Helicopters For Soldiers ‘Face Chop’

[PhamousPhotographer]

This was a page 18 margin headline from the 1st February NI edition of the Daily Mirror.

Que? Shurely shome 'lefty' journo’s mishtake – then I found -

Extra Chinook deal still not signed - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=15349)

Does anyone know what they're at here?

[alfred_the_great]

AFAIK we're not getting the "12 new" Chinooks....

[Melchett01]

The original idea was to get them to support ops in Afghanistan after all the comment on 'lack of helicopters'. Given the timelines for their introduction, UK combat ops will be over or all but over, which means there was only ever going to be one outcome here.

Not saying its right, but certainly inevitable. We will still need the cabs in light of the NAO audit a few years back, but it seems that giving huge chunks of cash to other countries is more important than properly resourcing defence.

[ramp_up]

Probably keep the Navy and AAC wild cat though as it will be sold to the public as the MOD have brought loads of new helicopters. Just don't ask how many people / what payload they can lift. Least when we finally get the 2 carriers, the Royal Marines and ships company will be able to run up and down the flight deck all day long without those nasty noisy aircraft getting in they way; mainly because we wont have any. Do we really need 2 floating cocktail bars?

[fallmonk]

I have already posted on the this site that there is 5 for sale from the Canadian armed forces , available this year , in thearter !
Ok there 3rd hand (previously U.S. Airframes) but am sure they still have a long life ahead of them. And as ex U.S. Airframes they will be "up gradable off the shelf !"
If we can't get the new ones maybe these Canadian airframes are the best we can hope for the now?

[ramp_up]

Why do you think the US gave them to the Canadians in the first place? Possible because they are cracked to ****. It would probably not be cost effective to buy and convert them as the D model CH47s would cost a considerable amount to upgrade and repair to make them into Mk2's. What we need to do is buy what we actually need to provide capable future Air Lift. If that results in a Single Service not having an air arm so be it. The RAF gave up its CVRTs and Marine Craft in the past. So why shouldn't the Navy and Army give up its helicopters if the need arises. It would make war fighting easy. On land = Army, at Sea= Navy air support of any kind the Air Force.

[draken55]

"So why shouldn't the Navy and Army give up its helicopters if the need arises. It would make war fighting easy. On land = Army, at Sea= Navy air support of any kind the Air Force."

Ta Ta RAF Regiment then:oh:

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Why do you think the US gave them to the Canadians in the first place? Possible because they are cracked to ****.

I think you'll find that they are airworthy. But, they are a long way from the Mk2 standard. Having been on the RAF Chinook force, the PT and now the CF Chinook project, I can say with some authority that the 5 CH147Ds on offer would present a configuration nightmare for the RAF PT, the work required to bring them to the same standard as the Mk2/2A and future Mk4 would make the Danish Mk3A Merlin work look like a walk in the park!

Canadian WokkaDoctor

[zalt]

More on the Canadian CH-47s:Metro - Cdn Afghan helicopters put up for sale (http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/canada/article/760217--cdn-afghan-helicopters-put-up-for-sale--page2)

[getsometimein]

Rumour of the grape vine is that the old cabs wont be upgraded, and the 12 new ones will replace old on a 1 to 1 basis.

So we'll get 12 new cabs, but ditch 12 old ones...

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Meanwhile the Sea King, the most numerous large Brit mil helicopter at present, will be totally gone in 5 years (under current plans), the upgrade for the Puma has been restricted to fewer airframes, and the Lynx (the most numerous Brit mil helicopter) is being withdrawn and replaced with fewer Wildcats. Not that all these aircraft are Support Helicopters, of course, but the loss of the Jungly Sea Kings and the reduction in Pumas is still a big reduction in troop transport.

[minigundiplomat]

I could argue that the Junglie SK are Support Helicopters. Bit slow but they have made many a squaddie smile over the years on the way home from somewhere crap.

[PhamousPhotographer]

I could argue that the Junglie SK are Support Helicopters.
Yes mgd; they were certainly used in that role during their time 'over here'. Can't agree with the 'crap' bit though!

[minigundiplomat]

It's all about perspective lol, but then again they have been busy in the ME recently. I was referring to that of course.

[althenick]

So why shouldn't the Navy and Army give up its helicopters if the need arises. It would make war fighting easy. On land = Army, at Sea= Navy air support of any kind the Air Force.

...And pray tell Ramp-up; How you go about telling upwards of 4000 RAF Personnel that they would be required to regularly go to sea for up to 9 months at a time? I note from other posts that you've done the time so fair play to you, but I think you'll find the majority of your sisterhood (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15992) do not agree.

[Wizzard]

So why shouldn't the Navy and Army give up its helicopters if the need arises. It would make war fighting easy. On land = Army, at Sea= Navy, air support of any kind the Air Force.

Althenick, spot the missing comma from the original post:ok: