might've been tail end of last year/begining of this one

[Archimedes]

We spend £1.2bn on trucks we don't really need instead.


As noted, the trucks are a good investment. How about taking some of the cash from the £127 Billion spent on quangos per year (a quadrupling of the cost as part of the previous Chancellor's 'war on wasteful quangos' that began 10 years ago. Apparently.)

[hulahoop7]

"I wonder how many helos one could afford with the £3.9 Bn earmarked for the construction of CVF, even if that number does not escalate?

Or how many more helicopters would be purchased if you got rid of JCA as well?"

Yeah or the £6-7bn which will be flushed on tranche 3?
It's just cheap and stupid to use that inane argument in this discussion. We need all three, we need more money - anything else is not sufficient.
:ugh:

[MReyn24050]

10 Jul 07: Contract looks into longer life for Puma

Eurocopter has been awarded an Assessment Phase contract for the life extension programme, which will include up to 35 of the helicopters getting new Turbomeca Makila engines, ‘glass’ cockpits, and new communications, navigation and defensive systems.

Not again DHSA went through all this nearly 10 years ago the decision then was that it was unaffordable. Why will it be any different this time round and the airframes are almost ten years older?

[PlasticCabDriver]

In 1997 all we had were a couple of aircraft in Kosovo, and NI was still going strong.

Now we are fighting 2 foreign wars and need all the helicopters we can get. There appears to be, finally, the realisation higher up the chain that the Pumas really are now obsolete, that they cannot continue (for a variety of reasons) in their current form past 2012, that the lack of SH lift is such a political hot potato at the moment, and that we cannot afford to lose the capability they bring (small though it is when compared to the chinook fleet) but they need replacing. A new platform is, however, utterly unaffordable right now.

Also, when the question was asked 10 years ago, was the upgraded gearbox and transmission included in the spec, because that added massively to the cost? That is not in the picture this time.

[MReyn24050]

Also, when the question was asked 10 years ago, was the upgraded gearbox and transmission included in the spec, because that added massively to the cost? That is not in the picture this time.
Why is that not the case now i.e. why is it not necessary to upgrade the gearbox and transmission now? Surely the increased available torque from the Makila engine will require these changes more so today with a much older airframe. Why do we have to go for these "making a purse out of a sow's ear" programmes which as we all know will result with a far greater bill than going for a modern replacement aircraft.

[Compressorstall]

You don't need a new transmission to cope with all the extra torque of you don't have a torquemeter in the first place to know how much you're pulling. Ignorance is bliss...

[Rakshasa]

The danger inherent in this thread is the apparent acceptance is that the rotary wing fleet is adequate now, with the numbers outlined in the first post.

It ain't.

[snip]

What is needed is to boost numbers and address the shortfall with a really big buy of about 24 new helicopters (a fully folding Merlin would fit the bill) and then replace the aircraft being retired with new aircraft on a one-for-one basis. 44 NH90s or Cougars to replace the Pumas, a similar number of amphib Merlins to replace the Junglie Sea Kings and CH-47Fs to replace the Chinooks.

Doing some fag packet maths and assuming an ideal world, (ha!) you'd be looking at about 60 units to replace the 40 odd Pumas and make up the 38% cab shortfall (jungly lack not included).

Then assuming Merlins and not Cougars or god forbid, Superhawks, at a unit price around £23 mil a pop... we're talking about a £1.4 billion contract without all the needed extras and no accounting for snags....

Heh, not holding my breath.

[Gnd]

Just on minor point - the same idiots are still in power and we won't have people to fly any of these pie-in-the-sky theories anyway?

[Stitchbitch]

Why not 'westernise' helicopters such as the Mi-17 and Mi-26, which have proven hot'n'high capabilities and are dirt cheap and get them in as a stop gap until we can afford some wonderous 'wasteland' plastic cabs? Instant capabilities hole(s) fixed. Righteo, wheres my Gems award....:}

Stitch ducks for cover...:ok:

[PlasticCabDriver]

Why is that not the case now i.e. why is it not necessary to upgrade the gearbox and transmission now? Surely the increased available torque from the Makila engine will require these changes more so today with a much older airframe.

Very simple. It makes it unaffordable. Upgrading the gearbox would be a capability enhancement. The Puma is not being 'upgraded', it is being extended. Any hint of capability enhancement will be rejected at the first hurdle. A better transmission would be fantastic, with higher MAUM etc etc, but it is not necessary to upgrade the transmission, the aircraft will work just fine with the old one. The IPTs and requirements managers have to justify every aspect of every single requirement in an entire program to pass scrutiny, necessary will (usually) make it through, fantastic to have will not. It is a vast amount of work. And no, I have never been a requirements manager!

To answer your next question, the Makilas are not going in because they are more powerful, they are going in because they are the most economical option to provide Puma with engines with anticipators. The extra power is a bonus. The extra power will really make itself felt H&H where the 3C4s currently run out of puff. If it was just about power, we could go for 4C4s, but they don't have anticipators either. Elsewhere, where the performance is not limited by the engines, but by the transmission, there will be a torque limit, and a torquemeter to measure it on, just like any other helicopter. It will remain the pilot's responsibility not to exceed it.

Why do we have to go for these "making a purse out of a sow's ear" programmes which as we all know will result with a far greater bill than going for a modern replacement aircraft.

