U.K. Reconsiders Rotor Wing Strategy

[ORAC]

Defense News: U.K. Reconsiders Its Rotor Wing Strategy (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6760751&c=EUR&s=AIR)

LONDON - Britain is reconsidering its military rotor wing strategy and expects to deliver a new plan to achieve an affordable force later this year, according to the Ministry of Defence.

News that a new rotary wing capability study was underway at the Ministry of Defence emerged at a land warfare conference held in London last week when the man leading the effort, Maj. Gen. Bill Moore, said work was being conducted to deliver a coherent helicopter plan in line with the government's scheme to restructure the military, known as Future Force 2020. Moore, the MoD's director of battlespace maneuver, is heading a steering committee that includes senior officers from the Joint Helicopter Command and others.

The revised strategy is expected to be complete by the autumn, according to a MoD spokeswoman.

The MoD said in a statement that any significant changes to the helicopter strategy resulting from the review and from a separate three-month study of all defense sectors to better match priorities and budget resources would be announced to Parliament. "The rotary wing capability study will re-examine defence's helicopter requirement to deliver the Future Force 2020 vision set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review and ensure a balanced and affordable plan which delivers the right rotary wing force mix for defence," the MoD said.

The move comes as the government continues efforts to reduce defense budget deficits in response to severe cuts in funding over at least the next four years and the need to close a huge over-commitment in equipment spending over the next 10 years. The rotorcraft capability work may herald cuts to helicopter procurement, but industry executives and the military here are keeping their fingers crossed that the study will result in only modest reductions across the helicopter fleet.

Requirements for equipment, training, basing and others areas will all be swept up in the study.

Civilian search-and-rescue requirements will also be looked at in the wake of the recent collapse of the SAR-H deal, which would have involved an industry consortium taking over from the military the role of running those services around Britain. A new way ahead for providing search and rescue could emerge from the Transport Department later this summer.

The re-examination is the latest of several rotary wing studies undertaken by the British over more than a decade in an attempt to achieve coherence in what has proved a controversial area of defense operations.

The previous government was heavily criticized for a helicopter procurement policy that left the armed forces chronically short of lift capability in Iraq and Afghanistan. That problem was notionally resolved just ahead of Labour being ousted by the Conservative-led coalition in May 2010 by an order of 22 new Chinooks from Boeing plus replacement of two additional machines written off in Afghanistan. The new government cut the plan to 12 plus 2 Chinooks and last year handed over money to Boeing to start working on long-lead items and a design review. A production order has not yet been signed but a Boeing spokesman said they expected the first aircraft to be on the assembly line in Philadelphia next year.

Britain plans to start drawing down its forces in Afghanistan ahead of a complete withdrawal of combat troops by 2015, but Moore told the Royal United Services Institute conference in London that the MoD still "needs to buy additional Chinooks to improve our lift; our lift at the moment will not allow us to do what the government requires us to do."

The MoD said in the statement it remains committed to the plan to buy 12 additional Chinook helicopters for the Royal Air Force, as well as the attrition buy of two machines. "We are currently negotiating with industry on the main investment decision on these helicopters," the statement said.

Boeing reinforced that message, telling reporters in the U.S. on June 7 that the number of helicopters under discussion remained as advertised. One industry executive, though, said he had heard the number may slip to single figures and a second executive said the "odds on achieving 12+2 are very long at the moment." That was denied by the Boeing spokesman.

The British plan is to reduce helicopter types to the Chinook and Apache attack helicopter from Boeing, the Wildcat and Merlin machines from AgustaWestland, and the Eurocopter Puma, which is being upgraded. The Sea King is scheduled to come out of service in 2016.

Moore said the Puma improvement was needed quickly to "drive resilience for Afghanistan". The Sea King will exit service in 2016 and Merlin will transfer to the Royal Navy for use to lift the Royal Marines from their present battlefield lift role with the Royal Air Force, Moore said. "We have Wildcat coming into service but we have to do something with our [Apache] attack helicopter. We have the capability sustainment program and we need to build on that, and probably need to align ourselves with the U.S. Block 3."

