14 New Chinooks

[Clearedtoroll]

Contract signed. Didn't think that would happen...

[side salad]

Airfix shares gone up...

[HaveQuick2]

Wow, so that is ANOTHER 14 new ones, on top of the 2 attrition replacements announced a couple of months ago, and the 12 new builds announced 6 months ago, and the 22 new builds announced last year!

We must have loads of money in the kitty obviously, getting another 50 helicopters about 5 years late!

Bloody spin doctors!

[ShyTorque]

I'm sure the BBC news lady just said "in a £1 million pound deal".

Bargain, if you ask me.

£1 billion, more like.

[glad rag]

So.....when we disengage from the governments foreign adventures and the Army get fired en masse, just what are we going to do with 60 plus chinnys (apart from rob then blind)?

[Could be the last?]

That will be the MK3 Merlins to CHF then!!

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

Why? Buying 14 new Chinooks that likely wont see service in Afghanistan doesn't find the money required nor make the Merlin suitable for the upgrades the Navy says it needs to go to sea.
I don't wont to get into the argument as to whether the Green Merlins should or should not go to the Navy (there is a sufficiently long thread for that already) just pointing out the two are not inextricably linked.

[Madbob]

Given that the first RAF Chinooks date back to c. 1980 (pre Falklands War) and that they are now 30 plus years old it is hardly surprising that we have decided to buy some replacements. They have, after all, seen active service in all of our recent wars, and lest we forget, include places such as:-

Northern Ireland
Falkland Islands
Balkans - Bosnia, etc.
Beruit
Sierra Leone
Iraq - twice!
Afganistan

and this excludes the odd "excursion" to places such as Morocco, Pakistan, Norway or deployments on* an LPH. Not a bad record IMHO.

What surprises me is that they keep going with the high reliability they show, when many of their FW equivalents are totally clapped and sha**ed.

It's hard to see how we could do anything useful without them in the inventory. :ok:

MB

* note I said "on", not "in" an LPH. Maybe on the new ones we'll get folding rotors in which case this could change!

[Old-Duffer]

Call me a cynic (that's a realist when seen by an idealist) if you will but I'd like to see the figures for our future rotary winged fleet set out on one sheet of paper with a delivery timescale, an explanation of which versions we're talking about and the out of service plot for each type and mark.

Words like 'double counting' won't stop flashing through my mind.

I'd also like to see the bill for the repairs likely to be required for the hard used wokka wokkas we have currently. I have a nasty feeling that some of these early airframes are suddenly going to be found not economic to keep in service.

Old Duffer

[percy prentice]

MOD predictive text went wrong. It should have read Chipmunks:bored:

[grandfer]

What they haven't mentioned it's £1bn to buy the airframes & £2bn extra for the software so we can fly them .:ok:

[Goffee]

That's a lot of copies of Windows 98 (Service Pack 1)! :=

[chinook240]

Given that the first RAF Chinooks date back to c. 1980 (pre Falklands War) and that they are now 30 plus years old it is hardly surprising that we have decided to buy some replacements.

Madbob,

You are correct, but the original ZA and ZD s went through a mid life update to D model standard in 1993-94 so they're not exactly in original condition. Still a great aircraft!

[163627]

As an outsider not knowing too much about Chinooks could someone explain why that at the end of this cunning plan we will still end up with a mixed fleet of three different models whilst all of our major allies are standardising (re-builds and new buys) on just one, the model F. Future MoD cock-up and overspend by trying to operate fleets within fleets with short-term saving and massive future bill?

[ORAC]

Quote:
Given that the first RAF Chinooks date back to c. 1980 (pre Falklands War) and that they are now 30 plus years old it is hardly surprising that we have decided to buy some replacements.

Madbob, You are correct, but the original ZA and ZD s went through a mid life update to D model standard in 1993-94 so they're not exactly in original condition. Still a great aircraft! Isn't MLU a great concept?

I mean, if that gives them a life to 2040... if we'd been able to give the Camel a MLU in 1918 they'd have been able go on through WWII and eventually retired in 1976-8........

[Evalu8ter]

163627,
In simple terms, there will always be at least two fleets - the thin tank (Mk4/6) and fat tank (Mk3/5). In an ideal world the MoD will upgrade all of the Mk4s and Mk5s to a Mk6 (Mk7?) standard by fitting the CH47F (Mk6) unique "bits" to the Mk4/5s. There's already a lot in common - most of the differences revolve around the fuselage construction and Digital vs Analogue flight control systems. Interestingly, when faced with the rebuild from D to F, in many cases the US Army simply junked the fuselage and built new ones - it wasn't that much more expensive in the long term by the time the old frames were cleaned and repaired.

Any commonality programme will depend on how the finances go and how busy the fleet is post 2015. IMHO, the best thing we could do is order another 50 Mk6 ac in a variety of thin/fat tank configurations and sell our old cabs on the open market (except for -718, which really must go to Hendon..). Mind you, they have been "well used"...Hope that helps!!

[Tallsar]

As evaluater says... We all hope that in due course the long term fleet (whatever size that turns out to be post the Afghan withdrawal and SDSR 2015) will be to the Mk6 standard as being purchased today. That said there are always some important and often hidden differences resulting from significant production date differences which can be quite hard to standardise on at a sensible cost. A long lifed production line like that of the CH47 is subject to changed construction standards (often to improve reliability and safety) and newer bits of kit and components, often as a result of design upgrades, or simply the need to change component specs due to old variants having ceased production.
Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope the cash is available in due course to get them all up to the same standard...everyone in the loop is well aware of the advantages of such a move, but if the cash isn't there up front, the best plans can fail very quickly.