Because we do not have the extra upfront money now that a new airframe would cost. It will be cheaper (allegedly, I share your pessimism on this point!) over the planned 10 year life of the Mk2 than buying something new. By the time we need to start funding a Mk2 replacement by 2022, the money will be available (again, allegedly...). So we have to somehow keep going with what we have got. Yes, we should have a modern replacement. We should also have enough money to buy and own outright sufficient modern AT to sustain current ops, and we should have enough money to stop our quarters falling down, but we don't. Until we are funded better, we can complain all we like about what we should have, we still can't afford it.

Sorry, rambled on a bit, I'll stop there.

[MReyn24050]

Thank you for your response. Back in the late 1990s Turbomeca were very keen to come up with a "package" that would enable the MoD to buy and install Makila into the Puma but the the airframe desk at the time would not support an uprated engine installation without the corresponding transmission and gearbox upgrading. I find it a pleasant surprise that they are now happy to go down this route. There has always been a certain amount of disagreement between the engine manufacturer and the airframe manufacturer regarding the engine to airframe integration hence the problems that occured when the last flector pack mods were introduced. It is great news to hear that this has all been resolved and both manufacturers and the Puma IPT are supporting an upgrade that does not involve any requirement to upgrade the transmission. I am sure the Helicopter Engine IPT will fully support such a proposal as the operating costs of the Makila are far more economical than that of the Turmo IIIC4 and I am sure that Turbomeca would only be too pleased to come up with a total support package. Mind you I am sure there are still restrictions and a certain amount of confusion regarding what the limits are when about operating at the higher MAUW ( the figure of 1% of the life comes to mind), I hope that the introduction of the HC Mk2 will overcome this problem also.

[ppheli]

I heard that four N3 Dauphins were on order to replace the 109s, but in true Hereford style, it's being denied all round.

[Blackhawk9]

The Australian Army are replacing 34 (if they don't crash any more)S-70 Blackhawks with NH-90's(big mistake!) in the next couple of years i'm sure the RAF could buy them cheap and the guys at 33 sqn would be happy with second hand Aussie Blackhawks over refurbed Pumas.

[serf]

and the gazelles?

[PlasticCabDriver]

MReyn24050, your memory is better than mine!

Mind you I am sure there are still restrictions and a certain amount of confusion regarding what the limits are when about operating at the higher MAUW ( the figure of 1% of the life comes to mind), I hope that the introduction of the HC Mk2 will overcome this problem also.

The MAUM of the Mk2 will be 7400kg, without restriction, in line with models like the 330J and 330L. The airframe is quite capable of taking 7.4, it is the lack of SE performance of the 3C4s that limits the mk1 to 7t. There will also be no need for the 1% restriction either. The proposed scheme also involves a rewire of the entire airframe, this will reduce the basic weight, so there will be an effective payload increase of, I think, around 500 kgs (if that figure is wrong I'm sure someone will correct me!).

If the final product actually enters service with the current design intact, it will be a huge step up from the Mk1. We must wait and see whether it survives contact with the enemy first!

Blackhawk9

i'm sure the RAF could buy them cheap and the guys at 33 sqn would be happy with second hand Aussie Blackhawks over refurbed Pumas.

I'm sure the RAF could, and you would have to ask 33 whether they would be happy or not, but by the time you have established a Blackhawk IPT, set up supply contracts, paid QinetiQ vast sums of money to certify them iaw Def Stan blah blah blah, modified them to meet UK requirements for avionics, comms etc, had QinetiQ recertify it after the mods have been modded, written the RTS, set up an OCU, found a simulator somwehere, trained the QHIs in the US, trained the engineers in the US etc etc, they won't actually be that cheap, or that quick.

[PTT]

Question from Stitchbitch:
Why not 'westernise' helicopters such as the Mi-17 and Mi-26, which have proven hot'n'high capabilities and are dirt cheap and get them in as a stop gap until we can afford some wonderous 'wasteland' plastic cabs? Instant capabilities hole(s) fixed.

Answered by PlasticCabDriver:
by the time you have established a [Blackhawk] Mi-17/26 IPT, set up supply contracts, paid QinetiQ vast sums of money to certify them iaw Def Stan blah blah blah, modified them to meet UK requirements for avionics, comms etc, had QinetiQ recertify it after the mods have been modded, written the RTS, set up an OCU, found a simulator somwehere, trained the QHIs in the [US] Former Soviet Union, trained the engineers in the [US] Former Soviet Union etc etc, they won't actually be that cheap, or that quick.

:}

[ericferret]

A number of Super Pumas have been sold off by Bristows and have gone to the German Border Police.

Wonder why the MOD had no interest in acquiring them or if they even new they existed.
The North Sea operators are renewing their fleets and I suspect a number of airframes will be for sale.

[NURSE]

so the Purchase of MAN trucks is unnecessary?
I would sugest the Humble Lorry is more flexible and moves more stores and pax than your precious support helecopter fleet. BTW what carries your fuel and spares and ground support elements the majority of the time?

Maybe if you want to save more money for flying trucks then why not downgrade the Drivers salaries to the equivilent of an RLC Private instead of the over paid egos normally found in the pilot seats.

[8-15fromOdium]

Not one to defend the 2 winged master race normally but I must take issue with: over paid egos normally found in the pilot seats I can't remember seeing to many of these in during my 12 years in the SH world.

NURSE you make a serious point about trucks, but gratuitous abuse always undermines an argument:=

The lesson 'identified' from operational theatres is we need more SH, now can we get back to the debate of how we get them.

[PTT]

I would sugest the Humble Lorry is more flexible...
Needs a road really. Not massively flexible in the mountains of Afghanistan or the Western desert of Iraq, is it?

why not downgrade the Drivers salaries to the equivilent of an RLC Private
Fishing? :ok:

[Razor61]

Found this on the MoD Website relating to the subject:-

The Puma/Gazelle Integrated Project Team (PG IPT) is part of DG Helicopters within DE&S. The IPT provides through life equipment management, and engineering and logistic support for the Puma and Gazelle helicopter fleets operated by Joint Helicopter Command (JHC). This includes technical support including airworthiness management, configuration control and publications provision, logistic support including spares provision and management of rotable component repairs, and management of Depth maintenance.

Puma Helicopter
The PG IPT has 5 locations, the Headquarters and Service Support Organisation is based at Yeovilton in Somerset and is divided into 4 principal areas: Engineering/Logistics, Business Management, Commercial and Depth Management. With the Puma Depth Support Hub at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire, the Gazelle Depth Support Hub at Middle Wallop in Hampshire, a Resident Project Officer at Eurocopter in Marignane in Southern France and the Puma HC2 Team at Abbeywood, the IPT comprises of approximately 110 military and civil service staff.

The IPT supports the Puma and Gazelle helicopter platforms on operations with:

The Puma HCMk1 operated by the Royal Air Force and used for transporting personnel and equipment around the battlefield. It can carry up to 16 equipped soldiers or lift a load of 2 tonnes, and has particularly good performance in hot temperatures and at high altitudes. The fleet is expected to continue in Service until 2010 when it will start to be replaced by the updated Puma HC2. The Puma HC2 will continue in Service until 2022.The smaller Gazelle AHMk1 is operated by the Army in the reconnaissance and liaison roles. While the formal Out of Service Date for Gazelle remains 2018, the MOD is examining options to replace Gazelle, and it is unlikely to remain in service much beyond 2012.

The IPT is effectively operating across the CADMID cycle with Gazelle AH1 and Puma HC1 operating in the In-Service Disposal phases, and Puma HC2 in the Assessment and Development and Manufacturing phases.

---- end snip---

So, what aircraft are the MoD looking at to replace the Gazelle? I take it they are looking towards Eurocopter with the EC-135/145 or not?

[MReyn24050]

Further to the posts of PlasticCabDriver and Razor61 here is a photograph of the present Puma/Gazelle Integrated Project Team's Leader : Gp Capt Tim Brandt ( standing second from the left) at the signing of the Assessment Phase (AP) contract for the Life Extension Programme for the RAF’s fleet of Puma Mk1 helicopters which took place at the Paris Air Show 2007 on the 21 June 2007.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c67/sabamel/41678759.jpg
As previously stated the Assessment Phase, scheduled for the next 12 months, will consider the detailed technical, operational and cost implications of the upgrade. Successful completion of the AP will lead to a full Development and Manufacture contract for delivery of the main programme.
It is also reported that in a development reflecting the Defence Industrial Strategy’s emphasis on an improved business environment, Eurocopter and the MOD will manage the AP in a Joint Project Office, soon to open in Bristol.
Commenting on the announcement, DG Helicopters Jonathan Lyle said: “The contract represents an important new phase in our relationship with Eurocopter. It offers the RAF the prospect of significantly enhanced Puma capability. We look forward to working with Eurocopter in the integrated Joint Project Office and to building a better understanding of how to enhance and sustain the UK Puma fleet into the future.”
So a year to do the study and then the design stage. As it is to be a "glass cockpit" and complete rewiring of the airframe QinetiQ will still have to be involved to approve these changes as well as the accompanying software, so there would be no saving there. It has been reported that this Mk will replace the Mk1 in 2012.
Forgive me for being pessimistic more likely 2015, if that. I just hope that, based on the experiences gained during the introduction of the Chinook HC Mk2 and Mk3, DPA get their act together this time.

[PlasticCabDriver]

So a year to do the study and then the design stage. As it is to be a "glass cockpit" and complete rewiring of the airframe QinetiQ will still have to be involved to approve these changes as well as the accompanying software, so there would be no saving there. It has been reported that this Mk will replace the Mk1 in 2012.
Forgive me for being pessimistic more likely 2015, if that. I just hope that, based on the experiences gained during the introduction of the Chinook HC Mk2 and Mk3, DPA get their act together this time.

An awful lot of the design work is already done, as this is not a completely new project for EC. The Mk2 is largely based on a very similar conversion that EC have done for a number of different customers. The engines (and associated mods such as installing torquemeter pick-off from the MGB), and the glass cockpit already exist and are already flying on these other models. The main difference between these other versions and ours is the comms & avionics fit, however the design for that it at an advanced stage already, being based on an already extant system.

QinetiQ have been involved almost from the start of this project, to head off at an early stage any of the sort of problems that beset the Chinook Mk 3.