A replacement for the Lynx helicopter, the Wildcat is scheduled to be in service with the Army in 2014 and the Navy the following year. The machine will provide reconnaissance, troop transport and other roles in the Army while in the Navy its prime use will be as an anti-surface combatant.

[HaveQuick2]

Surely in order to "Reconsider" there must have been a strategy in place before?

Did one exist before?

[MG]

Yes, all that has changed so far is that we are not buying 22 new Chinooks, only 12+2.

[Evalu8ter]

The whole FRWS needs to be reconsidered as the original one is now in tatters; the loss of 10 chinooks has robbed the UK of a meaningful increase in battlefield and littoral lift (as identified by the NAO) and will likely lead to the RAF losing a Sqn in order to transfer the Merlins to the CHF. In addition the farce that is SAR-H needs action not another bl**dy review - we're already past the "last responsible moment" to replace SK/S61 in toto by 2016. The RW world has been appallingly served over the past decade. The number of projects and studies run that have delivered nothing is criminal (FASH/SABR/FRC/F2F/FMH/SAR-H) - serving only to give senior Pol/Mil leaders a figleaf to say "we're investing in helicopters" and to keep CS pers in jobs. The worst culprit of course remains Brown who raped billions out of the RW budget just as his party was leading us blindly into Afghanistan

The really scary bit is that the original FRWS was created at a time when RW was seen as a crucial and critical shortfall; with Afghanistan slipping out of the headlines (and the RAF/RN almost beside themselves to talk about Libya) any new version could see the single services reverting to type and sacrificing RW funding lines to protect their own interests.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Word has it that the RAF will take over Apache, in a swap for some heavy/medium lift helicopters. That way, the RAF have all Combat Air and the Army have the helicopters in the role that they primarily use them for, troop movement.

[MG]

Now that is a new one!!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Quite! Its under serious consideration apparently, so I've been told.

[Tourist]

Foghorn

Can you really see the Army wearing losing the Apache?
Absolutly no chance.

Just because the RAF managed to get the toys off the RN for a while does not mean the army won't see that one coming.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Please don't shoot the messenger! The Army may want to trade Apache in return for the trooping helos? Keeps them in the game. Additionally, I suspect that the Army would see greater use and returns on having their own Chinooks/Merlins.

[Pontius Navigator]

Who will train the Army how to fly a big chopper?:}

And what with the RAF do with the redundant RW pilots?

[Tallsar]

Ermmmmm....make them redundant?:eek:

[parabellum]

Word has it that the RAF will take over Apache,


Got to be a non-starter. The Army require the Apache under their direct control to support their fighting arms as and when they are required, (including after 16.30 weekdays and over the weekend as well!), absolutely no need to involve the RAF, leave them to do what they do best, transport to support the Army, with Chinooks and/or Merlins.

Good troll though.:)

[NutLoose]

Pssst wanna buy some helicopters......... 30 available

Gazelle , AH-1 Military Helicopters - MOD Sales, Military Vehicles & Ex MOD Land Rovers for Sale (http://www.mod-sales.com/direct/vehicle/,95,/29696/Gazelle_.htm)

[MaroonMan4]

FL,

I too had heard the rumour that once we had realised that the attempt to delay and prevent the Merlins from going to the Fisheads had finally failed that we put our sights on the strike and air power elements of the Apache.

Although the brown jobs are doing a great job in the specific Afghanistan area of operations, and managing to pull it out of the bag bobbing up and down in the Med, long term I can see the value for money in AH coming under command of the air component. This will automatically replaces some of the key roles lost by the Harriers, will have even greater roles if employed across the whole air spectrum, and not just its current niche so called air manoeuvre.

Lets be honest the Army doesn't really understand the wider air environment and this awesome capability is somewhat restricted in the Army's hands. A proper defence helicopter command may be the compromise where the strengths of the RAF and the air environemnt can be integrated with the strengths of the AAC in the land stuff to deliver a multi role capability for defence flown by all 3 services.