[Tankertrashnav]

ORAC

I can remember the first time I heard that the RAF would be getting Chinooks. It was when I was at Seletar and the last of the Belvederes were about to go out of service. Wishful thinking of course, although they were operational in Vietnam then.

The year was 1967, 44 years ago. 44 years before that the RAF was still operating the Vickers Vimy! Changes in the field of aviation take a bit longer these days.

[Gwyn_ap_Nudd]

Back in the mid-90s the RAF wanted more Chinooks rather than Merlins; looks as if they might get their wish about 20 years late ... albeit with not quite as many wokkas as they actually wanted.

[Tallsar]

The original order for 15 A models was placed in 1965 as a Belvedere replacement on 66 at Seletar. It was a stupid bit of determined association by HM Treasury that lead to their cancellation in 1967 as part of the strategic announcement to bin any major UK mil presence East of Suez ( and the demise of the new CVA01 carriers too... The 1st HMS Queen Elizabeth BTW)... the logic went... Disband 66 ... Cancel CH47. No one seems to have spoken loud enough about NATO ops needing a few too! Even the resurrected buy in 1978 was squeezed through on "Addback" funds. Such was the tortuous and procrastinating birth into UK ownership of the most capable and versatile battlefield rotorcraft ever built.... And we wonder why Britannia weeps!:ugh:

[GreenKnight121]

Wow, so that is ANOTHER 14 new ones, on top of the 2 attrition replacements announced a couple of months ago, and the 12 new builds announced 6 months ago, and the 22 new builds announced last year!

We must have loads of money in the kitty obviously, getting another 50 helicopters about 5 years late!

Bloody spin doctors!

The 22 from last year turned into 12 earlier this year... add the 2 attrition replacements, and you get the 14 noted above.

The earlier numbers were just announced "intentions", this is the only contract actually signed.

Therefore 14, not 50.

[Old-Duffer]

GK121,

As I write in Post 9 - let's see the true figures on numbers before we get too excited.

When the Mk1s went back to the US for upgrade, the americans insisted that they were all of one standard. A significant chunk of activity ensued as the cabs were modified before shipment. On arrival in the US, the mods were mostly stripped out as part of the pre-update prep work that had been agreed. That's probably the last time 'configuration control' was achieved (Fleet Manager's nightmare!).

Old Duffer

[Martin the Martian]

Spotter intrusion.

The 1967 order even got as far as having serial numbers XV841-XV855 allocated.

Spotter out.

[Bismark]

Are the ones that were stuck in hangars at BDN (Mk6s?) in front line service yet? It seems a long time ago that they went for reversion.

[Agaricus bisporus]

As a matter of interest how may hours do "high time" Chinook airframes have

a)from new
b)since overhaul/rebuild

Ballpark figures are fine.

[muppetofthenorth]

Shirley even with the new Chinooks there will be retirements/selling off of the oldest ones in service...?

Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but I don't for a minute believe this will actually be a net improvement in RAF lift [ignoring for a minute the potential for the Merlins to go to the RN].

[Tankertrashnav]

Tallsar and Martin the Martian - thanks for the info on the original Chinook order. In my first few years in the RAF there seemed to be a succession of cancellations like this, including the P1154 and of course the TSR2.

Plus ca change :(

[Old-Duffer]

Bismark,

I think the aircraft formerly at Boscombe are now called something like: 'Mk3 (Retro)'. They have the fat tanks

FLIGHT magazine this week is doing a lot on helicopters in the British forces - I shall go and have a look to see what gems are revealed.

Drifting everso slightly towards: 'Chinook - Still Hitting Back', there is a letter in the same issue on the subject of the recent 'revised verdict' on the Mull but perhaps it's best we don't go there with this Thread.

Old Duffer

[Wander00]

Let's hope we bought the correct software package this time.

[MG]

The Mk3s are flying at Odiham.

The Mk2s will eventually become Mk4s when the Thales cockpits are fitted.
The Mk3s will also get the Thales cockpit which will make them Mk5s. They will be fitted after the Mk2s.
The new-buy will be Mk6s and will be new airframes from Philly.

[ProM]

As MG said, with the small detail of the 2as that become 4as.

As someone else said - Fleet Managers nightmare.

[BATCO]

Glad Rag asked:
"So.....when we disengage from the governments foreign adventures and the Army get fired en masse, just what are we going to do with 60 plus chinnys (apart from rob then blind)?"

Simples. Give the British Army (and Royal Marines, and occasionally RAF) the support they need. For example battlefield mobility, resupply, CASEVAC etc.

Whilst statistics have a bad reputation, a 'back of the fag packet' calculation puts the CH47to soldiers ratio in US Army at 1 x CH47 per 1250 soldiers. The British Army/RM get 1 x CH47 for every 2100. (I know we have ME, PU and SK too, but then US have CH53 and UH60 before we count USMC 22s, UH1 and CH53).

Even 60 x CH47 only reduces the gap to 1 x CH47 for every 1416 soldiers (in a 85,000 man Army).






Batco
With apologies to cigarette packets, statisticians, and PU/ME/SK crews.

[NutLoose]

Has anyone let Boscombe know?, so they can clear a hangar for them :E

[Tallsar]

Some good stats there Batco.... Very relevant and why even after the new buy of 14 we will still be about 10 -15 airframes short to really do the job - hence the earlier intention to buy 24 + 2 new ones. Curiously, you can argue that the smaller an army becomes (within reason) it comes to rely more heavily on heli lift to remain fully effective in modern warfare. It turns out therefore that the smaller planned army is now heading towards creating a better lift ratio... Not the way it should be done, but hey.... 60 is better than 50 etc etc.