As for 2015, I have been told that a prototype will be ready for flight trials next year, and that EC have the capacity to actually deliver the mk 2 as planned. However, experience has taught us to be pessimistic, it avoids disappointment later on!

[Kitbag]

PCD, I believe the Mk III Chinooks were also sold to us on the basis that 'its all been done before for a different customer' (USAF in that case). I also believe it was the comms and avionics fit, along with the flight instruments that caused the problems on the Wokka.

Standing by to be corrected/reassured that we do learn our lessons identified.

[PlasticCabDriver]

True, and if we had left well alone then they would be flying now. It is because they were f*cked about with to save a bit of money that the problem arose.

I think.

[Razor61]

I might sound dumb here but why do we mess around with the Avionics fit when it works for all the other nations with the same helicopter type.
If it works why tinker with it. What do we (the British) do to the avionics of each helicopter bought from another country to make it different to the one already fitted.
Are they not compatible with certain equipment we use or what?

[PlasticCabDriver]

Razor, you got me on that one! Anyone know why we keep doing this?

[Razor61]

The US Military upgraded their CH/MH-47F's with the CAAS (Common Avionics Architecture System) which would i believe open up their capability to be compatible with all future avionics fits no matter what was fitted in the flight deck. (I stand corrected if wrong).
Surely Boeing construct their new airframes with this CAAS installed so all future buyers including that outside the USA could fit anything they wanted into the flightdeck without any problems with it not fitting or installing properly.

So why have the British had such a problem with the avionics fit of the Chinook HC3, or did Boeing only produce this CAAS to fit US Avionics only creating a problem to buyers outside of the USA?

It is now going to take a a year or two for the HC3 to be downgraded into an HC2 fit just so we can get it into theatre...
If we had not farted around with the avionics in the first place they would have been flying years ago as PCD stated with pretty much all avionics.

[Occasional Aviator]

Hang on a minute,

Wasn't one of the major justifications of introducing RAB that it is supposed to allow us to save in the long term by buying new instead of throwing good money after bad extending worn-out and obsolescent equipment?

[RileyDove]

Wouldn't it have been sensible to sort out all this kit before we started running two wars back to back ? I cannot recall the Luftwaffe starting the
Blitzkrieg and running out of steam half way through due to lack of Stukas!

What this all stems down to is the procurement of 'enough' - not a little more or indeed ample - just 'enough' . Couple that with a procurement procedure which is ponderous in the extreme and it's hardly suprising that we look to be up a creek without a paddle.

The reason that other countries are retiring their Puma's is that there is better and newer kit available. It's not luxury - Portugal for example is in the economic doldrums at the moment . They are savy enough however to see the wisdom of buying fresh rather than indulging in enless undate programs
to squeeze that extra pound of flesh out of a machine.

The RAF should have ordered far more Bell 412's and let these carry some
of the combat burden. These are tried and tested and would have allowed for off the shelf purchase rather than having to go down the route of scrounging
off our European neighbours for any surplus helicopters they have.

[Guzlin Adnams]

Sorry for going off at a bit of a tangent but wouldn't the aquisition of a dozen or so C27's help with the helicopter shortfall? On some ops in the field it's either a C130 or a CH47 that has to carry out the operation. The Americans have recognised the need for a small-medium transport aircraft.
I wouldn't replace helicopters with them but augment airlift in general. The reality check is the cost of another type I guess.

[RileyDove]

The U.S has indeed recongnised a shortfall and wishes to use a smaller less vunerable type like the C-27 . Amazingly this would fullfil a gap left in the U.S inventory by the C-7 Caribou - we employed the Andover which did the same role and would be very useful now!

[Razor61]

Would an Islander fit the bill for re-supplying troops to augment the Chinook or would it be too slow and small for the job?
It has impressive STOL performance and carry a bit of freight, a re-supply of ammo or food & medical supplies would surely work and even Casevac.
The new Beech 200ER's are nearing service and they could release the Islanders for another role.
Maybe a bit slow and obviously limited to what it can carry of course.
Can't see the UK buying a transport aircraft the size of the C-27 at any time myself but it would be nice to get a surprise once in a while!

As for Bell 412's. The USMC are having 100 UH-1Y built brand new as far as i am aware. surely these are much cheaper options for a stop-gap measure?

[0497]

Interestingly some of the C-27s are to be in the hands of the US Army, something that's unlikely in the UK.

C-23 Sherpas in theatre at the moment:
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,020904_C23,00.html

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Sep/Battle_Heats.htm

[Tiger_mate]

RileyDove said:
The RAF should have ordered far more Bell 412's and let these carry some of the combat burden.

The RAF did not order any Bell 412, and do not own any. The 60/84 Sqn machines are civilian aircraft. I agree with your sentiment though, and it looks like the Canadians are using theirs as Armed Escort/EW platform for the rotary truckies. Having a 412 pick up soldier casualties (whilst laying down significant suppresive fire) and be able to offer subsequent immediate first aid has to be better then them clinging onto the outside of an Apache.

Out of the box thinking: That will never catch on.

[nigegilb]

Plastic cab driver,
I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.

Any truth in this statement?

[Two_Squirrels]

I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.

Any truth in this statement?



No, not true.

