Future UK helicopter fleet

[vecvechookattack]

Future UK helicopter fleet detailed: Key.Aero, Military Aviation (http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=1372&thisSection=military)

[barnstormer1968]

There is no mention of extra Chinooks on the list.

[mick2088]

That's probably because whoever wrote the article linked above didn't bother reading the written answer properly.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 06 Jan 2010 (pt 0027) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100106/text/100106w0027.htm)

The adoption of the Future Rotary Wing Strategy, announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 15 December 2009, Official Report, column 99WS, has resulted in a number of changes to our planning assumptions, although the only change to OSDs is for all marks of Sea King which will now retire in 2016 rather than 2018. We are procuring 22 additional Chinook by 2020, increasing the fleet size to 70 and subject to the Defence Review and individual investment approval the Merlin Mk3/3a fleet is due to switch from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy. Further Merlin Mk1 may potentially be modified to deliver Airborne Search and Control capabilities.

[Finnpog]

... If I read that link correctly, 28 Merlins to replace 42 SKs with the Junglies.:eek:

[SuperDouper]

Heard that the remaining 10 other Mk9 Lynx are going to have the T800 treatment at AW. Contract about to be announced

[Evalu8ter]

Not wishing to be a pedant, but you actually have to buy 24 Chinooks to raise the fleet size to 70 after the 2 combat losses. Probably a bit of funding slight of hand.

28 Merlins to replace 42 SK? Not a problem - the Merlin 3 will carry more troops further and faster than the old Queenie so combat effectiveness will probably be enhanced (though there may be valid questions about ruggedness). We must avoid the trap of falling into the platform numbers game - I've no doubt that CHF will justify keeping all the current Sqns and, more importantly, the SO1 positions that go with them.

[andyy]

I'm assuming that the line about the Lynx Mk 8 in RN/RM service being replaced by the maritime version of Wildcat is meant to read that it is being replaced by the battleield version of Wildcat?

[ericferret]

By evalu8tor's numbers each merlin will replace 1.5 SK, which means that in combat each loss equates to a comparable loss of 1.5 aircraft. Capability is not the only issue the numbers game is also valid in a full scale war. The inability to replace modern combat aircraft quickly could easily lead to total loss of capability.

I recently read a nice piece written by an American office who travelled in eastern Europe at the end of the second world war. He commented on how he kept comming across a destroyed german tank with half a dozen burnt out Russian tanks around it. We all know who won that encounter. Numbers win in the end, wasn't that the basis of Montgomery's victory at El Alamein.

[The B Word]

Numbers win in the end

Yup, normally about 15 kilotons...:p

http://ndep.nv.gov/BOFF/upshot.jpg

[Evalu8ter]

Eric, you are quite correct - "Quantity has a quality all of its own". Unfortunately, despite being at war, procurement is still driven by capability v cost and the "peacetime" budget is the one that must be balanced. So much as it would be nice to order more Merlins to "top up" the Mk3/3A for the CHF it is unlikely to happen in the short term. Perhaps an attrition buy might be procured in 10-15 years to make good any accidents or, more likely, if AW bleat that they have no orders after Wildcat/Algerian orders are fully delivered.

[Charlie Time]

There are two variants of Wildcat.

[Gnd]

Andyy, correct. although the RM have 7s not 8s. RM = Wildcat Mk1 (AH)

[andyy]

Gnd. Yes, of course, & the FAA have Mk8s.

[Biggus]

I've asked this before, but nobody made any comments in reply, so I'll try again.....

According to the original link the RAF Chinook fleet is currently due to be retired in 2040. Now I know they were bought in more than one batch (tranche?), but some of the earliest (such as the infamous BN) were around at the time of the Falklands war in 1982. Therefore, at retirement, if it doesn't slip further to the right, some of the RAF Chinooks will be 58 years old....!!

While I know fatigue is less of an issue for helicopters, are there any problems with operating 58 year old airframes?

[Tourist]

andyy
The RM are FAA, so the FAA has 7s and 8s, though the Army own the 7s.

[Evalu8ter]

Biggus,
Fatigue is an issue for RW; we might not be pulling G all the time but we don't half vibrate....