The good thing about this plan is that no one will be made redundant, as over time the AAC will transition to the mighty wokka and and we will transition to Apache.

Makes sense from both cost and capability. Sadly I will be long gone by time anyone actually makes a decision on this. Lets not deceive ourselves in that how many reviews and high level meetings have there been since SDSR without any real or effective decision :ugh:

[Evalu8ter]

Frankly, I'd be horrified if the RAF got Apache. The funding streams would inevitably be diverted into "proper" attack platforms such as GR4/TypHoon and Apache would be left to wither. Think USAF and A10 all over again; the FJ generals have spent years trying to get rid of the Hog because, simply, it's not an F16......

Let's keep it the way it is; AH crews understand the employment of their platform and it is for the Air Component Commander to task them for other missions (SEAD etc). Likewise, the strength of the SH force is that it is NOT tied to a particular brigade and can therefore be flexed as and when required to make the best use of limited assets.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Parabellum, I think you've kind of just answered your own question by saying leave the RAF to do what they do best and transport troops. Why not hand a portion of that capacity over to the Army and then it's their train-set, transporting their own troops. Again, using your discussion point is exactly what's being seriously considered, as you could say give Apache to the RAF as Combat Air is exactly what the RAF do best.

If, as is being suggested, the RAF do get Apache then it could be stationed at a FJ base. This would allow closer cross-platform training and a more true integration of Combat Air.

[jamesdevice]

"Lets be honest the Army doesn't really understand the wider air environment and this awesome capability is somewhat restricted in the Army's hands."

And you think the RAF understands the ground warfare environment? Could explain why those aircraft actually useful to the Army were withdrawn - Jaguar, Harrier.....

By the logic expressed above, the Hercules fleet should also go to the army as they are also transports like the Chinook.....

The truth is, the RAF shouldn't have a rotary fleet. They should all be either with the Navy/Marines or the Army. Except for maybe a VIP transport fleet, helicopters are used in support of the ground or maritime forces - and should be integrated with them

[Tallsar]

The same old arguments go round and round......:ugh:...meanwhile all 3 aiir arms get smaller and smaller and smaller......and only the Treasury wins......so sad.:{

[A and C]

A lot of truth writen above but the bottom line is:-

U.K. Reconsiders Rotor Wing Strategy = defence cuts.

[parabellum]

the RAF as Combat Air is exactly what the RAF do best.



If only that were true, certainly not the case when I was getting shot at. The Apache is new and whilst we know how the Army operate it we can only guess the kind of meal the RAF will make of it. Moving Apaches to a FJ base is about the last thing the Army would want, they want them where they can get at them and use them. The vast majority of tasks the Apaches are used for are Army tasks, not RAF tasks. The RAF's job is to transport the Army, let the Army keep the Apache as they are the ones that do the close quarter fighting.

[Hilife]

Quote:

How will the £1 billion reduction in the helicopter budget pan out?

How about:

• Chinooks in single figures (down from a proposed 12-24)?
• Merlin HM1 CSP reduction from 30 as smaller surface fleet post SDSR?
• Wildcat SCMR reduction from 28 as smaller surface fleet post SDSR?
• Puma LEP binned completely?

On a previous thread last October [Defence Review Result at End of October] I forecast the above and I’ve not read much that would cause me to change my views today.

I’m still stunned as to why the MoD should continue to waste money on the Puma LEP (I can only assume politics got in the way of reason), but with a dwindling surface fleet, I don’t see the navy getting their hands on 28 Wildcat’s and with 5 years of IMOS coming in at £570m, I dread to think what the costs to the taxpayer will be for the 25 or so Merlin Mk3/3a’s scheduled to go through a marinization and LEP......£1bn plus for sure.