[Fareastdriver]

Writing as an ex-military and now and offshore pilot I have knocked up about 12000 hrs on 330Cs/Js 332Ls/L1s. Lots of offshore Pumas have in excess of 15000hrs on the airframe, an unbelievable figure considering the comments about there structural strength when they were introduced at Odiham in 1970. The Makila is a fine engine, especially the version fitted to the L1. Pulling a Super Puma along at 8600kgs they will burn about 450kgs/hr. It will be less with a Puma Mk2 because the cruise torque will be lower, 14.5 pitch as opposed to 15.5/16. They are however, quite choosy about the sort of air that goes into the intake, compressor erosion can be quite rapid. Leads to lots of thumps and bangs especially if the bleed offsets are a bit dodgy.
Operating the Puma J at 7400kgs is about as much as a Puma can take as the rotor system starts to run out of ideas and it protests furiously if you start to crank it around. It would bulk out at that weight any way so there is little point in beefing up the gearbox to increase it.
A 500kg saving by rewiring it I would have thought was a bit optimistic. Admitted most of it resembles a Renault truck but with the Makila you collect lots of boxes for the ECUs, Anticipators, Overspeed protection, etc. I do not know whether you have HUMS but for our engineers it’s a godsend.
A drawback with the 330C is the fuel capacity. I would have thought that they would have the fifth tank fitted when the Decca was removed but the Puma Js always had the sponson tanks fitted, an extra 200kgs a side. They don’t weigh much and don’t affect the handling. On the 332 they can add an extra 4 knots.
I never thought that when I strapped on XW204 all those years ago that I would be looking through the same windscreen thirty-six years later. Only this one is just eighteen months old. It is also Chinese registered and I have a Chinese crew and I'm paid in US$. If I had forcast that in 1971 they would have called out the blokes in the white coats. I was surprised at the comment that Bristow were flogging their Super Pumas. With the price of oil as it is the industry is snapping up every spare airframe and every spare pilot too, like me.

[PlasticCabDriver]

Plastic cab driver,
I am scratching my head. You said the new engines had anticipators, but I have been told that this capability will be downgraded to match the rest of the fleet.

Any truth in this statement?


Nige, not at all. All the fleet will be Mk 2, so no matching required. The Makilas are being installed because they have anticipators, to then remove them (even if that were possible) would be nonsensical. Are you mixing it up with the removal of the more powerful Turmo 4C4 engines from the ex-SA 330J Pumas to make them all 3C4 powered HC Mk1?

[ericferret]

I continue to be a little baffled by the comments after airframe life.

The high time North Sea S61's have over 40,000 hours.

Good quality maintenance will keep an airframe going almost for ever, spares availability is the issue.

So the purchase of second hand Super Pumas what ever their life should not be a problem.
As to availabilty, we are at war, so the government could always press gang a few!!!!!!!!!!

[PlasticCabDriver]

Fareastdriver, just noticed this in your post:


A 500kg saving by rewiring it I would have thought was a bit optimistic


Its not a 500kg saving, it is a 500kg increase in effective payload, comprising roughly 100kgs saved due to rewiring and 400kg from upping the MAUM from 7000kg to 7400kg routinely. The Mk1 can go to 7400kg, but only in a couple of limited instances, which does not include routine trooping. The plan for theMk 2s also includes the 5th tank, but not sponsons unfortunately.

Wrt airframe hours, even the Mk1 fleet leaders are only just over halfway through their airframe lives, it has taken 35 years to get that far, the next 10 are unlikely to take it to the limit.

[Squirrel 41]

P-C-D -

I thought I'd seen an RAF Puma with the larger sponsons at the Waddington airshow last year; potentially ex-South African? Or was I seeing things post-hospitality tent?

Thanks

S41

[ericferret]

When G-BEIC was sold in 2000 it had 43056 hours on the clock.

The current UK S61 fleet has 9 over 30,000, and 9 over 20,000 out of 19 aircraft.
These figures are a couple of years old so a least 2 more will be over the 40,000 mark by now.

I think that the age of the airframes is immaterial it is the capability that counts.

The high time Bristow Super Puma G-TIGE had 34,000 a couple of years ago.
Most of the 332L on the north sea are pushing the 30,000 mark.

The 332L's Bristow just sold to the German border guard had between 22/24,000.

If the MOD wanted a quick fix fleet they should talk to the North Sea operators they would be delighted to get a reasonable price for their older aircraft!!!!!!

[Fareastdriver]

I shudder to think of the work required to turn a North Sea 332L into a military machine. It would take at least two years of committees to decide what to do. How many are you going to get? a dozen at the most. The S92s and 225s going in are being paid for by big oil companies, the smaller ones haven't got that sort of money. The British North Sea sector is not a major player in the offshore oil industry anymore and there is plenty of work for 332s overseas, especially in the Far East.

[ericferret]

If they were lucky enough to get a dozen that would be about a 25% increace in the Puma fleet.

I agree that by the time the MOD and everybody else had decided what to do with them it would probably be quicker just to order new and wait.

Look at the fiasco over the SA Pumas.

To go to all the trouble of reconfiguring the aircraft to match the existing fleet was a waste of time and in this case less importantly money.

I am not sure that the comment that the North Sea is not a major player anymore is that accurate. There are currently about 70 helicopters operating oil and gas support.

[Fareastdriver]

Sorry mate, I was talking about the industry as a whole. Exploration, investment and production. Brown's oil revenue taxes have taken care of the first two.