You raise a valid point; when the US Army did their D to F upgrade they initially chose to re-use the majority of D fuselages. It consequently proved only slightly dearer to use new ones. Although, AFAIK, there is no fatigue life per se on the Chinook, there are a number of RAF frames that will have had heavy landings, battle damage and other malaises (cracks/water exposure/heavy USLs/enthusiastic pilots etc). What impact these factors will have on extended longevity is open to debate.

However, you could also argue that under the Boeing Contractor Support contract, it's probably Boeing that are asking themselves exactly the same question - it's their job to provide the required ac/hours.

I do hope we're not heading into another "save today, get fleeced tomorrow" situation....

[Gnd]

Correct and the Army will own the RMs Wildcats so no change apart from airframes.

[Finnpog]

On the number of cabs...

RAF website gives 24 troops for the Merlin
RN website gives 27 troops for the SK4
USMC gives 37 to 55 troops for a CH-53

So using the sole argument of lift capacity - it means that 'we' could get away with 18 or 12 Sea Stallions to do the same job.
(Let's pretend that there isn't really just a cut in numbers)

Surely lift capacity is a point (a bit like Top Trumps the higher the number the better it is), but resilience in numbers for battlefield loss and maintenance plus the ability to be in different places are equally important than just bums on seats, if not more so.

[Not_a_boffin]

I wonder when the last time one of the Jungly SKs lifted 27 royals (in one go)was.........?

[dangermouse]

The comparison between pure troop capacity numbers can be misleading.

Although the RN state 27(!) in a SK4 with the Merlin Mk3 only lifting 24 the comparison is apples and oranges . A Merlin could take many more than 24 if the same (old) survivability/crashworthiness criteria for the SK4 were used.

I would guess given the age of the basic design a Ch53 may also be carrying more than modern criteria would probably allow if it were a new design.

If we are happy to continue putting troops into old aircraft types (which is where the RAF seem to going with a pure 1960s design fleet; Ch47 and Puma) you can get away with fewer cabs for the same number of troops, using modern aircraft will lead to a reduction in lift for the same number of cabs of comparable size.

DM

[vecvechookattack]

BBC News - Chinook stuck in field due to ice (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8448278.stm)


Good work fellas

[GreenKnight121]

Just wondering... how many of those 42 SKs are flight-capable, and what is the daily availability percentage of those... compared to those much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins?

I suspect that the RN will see no reduction in the numbers of "medium-lift helos" available for operations after the swap... and might well see an increase!

[XR219]

According to the original link the RAF Chinook fleet is currently due to be retired in 2040. Now I know they were bought in more than one batch (tranche?), but some of the earliest (such as the infamous BN) were around at the time of the Falklands war in 1982. Therefore, at retirement, if it doesn't slip further to the right, some of the RAF Chinooks will be 58 years old....!!

The first of the Chinook HC.1s were delivered in 1980, so with an OSD of 2040, some of them may be in service for 60 years! Likewise, by 2025, most of the Pumas will be getting on for 55 years old. To make the hackneyed comparison, this would be the equivalent of the Sopwith Pup remaining in service into the 1970s :eek:. Still, they'll have some way to go to beat the USAF B-52 fleet, the youngest of which are nearly 50 years old already.

[Diablo Rouge]

At 39 years old already, the Puma airframe is probably older then 80% of the people who fly it.

Chinook in field: Emergency landing next to the pub. You were taught well!

[Gnd]

When the Gaz was still mighty - we do stil have some so sort on thread - I remember one being iced up for a week then the ice was hamered off, flown to split and scrapped once the AEO found 257 dents and the 1/2 shell totaly delaminated - the driver was most miffed I seem to remember!!!

aircraft oops! (http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=137104.html)

this is where some of them went.

[Not_a_boffin]

Just wondering... how many of those 42 SKs are flight-capable, and what is the daily availability percentage of those... compared to those much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins?

I suspect that the RN will see no reduction in the numbers of "medium-lift helos" available for operations after the swap... and might well see an increase!

Hmmmm. I believe SK4 availability is pretty high despite the age of the cab. The "much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins" might get that way if the MIOS is ever funded with a realistic spares line.........

[163627]

These letters should make intersting reading.