We are very adept at equipping our armed forces with bespoke - yet poor performing - platforms that require alarmingly high levels of maintenance and as a result, drain far too high a percentage of the annual SH budget on just keeping the buggers airworthy. :ugh:

[Tallsar]

Totally support your viewpoint at the end there Hilife....although to be fair the JHC and CM had appreciated these issues and were determined to take a better future approach...especially on supportability...
Of course it needs the politicians to listen and not interfere...but snowballs in hell spring to mind....
Merlin 3 should never have happened but it did.....
Merlin 3a should never have happened but it did..we should now have a fleet of 80 Chinook instead but.......
Cougar should have happened but it didn't and we got the Mk2 LEP instead..probably now locked in contractually like the carriers..although Mk2 will be a vast improvement it's not cost effective.
And of course...that extremely expensive Wildcat happened too.....when more cost effective alternatives were possible....as the House of Commons Defence Committee so rightly identified.....especially as you rightly say, quite a few grey Merlins are likely to be redundant soon....but then I think the Italians
probably threatened to abandon Yeovil if something wasn't built there...and that's
politics for you.



Meanwhile.......the numbers dwindle...and future affordability is always fudged aa heads go in the sand and figs massaged to ensure politicians and the Treasury don't get frightened at by the true through life costs.

[Politely_amused]

MaroonMan4:
Lets be honest the Army doesn't really understand the wider air environment and this awesome capability is somewhat restricted in the Army's hands.
Oh dear.... And the RAF doesn't understand being given a grid, troops get in the back, fly to grid, troops get off. Errr... Medals! Oh, sorry: Air Power, hurrumph, COIN and Air Power, blah etc, etc...

Anyway. Army and Ex-Army crews are flying CH-47, a Joint Helo Wing has been in existence for some time and we now have RAF chaps on AH. Maybe we should stop messing about and accept such convergence with a truly joint organisation as, IMHO, it seems to me there very capable operators on all sides.

It would raise some interesting questions about initial training and NCO pilots yet these would be the only real reasons not to do it. The fragmented nature of the three divisions of UK PLC helis has engendered all the prerequisite infighting in a bizarre 'zero-sum' competition that has left us yet again with multiple types, none really fit for purpose (other than CH47 and AH):
Merlin, expensive, shocking serviceability, way too big for its capability and awful hot/high.
Puma 2 - Sounds capable but has no deck capability and slow to air move.
Sea King - Well overdue retirement.
Wildcat - Shiny. But £15m plus each for a Lynx with a glass cockpit!?! Barking. http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=7ff4e48c-44dc-4c61-9614-7f081820d70e&version=-1
You could delete all these and Blackhawk would more than capably (and far more cheaply) take up all roles with great intercompatibility across roles and forces due to its high versatility and impressive deployability capabilities (decks, 2 x in a C-17 and so on). Jehovah! Cost?
A new UH-60L model aircraft... the current production model, costs about $10m UH-60A Black Hawk (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uh-60a.htm). The latest M Model is around $19.8m per aircraft.

It astounds me how a country the size of the US can have such clear and effective procurement programmes RAH-66 Comanche (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/rah-66.htm):

The Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche was cancelled on 23 February 2004... The Army said it would use the $14.6 billion earmarked for 121 Comanches between 2004 and 2011 to buy 796 additional Black Hawk and other helicopters and to upgrade and modernize 1,400 helicopters already in the fleet.

Meanwhile, in the UK our political masters really seem to think that propping up an Italian owned helicopter manufacturer is more important than effective procurement delivering effects (medium/heavy lift, littoral, fires and limited ISTAR). Which in turn is accepted by a military leadership seemingly only interested in seeing each other's services off.

Would love to say it will all change soon. However, Sigh...


:ugh:

[Gnd]

It would seem that PPrune has yet again dipped into the ‘lets try and keep the RAF afloat’ (sorry dark blues); so predictable. Have we forgotten the feeble and so utterly transparent land grab by the RAF with the KAirs? They are too heavy so they are RAF – I believe that was the pathetic winner of the piece and the fallout was the division of sh1t jobs to the lighter frame and more civilian quals to the RAF!!!
So let’s just muse on how the ‘give the Army the CH (you can stick the Puma and keep it)’ argument might go.