[Razor61]

The latest as of this month:-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070912/text/70912w0006.htm

Scroll down to near the bottom.
"Progressively retiring the Gazelle"
To replaced progressively with?? Exactly my points.
Why is it with this Government they are hell bent on retiring aircraft either progressively or lately, en-masse and not having anything to replace them with?

[Marly Lite]

Razor,

What do we need a gazelle sized helo for anyway, esp as OP Banner is dead. The apache has its own sensors, we are buying many new ISTAR assets, defender, king air, ASTOR, predator all of which have longer legs and decent sensors. Do we need a small unarmed recce helo with no self-defence capability?

NO - we need LIFT capabilty, and LOTS of it, not a generals' taxi.

[Mr-AEO]

Quite so, but we could also do with a natty Police style helo that can sit on overwatch for our boys on the ground when they are busting Iraqi's front doors in (glad I said 'front':E).

Mis-use of Sea King 4 & others for this role is denuding the force commander of Lift.

[PTT]

a natty Police style helo that can sit on overwatch for our boys on the ground
Or a Predator?

[Marly Lite]

Fair one, but I'd rather have an Apache with night sensors a cannon and Helfire if it were me on the ground. Maybe a few extra apache and crews to ease the burden? Pred on overwatch?

[Razor61]

Valid point but the Lynx has also been scaled down dramatically. With orders to replace them as we have seen by a number not tallying up with what we get rid off.
Surely there is a need for a Lynx size cab on the battlefield still yet they are not replacing the Lynx with a great number are they?
The Mk3 Chinooks, when they come into service will be a big enhacement in capability but wait till it happens, the older Chinooks will end up being mothballed and so we will be back to square one again with the same amount of airframes, albeit a few slightly newer...not necessarily working.
With Predator, we only have a limited number (as usual) procuring a small amount. They can't all be in the same area as our troops are operating at the same time. What's the procurement, 4?
We buy Apache, and get rid of the Lynx TOW capability. Yet the Apaches can't as above be in the same area at the same time to provide overwatch to our troops. Because we always field too little...The Lynx which could have been ferrying small squads around could also provide fire support (like it did in Iraq with the Gazelle) with the TOW.
The US Army does not rely on just the Apache or Predator to provide a watch. They arm their UH-60s, OH-58D's etc with Hellfires and TOW and guns as do other NATO countries, so there must be a need for it?

[PTT]

Fair one, but I'd rather have an Apache with night sensors a cannon and Helfire if it were me on the ground. Maybe a few extra apache and crews to ease the burden? Pred on overwatch?
Pred B gives you the Hellfire option. It also gives you a much greater performance in terms of time on station, op altitude (and consequent noise reduction and reduction in threat to the platform) and is much cheaper to run than the Apache. How about a Pred B on station with manned CAS available on an "as needed" basis?

[PTT]

I think what I'm saying is that what we need is ISTAR (not necessarily a helo job), a big helicopter for moving lots of stuff around, a smaller, cheaper helicopter for moving less stuff around and a helicopter that can blow the t!ts off of anything it needs to. Chinook, [Super] Puma/UH-60/NH-90(?)/Mi-8/17 ( :uhoh: ) and Apache (athough I think AH-1W would have been better in the current climate) seems to be a possible set of solutions.

[Razor61]

What's wrong with the Merlin HC3? And please don't say "What's right with it" :}

The same issue i stated above with the Lynx having it's TOW capability taken away (I'm sure some lads out in those sandy places wish they had a TOW now and then on the Lynx when the Apaches have been elsewhere). Is the same issue (albeit slightly different) with the Warrior IFV not being fitted with a TOW Box either.
Look how useful the TOW was/is in Iraq fitted to the Bradleys and of course it would be in Afghanistan against bunkers and other nuisance targets.
The Kuwaiti's fitted one to the Warrior so why didn't we?
The same goes to firing ports, every country utilises these on their IFV, yet we don't and the new Mastiffs we acquired, the ports were covered over so anyone inside can't see **** apart from a CCTV image which is blurry because of the movement of the vehicle.

We start to procure equipment half way through a conflict then it's slow in getting there...and .... we have Chinooks sitting at Boscombe with cobwebs just because of an avionics issue....and to get them into theatre we are downgrading their capability to do so.
:mad:

[The Helpful Stacker]

The Mk3 Chinooks, when they come into service will be a big enhacement in capability but wait till it happens, the older Chinooks will end up being mothballed and so we will be back to square one again...

Did you pluck this out of mid-air or have you some hard facts to back this up?

The re-engineered Mk3 Chinooks are still set to be issued to the sqn they were originally destined for with the Chinooks that will be displaced being re-introduced to 18/27 pool so that the operational workload can be spread across a larger fleet. There are no plans to mothball any Chinooks, at least there wasn't last time Harry Staish at Odious had a chat with us.

I believe (although someone with a more engineering based background may be able to confirm or deny this) that the limiting factor on the Chinook fleet isn't the age of the actual airframes but the availability of parts, which as the Chinook lines are still open shouldn't technically be an issue.

[Mr-AEO]

IMHO a Pred B is a bit wizzy and quick to be providing static ISTAR coverage of a Single Op in a set location in a built up area isn't it? Hence the need for a helo type asset.