Now Geoff Hoon savages Gordon Brown over Afghanistan war - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6982440.ece)

[Rigga]

"...The first of the Chinook HC.1s were delivered in 1980, so with an OSD of 2040, some of them may be in service for 60 years! Likewise, by 2025, most of the Pumas will be getting on for 55 years old. To make the hackneyed comparison,..."

Though the RAF's first were delivered in 1980 - they returned for remanufacturing and upgrades in the late 90's to Mk 2 standards. Plank jobs normally only get upgrades - not a remanufacturing of the airframe - Nimrod being one exception.

The changes made then replaced major structures and all the transmission systems for better and more reliable metalwork. Most of the airframe systems were totally replaced at the same time. Almost the only original thing that came back from the states was the shape - and even that had been altered.

I believe the remanufactured airframes left the factory zero-lifed but retained their historic serial numbered live's from the 80's. (quite important for 'BN')

I remember accepting as a "thank-you", from some US Army groundcrew, a full set of up-to-date US Army 'D' model maintenance manuals and mircofiche's to supplement the very poor RAF Mk 2 manuals on 18 sqn at Laarbruch.

To compare the 1980's Mk 1 to the Mk 2 is like comparing a Spitfire to a Tonka! (but I'd still rather fly in a Spitfire!)

The Puma fleet, on the other hand, is almost exactly as it left the factory so very many years ago - and I still have the system diagrams and notes to prove it!

[Diablo Rouge]

The Puma fleet, on the other hand....

Except that the original MAUW of 6700kgs would certainly have been cause for retirement years ago, even without present day conflict. That said, the present MAUW of 7000kgs with composite blades is barely sufficient for modern day needs, especially when a fair ammount of that weight is DAS. (of which the '71 model had none). Hindsight is wonderfull, but the basic Puma airframe should have been replaced with either Cougar or Blackhawk when both were new. I suspect that in the fullness of time, the upgrade of today will be seen as an error of judgement.

[Dundiggin']

I agree totally; the cabin has been far too small in the Puma MK1 since the RAF purchased the Pumas. It's all very well paying a fortune for the upgraded engines and transmissions but it still has the same finite cabin volume as when we first bought it! The South African Cougar/Oryx (?) is brilliant compared to what we have and what we shall get out of the upgrade. Can anyone tell me why we haven't purchased the Super Puma instead of p@ssing about with the Mk1s? I know finance is a prob but it would have fitted the bill better than what we are fudging at the moment.:ugh:

PS: By the way the initial MAUW of the Puma was 6400kgs and then it went to 6700kgs sometime later.

[oldgrubber]

I suspect that the RN will see no reduction in the numbers of "medium-lift helos" available for operations after the swap... and might well see an increase!

Hmmmm. I believe SK4 availability is pretty high despite the age of the cab. The "much-newer, less-maintenance-intensive Merlins" might get that way if the MIOS is ever funded with a realistic spares line.

Don't hold your breath for the increase (trust me) the Seaking is still easier to keep flying even though most of the spares contracts were killed off when the buffoons in charge said that the Seaking was finished several years ago. As for the IOS funding; well if it wasn't an "attractive" proposition Wastelands wouldn't have signed up, (or should I say AW!). Rumours abounded that if the RAF and then the RN used EHUDS, they could have a cheaper spares option for developing the system.

[Not_a_boffin]

My point exactly. The SK4 is so well known and largely "low-tech" that its much easier to keep online than a complex beast with lots of LRU that ain't funded, whatever the a/c diagnostics say! Ergo, highly unlikely that 28 will give better capability than 42.

[nimby]

DunDiggin'

It seems the House of Commons was of the same opinion. See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdfence/434/434.pdf, Summary, 2nd para

[nimby]

I had some difficulties (it's a big PDF) so here is the same report in HTML

House of Commons - Helicopter capability - Defence Committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdfence/434/43402.htm)

[oldgrubber]

I just found this article, apologies if it's on already. Looks like we should dust off the the old cabs in Sultan then! (chuckle)
defence.professionals | defpro.com (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13309)

[Tallsar]

Well done Mr Carson - a man of great genius and foresight. Good old Sikorsky for realising the potential of the old girl too and buying in to Carson rather than continuing to block its progress. S61/SH3 - the Dakota of the rotary world indeed!