· Just drop your AH here please
· Thanks, oh just a mo, got some paperwork to do on the CH
· Ah, well you see we trumped you at yesterday’s JNCOs coffee morning with a 2* and were keeping the CHs apparently
· Mr Fox can we have some more men and money to run an extra fleet please???? (PS we need our commitment droped as well!!)

The only other problem I can see is that the RAF had a terrific problem actually finding a grid in previous theatres so how will they manage in the AH? (and where will the talking baggage go, for no RAF pilot will be allowed off on his own???):p

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That's right, Gnd, because the Army have never had any problems employing Apache's weapons and its systems have they.......

[AHDriver]

FL,

Sure the Army had problems, although when it comes to fielding a modern complicated helicopter the Air Force didn't do such a wonderful job with the Merlin did they (no offence to the crews, they do a tough job in difficult circumstances).

Fortunately, the gratitude of the hundreds/thousands of troops whose lives have been saved by the Army's attempt at operating Apache is enough for us to sleep soundly and your approval means very little. Why not just grow up and embrace one of the real HERRICK success stories, it would give your posts so much more credibility.

[Father Jack Hackett]

.....or should I say Wildcat in the room. Can anybody please tell me what Wildcat (Army Version) brings to the party that can't be already performed better by existing airframes. Apart, of course from sustaining (just) sufficient numbers of AAC squadrons as a separate air arm. How many Chinooks, Blackhawks, or any airframe with a clear capability could that money be spent on?

Why are we developing an airframe that is too small, lacks adequate crash-worthiness and doesn't have the best safety record in the world?

[Unchecked]

And can anyone tell me why, after years of Merlin crews doing a tough job in difficult circumstances of getting that aircraft up to speed and operated to the best of it's ability, all that experience is being eroded away to transfer it to the navy at a ridiculous cost?

This is about saving money, isn't it?

I don't want this to be a slight on CHF either because its not.

[oldbeefer]

Anything that flies should be RAF

Anything that floats should be RN

Anything else should be Army

Easy, init!

[Squirrel 41]

The notion of transferring Apache to the RAF isn't completely nuts, merely unlikely. But the suggestion of sending all of the SH force to the AAC is a sensible idea that will actually save money in personnel and operating costs from about year 5 - and though the amounts aren't all that big, it's money, and any money which comes without a capability cut is worth having. (And enough of the nonsense that Cpls can't fly a Chinny!)

But moving Apache to an FJ base? No need, as the Suffolk lot already operate from one of the finest FJ bases the RAF's ever had!

S41

[larssnowpharter]

U.K. Reconsiders Rotor Wing Strategy

Wot? And introduce a heavy lifter, STOL, fixed wing transport? The Beverley? 'Great ship. Take anything, nowhere!'

[I'm Off!]

There's a strategy?! Our battles are directed?!

[breakscrew]

The only reason that the RAF came into being was that the air arms of the RN and Army were getting too large and unwieldy for the respective chains of command. The RAF then ignored the RN and Army requirements between the wars, hence the resurgence of the Naval and Army air branches. Since the size of the RAF is manageable, surely the air assets should be re-integrated?
:ok:

[Backwards PLT]

Sniping and bitching aside (and a very defensive AH driver!!) there is a lot of sense on this thread.

Having worked with all 3 services (but I am RAF), my take on the "who owns/operates what" argument is this: Specialist types that are essentially organic to their units should be run by the respective service. So, for example, if you take off from a ship, look for submarines for your ship (or TG) then the people who operate the aircraft should be RN. If you fly an aircraft that only operates in close proximity with the Army then you should be Army. If the aircraft has a range of roles and can support many different services/roles/capabilities then it should be run by the RAF.