I suppose that that helo type asset cold be FireScout UAV or suchlike, but what happens when it all goes to ratsh!t on the ground and troops need immediate evac? A manned asset could potentially drop in and pull out any troops needing immediate medivac.

And what's wrong with Merlin? Nothing per se, but I would hate to use it for conducting overwatch using an IR turret over Basrah when it can be put to better use ferrying troops, equipment etc.

[Faithless]

"And what's wrong with Merlin? Nothing per se, but I would hate to use it for conducting overwatch using an IR turret over Basrah when it can be put to better use ferrying troops, equipment etc."

Agreed, Leave the Bus duties to bus drivers and put aviators with balls of steel over the threat!

[Marly Lite]

Faithess,

biting now: why does it take more balls to fly heavily armed/armoured AH in support of our lads on the ground than a lightly armed and (in most cases) unarmoured SH?

We all have our role, and they all take balls.

[PTT]

Razor61
What's wrong with the Merlin HC3? And please don't say "What's right with it"
Nothing wrong with the machine, crews or system per se, but we just don't need it. Big helo, small helo and nails helo are the requirement, so why get 2 big helos?
Mr-AEO
IMHO a Pred B is a bit wizzy and quick to be providing static ISTAR coverage of a Single Op in a set location in a built up area isn't it?
Nope. Target soak time, consistency of coverage (refuel anyone?) and operating costs are all in its favour. Also, I doubt it will be covering just one op - several consecutive ops in a (or several) large urban area(s) can be covered very well by it.
I suppose that that helo type asset cold be FireScout UAV or suchlike, but what happens when it all goes to ratsh!t on the ground and troops need immediate evac? A manned asset could potentially drop in and pull out any troops needing immediate medivac.
All those things are covered by other assets already - for example, CASEVAC is covered by whichever type inserted the troops in the first place or by short-readiness helos at other nearby locations. Do you think the troops want to lose their ISTAR cover for any period of time, even for CASEVAC? Answer is no, not unless absolutely necessary: it's what's watching their backs.

[Mr-AEO]

Ok. This probably answers why the RW MAS never got off the ground as replacement to Gazelle then. ((Excuse the pun).

[Stitchbitch]

Marly Lite quite true, however I remain unconvinced that the AAC see it that way...However I am sure they don't have all the balls of steel in theater as theres bound to be some on 'inabilities' in the logs chain...:E

[Occasional Aviator]

OK, I'm going to bite now: "Nothing wrong with the Merlin,... but we just don't need it".

I thought we needed all the lift we could get. In case it has escaped your attention, we are long past the stage of deciding whether to buy EH101 or mor Chinooks - that was back in the mid-90s. Yes, more Chinook would have given more lift per £, but that's not everything and the decision has been made so let's get on with it and make the best of what we have rather than carping about what might have been. Arguably, in an AOR like southern Iraq, the Merlin is actually better placed than Chinook with almost 4 hours of internal fuel and a cabin conditioning system for the summer (not that it makes a heap of difference!). It's also faster, smoother and (again arguably) better protected.

What should we buy next? Well, that depends on the requirement. There is overlap in the capabilities of CH47 and Merlin, but if the requirement is to secure continued employment levels in Yeovil if FLynx doesn't make the cut in sufficient numbers then we may get more Merlin. Not as good as getting more Chinook, but by no means a disaster.

[MarkD]

I would have thought one point in reply to Mr AEO would be that your typical UK police helos don't have a SAM/AAA threat. Well, not yet I suppose...

[Mr-AEO]

Sure,

Obviously any manned RW surveillance helo would need appropriate DAS. The same applies for loitering UAV's.

My main point is: stop using LIFT helo's for ISTAR.

Get rid of Gazelle (chocolate fireguard) and use the money for something else.

[PTT]

Occasional Aviator

Agreed that either Chinook or Merlin could fill the role, and also agreed that we need all the lift we can get, but we do not need two logs chains supporting one role - that reduces the funds available for front line aircraft. One (effective) logs chain means more aircraft available than two (effective) logs chains. This may be our transition period from CH-47 to Merlin, but I doubt it (and I don't really care which we keep - I fly something else entirely :E ). Either way, keeping both types reduces our total lift capability.

[ralphmalph]

Many people have said it and its true, stop using lift helos for other roles. Lets have a cheap COMR platform which the company provide the best DAS for and get going. If money is in short supply lets get rid of half of those very expensive grey Merlins. Rather than lose their capability lets just put money where it is needed.....as I heard the other day "funding will only be provided for current operations and not future projects".
Wonder how many EC635 we could buy for 20 grey merlin??.....**** loads I think!.

Food for thought

[Razor61]

Convert 20 Merlin HM1 to a troop carrying configuration. It hasn't got a rear ramp but it will still do the job of releasing those Lifters that are doing other jobs and not doing what they were built for.

As of this month, 39 Merlin HM1s with 11 in maintenance/storage(? if it's to be believed). Do we need that many ASW platforms? With the amount of ships we are mothballing now the helicopters could be used elsewhere...

You have the Merlin HM1 complimenting the Lynx (or the other way round) in both the ASW and ASurW, in all a great deal more than what we need, surely?

[Si Clik]

Chaps,

It may have escaped your notice but the Grey Merlin does actually have a role outside of short-sighted land component issues which are being addressed through very well publicised procurement routes - and the redeployment of some RN personnel to Benson.