Cheers

[Data-Lynx]

If we forget about the glass cockpit and new wiring, how different would a 'Triton' be from a Mk4 with Carson blades?

[vecvechookattack]

how different would a 'Triton' be from a Mk4 with Carson blades?

Well, the Triton would be able to embark and operate from a ship for a start.

[Nicholas Howard]

If we forget about the glass cockpit and new wiring, how different would a 'Triton' be from a Mk4 with Carson blades?

Quite different:

New Engine(s)
Non-folding MRH, including BIFILAR MRH damper (not new to S-61)
Non-folding tail
Steel Main Lifting Frames
New composite TRBs
Fixed, lightweight undercarriage
Crash worthy fuel tanks
HUMSAt least somebody thinks there's life in the old girl yet, I wonder if the UK would be interested in selling the 100+ airframes due to be binned over the next few years?

Nick

[chinook240]

Non-folding MRH, including BIFILAR MRH damper (not new to S-61)
Non-folding tail

Ideal for RN ship ops!

[Footnote]

Not that this is really relevant to the thread title, but the Carson bladed SeaKing Mk4 does have a composite tail rotor, HUMS, fixed undercarriage, up rated engines (of a sort) and if trials are successful, will have BIFILAR. Steel lift frames would be great but then it’s likely to crack somewhere else!

[Nicholas Howard]

Footnote,

composite tail rotor, HUMS, fixed undercarriage, up rated engines (of a sort) and if trials are successful, will have BIFILAR

Which is why I wrote:



New Engine(s)
Non-folding MRH, including BIFILAR MRH damper (not new to S-61)
Non-folding tail
Steel Main Lifting Frames
New composite TRBs
Fixed, lightweight undercarriage
Crash worthy fuel tanks
HUMS

The HUMS for the 61T is a different system from the UK SK GenHums, though same aims (obviously). I seem to remember Sikorsky quoting a "zero lifed airframe" as part of the conversion, though what this meant in practice I'm not quite sure given that aircraft doesn't have a structural fatigue life per se.

Seeing as the vast majority of the UK SK fleet have relatively few hours on them, then I would have thought they would make ideal candidates for this conversion. Interesting that the US wants c. 110, I wonder how many they can stir up from the boneyard?

Nick

[Tallsar]

I would expect that Sikorsky are following the Carson rebuild model which replaces the main frames to achieve zero life.

Of course the Carson rebuilds invovled entirely civ registered S61s, both long and short fuselage variants.

His plans for a re-engining with different engines were thought provoking and along with the new aerodynamic mods would have achieved performance broadly better than the S92 at a much lower price of course - or so it was claimed - so I would be suprised if they see the light of day in the new Sikorsky contract - anyone know?

Cheers

[Two_Squirrels]

how different would a 'Triton' be from a Mk4 with Carson blades?

Well, the Triton would be able to embark and operate from a ship for a start.

No they wouldn't. Not without additional evaluation and flight test anyway. Exactly the same way as Carson Sea Kings at the moment.

[Nicholas Howard]

His plans for a re-engining with different engines were thought provoking and along with the new aerodynamic mods would have achieved performance broadly better than the S92 at a much lower price of course - or so it was claimed - so I would be suprised if they see the light of day in the new Sikorsky contract - anyone know

I did see the T58-16 (ex CH46) fitted to one of Frank's SH3s in Perkassie, it had been done to assess the compatibility and what structural changes were needed, all of which looked achievable. The engine is about 8in longer than a Gnome, with a virtually identical HSS arrangement.

The performance figures that I saw suggested a performance similar to a 92, excpet for the ultimate MAUM was unchanged. The engine didn't directly give you any extra payload at SL (Tx limited), but hot and high it was impressive. It was also more fuel efficient than the Gnome, which (with the extra speed from his MRBs) meant you had an effective payload increase that was useful.

Nick

[Tallsar]

Thanks Nick - I had heard similar from other sources - much food for thought in the UK MoD in these hard pressed times I would hope...now that the US has committed to such a large number - its no longer toy town stuff anymore.

Cheers