Following this logic you would come to some interesting conclusions -
Rotary to Army (although AH could be used in the bigger picture in some scenarios). However given where we find ourselves with crews (air and ground) a joint organisation seems the way ahead it seems to work pretty well.
FJ and AT/AR/EW etc stay RAF.
Rotary RN assets stay RN.
If you had a limited AD fighter that was there to defend the fleet it would be RN but if you had a multi role fighter that did lots of different stuff with lots of different people it would be RAF, no matter that you occasionally flew it off a ship (although this has been discussed to death on other threads.....:zzz:)
MPA - RN?
UAV (or is it RPA or something) - line of sight BG / Bde support = Army but long range, multi role UAV = RAF

Of course you could take the Army view that everything that exists is there to support "boots on the ground" so they own everything:rolleyes:. Of course we are all there just to support the political aim so it should actually all be run by the civil service!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

AHDriver, No need to flash, I am just calling it how it is. Anyway, as I said, AH to be taken on by the RAF is a strong consideration. Personally speaking I think it would be a good idea. Backwards PLT has got it about right I reckon.

[Clockwork Mouse]

AH to be taken on by the RAF is a strong consideration? About as strong as the Army taking on FJ CAS.

[Two's in]

The idea of the RAF operating Apache was first proposed by the RAF about 10 minutes after it was announced as the winning bidder for the Attack Helicopter competition in July 1995. The logic behind that proposal was the same as it is today - an attempt to maintain relevance on a non-linear battlefield. All that changed since the idea was first mooted is the capability of the platform - and the Army Air Corps' role as the third combat arm - have been established beyond all doubt. In the barren world of defence budgets, by all means develop a tri-service cadre of AH expertise, but don't miss the point of who is best qualified to own and employ a direct/indirect fire platform such as Apache.

[MaroonMan4]

Sadly this thread has degenerated into a slag fest already, but then again hardly surprising as we are all beginning to mimick the very senior leadership bitch fests that are as a result of the funding constraints put upon us by the treasury.

When these constant reviews of trying to re-work the answers of previous studies to eventually get to the answer that the treasury want, no one across any of the 3 services has the balls to simply say NO :=

Absolutely amazed that within 1 year of SDSR Libya is seeing the concurrency of operations and contingency planning, but we still need more cuts. That is before we even begin to look ahead to towards 2015-2020 and the increasing military/economic ascendancy of China, possible reduction in US commitment to NATO and if the media and RUSI think tanks believed the focus from Afghan being switched to AQ Africa (about the 2015 timeframe, just as we pull out from Herrick).

But in an attempt to put all of that to one side and try and restore balance to this potentially topically thread:

1. Not even I believe that purchasing 80 wokkas is the solution, and we all know that there is a requirement for heavy and medium in all current and future conflicts.

2. Why RN Merlin - not too sure, but the experience is already at Benson argument is only a valid one in years 1-4, and a sensibly delivered transition by JHC will ensure that all of that experience is passed on. Come on fellas, do we really want to be doing what the fisheads do, we all know the reaction at our place when a trip on the O boat appears, is Benson really that different, and rumour has it that all Merlins are off to Culdrose after this study anyway.

3. Apache to the RAF, of course yes it should be considered in this new study, why not? But lets include the whole damn lot and stop pussy footing around. One Joint Helicopter Force, with a Joint Force Merlin, Joint Force Apache and yes, even a Joint Force Chinook (sorry Puma crowd, apparently you are but a temporary measure in the grand scheme - but if you do remain in the JHC beyond your run out date, then you too become a Joint Force).

[Andu]

Sadly this thread has degenerated into a slag fest alreadyFor me, the thread had a feeling of deja vu, with the RAF -v- Army argument so quickly coming to the fore, it's like re-reading the recent Australian helicopter thread.

One aspect is common and incredibly important to both, (although some respondents on both threads don't seem to recognise it), and that is that funds that our political masters (read "taxpayers") can supply to buy and (really important) operate whatever assets they make available to whatever Service operates those assets will be increasingly short and increasingly hard to come by in the years to come.

Sadly, that last point simply isn't debatable.

[Ian Corrigible]

Politely_amused,

You'll be pleased to know that at least one Lynx is being converted to a Black Hawk: Retro Aviation gives Lynx a facelift (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-13688211). Just a drop in the ocean, I know. (Or in this case a drop in the lake.)

I/C

[Andu]

OMG, Ian, delete that post immediately or the MoD will take up the idea as a viable option to 'upgrade' the helo force. It could be called 'The Potemkin'.