If you bothered to check up on the strategic long term threats to both the UK, its allies and the 90% of trade that comes by sea, you would know that a very real ASW threat is out there and continuing to grow. Just how do you think we resupply or deploy our vehicles and kit to far away places - by air!!

A US or Israeli attack on Iran would create a very credible ASW threat in hours few to the 75% of world oil that flows through the straights of Hormuz. And by the way the Iranians are no amateurs in that regard.

You also forget that Mr Putin has sortied much Maritime Hardware - by sea and air - towards our country for which The Sun front page is the mere tip of an iceberg.

And just to be precise the tailcone of a Merlin can be taken off by undoing the 32 bolts.

Open your minds, think of the comprehensive approach and look further than the end of your nose and the messy COIN ops that our mate TB got us into.

Si Clik

[timex]

Open your minds, think of the comprehensive approach and look further than the end of your nose and the messy COIN ops that our mate TB got us into.

Trouble is when someone is shooting at the end of that nose you tend to prioritise a little bit differently!!:(:(



Shaun

[South Bound]

Hmmm, tricky, we can't afford financially to think beyond our current ops, but we can't afford strategically (or politically) to ignore what might happen should we mess up our foreign policy even more....

Personally I am with timex and would go with supporting what we know, the insurance policy will have to lapse....

[tucumseh]

A favourite pastime on this forum is taking potshots at “procurers” (when what you actually mean is “acquirers” – i.e. the various people who manage the acquisition cycle from Concept to Disposal). Some of the criticism is justified.

But if you step back and look at the plethora of excellent, but conflicting, points that have been made here I hope some appreciation of the problems faced by DEC and DE&S emerges. They have so little money to play with, and so many issues to consider, they don’t know if they’re full-bored or countersunk. (And the fact many don’t understand the phrase is one of the problems).

“Helicopter replacement” programmes have been many and various over the last two decades. I’m struggling to recall one that has actually been delivered. Merlin ASW/SH was set in concrete by 1985 (when I saw fully working integration rigs for the first time). Various iterations of Lynx have fallen by the wayside – I think they went round the same bouy half a dozen times. SABR was the most mind numbing experience for all that worked on it – cancellation after 7 or 8 completely wasted years forced some very good people, both Service and civvy, into early retirement.

I suppose most here that criticise haven’t had the misfortune to be an SO3/2/1 in DEC. If you do get such a punishment posting, remember one thing – excellence can be the enemy of the very good. The 90% solution can be very good. To put it bluntly – stop faffing around, make a decision, give your reasons and move on. Most of all, give your reasons. Explain to the users why you made the decision and people will more readily accept the 90%. If you faff around, and see out your two year tour, the next guy hasn’t got much of a benchmark to live up to, has he? He’ll just do the same. And therein lies the reason for most delays.

PS But don't be like one DEC officer I know. When asked to choose what he didn't want, due to lack of funding, he said "safety and training". I ignored him, but there are some who would not.

[thepurplepheonix]

Grey Merlin could be excellent in overwatch and as an ISTAR platform, which in a way I suppose it already is...maybe move some of the kit to improve hot and high performance?

Does anyone know what the state of play with the Mk3 fix to field is? Any firm dates for 'frame availability yet?

[Mr-AEO]

For Mk3 F2F read "Mk3 Reversion"

I can't find the link, but it's public knowledge that F2F is cancelled and that they are retrograding them back in time to the Mk2 Mod standard. The Topdeck cockpit is dead, for now....

So: More Heavy Lift for Green Army; no increase in HL for SF who will continue to be supported by NEP aircraft (ouch).

PS - They did have a nice coherent plan for Chinook common cockpits in the future. They DID, but this has gone AWOL with F2F being cancelled.

[Evalu8ter]

Tacumseh makes some very valid points. It has been very difficuly for the RW community to cope with the ever decreasing amount of money allocated to it. As an example, we were supposed to have £4.5Bn for SABR & SABR-SAR. Then "Buff" makes great play of sitting in an Apache and trumpeting the same money...except it's now £1.5Bn less and includes Merlin Mk1 CSP...
This is the problem. Given the correct resource SABR would be, shortly, delivering exactly the ac we need to be fighting these two very RW-intensive wars. We're not getting he ac because the RW "piggy-bank" is continually raided at Options time because Helos are not "core" business for ANY of the three services, and a very "fat cat" in the Land TLB.
It's disheartening to see a new generation of Civil Servants / SO2s grapple with exactly the same issues that SABR dealt with; repeating work, coming to the same conclusions, but this time hampered by yet another roadblock-the DIS.
The consequence of the SABR fiasco is embaressment; as everyone else is migrating to new RW systems (MV-22/NH-90/CH-47F/Ch-53K etc etc ...) we're left with life-extending our current stock because the RW money is a long way away in the EP and even if we had the money, we've missed the bus for buying new aircraft ('cos everyone else has)

[Jackonicko]

Mr-AEO,

NEP, sir?

I'm unfamiliar with that acronym, or it's gone walkabout in Atlanta!

[Mr-AEO]

Sorry, J.

Night Enhancement Package.

[Jackonicko]

Thank you, Mr AEO,

What a clot I am!