16 more Chinooks for the RAF

[hoodie]

Fat Tanks (?), EO/FLIR and MMR. Additional Mk.5, or similar but different?

UK To Acquire 16 Boeing Chinook Helicopters For $3.5 Billion (http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23537/UK_to_Acquire_16_Boeing_Chinook_Helicopters_for__3_5_billion #.W8sz-ehKiUk)
The Government of United Kingdom has requested a possible sale of sixteen H-47 Chinook (Extended Range) helicopters; thirty-six (36) T-55-GA-714A engines; forty-eight (48) embedded GPS inertial navigation units; twenty (20) common missile warning systems; twenty-two (22) radio-frequency countermeasures; nineteen (19) multi-mode radars; nineteen (19) electro-optical sensor systems; forty (40) M-134D-T mini* guns; and forty (40) M240H machine guns.

This sale also includes communications equipment; navigation equipment; aircraft survivability equipment; initial training equipment and services; synthetic training equipment; support package including spares and repair parts; special tools and test equipment; aviation ground support equipment; safety and air worthiness certification; technical support; maintenance support; technical and aircrew publications; mission planning system equipment and support; and, project management and governance; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistic and program support.

[SASless]

They will probably be flying when the Chinook design turns One Hundred Years old!

That is a pretty impressive life span for a design.

[Old-Duffer]

Are these additional to the current fleet?

Some of the earlier 'cabs' have been pretty hard used over the last few decades and I would have thought that the new aircraft, whilst sporting all sorts of new stuff and hence improved capability, will actually replace the original survivors.

The very early cabs went back to the US in about 1993 or so and have then been upgraded twice (?) since, so they are probably like the original broomstick which has just had three new shafts and four new brushes!

Old Duffer

[ORAC]

https://thedefensepost.com/2018/10/20/us-uk-36-h-47-chinook-helicopters-approved/

“In December 2015, Boeing delivered (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-12-07-Boeing-delivery-of-14th-new-build-Mk6-Chinook-completes-current-orders-for-the-United-Kingdom) the 14th Mk6 Chinook to the U.K. Royal Air Force, growing its fleet to 60 aircraft. The RAF’s current operational fleet includes (https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/chinook/) the Mk6 and Mk4 aircraft. The Mk3 “fat tank” extended-range helicopters have been upgraded to a glass cockpit configuration designed Mk5.

The RAF’s Mk4 aircraft are due to undergo modifications to incorporate the Digital Automatic Flight Control System seen on the Mk6 variant. They will be designated Mk6A and are expended to extend the U.K.’s Chinook capability to 2040......

The RAF is due to retire its Puma medium lift helicopters in March 2025.”

[D120A]

Probably a good place to note that the first Chinook ever to land at Odiham did so 50 years ago this year, 1968. It was an early US Army Mk1 machine and of course created much interest. All the station Wheels were given a ride in it, much to the chagrin of us cogs and split pins who were left on the ground. The Flying Officers' Union had its revenge, however, because when the aircraft landed all the Wheels came out red-eyed and runny nosed; the hydraulic mist in the cabin had done for them all! To this day I haven't flown in a Chinook but I do have two Belvedere air tests in my logbook which I suspect many Chinook types would envy. :)

[SASless]

A very dear fellow named Jack Trigg regaled this Chinook Pilot with Belvedere Yarns many years ago as we quaffed the odd Pint after work hours in Redhill.

I very much miss his company as he was a joy to be around.

I suppose one day I might have to pay a real penance for all the fish and chip wrappers I stuffed under the passenger seat of his car as he drove us back to the Company Digs.

One flight in the Belvedere would have done me I am thinking.

My first ever helicopter flight (as talking ballast) was in a USAF Piasecki H-21 Shawnee....which resulted in a forced landing (I should have taken the hint!).

[msbbarratt]

They will probably be flying when the Chinook design turns One Hundred Years old!

That is a pretty impressive life span for a design.

It's a good design, no need to make big changes. Apart from adding a couple of big rocket engines, obviously, that'll improve anything, even something that's already very good!

[NutLoose]

Or

Boeing CH-47A Chinook helicopter 65-07992. (http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/A_Models/65-07992/65-07992.html)

Another unusual incorporation was a gondola installed in the main cabin area that could be lowered in flight. The gondola was fitted with a set of flight controls that allowed an aft facing pilot to control the aircraft.

I bet that was erm..... interesting

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/A_Models/65-07992/BV347_gondola_extended.jpg

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/A_Models/65-07992/347a.jpg

[wokkamate]

MH47Gs for ‘the dark side’. Massive capability enhancement if you read the spec....

[ORAC]

MH-47G? Didn’t note any refuelling probe in the contract - not that we have a suitable tanker anyway....

[hoodie]

I bet that was erm..... interesting

Similar to the system in the Skycrane (CH-54 Tarhe)

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/480x480/41631988_271842476782774_2362310969581002642_n_ba8450400e448 355070f101a5071ebe3a501fafe.jpg

[Evalu8ter]

The original Mk3s came fully plumbed/bolted for AAR - IIRC we just didn't buy the probes, but would have when they were needed. Thanks to the short sighted nature of the FSTA contract (who honestly believed we'd never AAR helicopters?) we don't have a suitable "donor" platform. All things are, however, negotiable. CHF are also running around telling everyone that they will be bolting probes back on the Merlin (in order, no doubt, to let it lift off the QEC with a decent payload but no gas to tank while airborne….) without an organic tanker. If an agreement was reached with Air Tanker that a handful of SF configured C130s could tank RW only (for a suitable sum, naturally….) then we would be in business. Or, we simply borrow a C130 tanker from the USAF, USMC, Italians, French or Germans.

These frames will be the "pump primer" for a whole fleet recapitalisation. "What?" I hear you say, "Didn't we do that 8 years ago with JULIUS?". Errr, yes and no. Julius was never supposed to be a fleet fit, but the interests of a certain User community and a "use it or lose it" attitude to the Chinook CSP money at the time, forced the UK down a fleet-wide dead end due to the obsolescent centre panel instruments. We had designs to "digitise" the whole cockpit, but it was deemed "unaffordable", as were several pan-DLoD solutions. The purchase of the Gs gets the UK a world class capability, and clears a lot of the clearance/airworthiness hurdles for a fleet coherence project around the CH-47F Block 2. However, the current UK SH Chinook is a lot more mission capable than a US Army "Vanilla" F model. Those responsible for this work need to ensure in the pursuit of whole-life cost savings they don't seriously undermine what SH can do today, and let the User community know what they might be giving up capability wise to get a pretty cockpit and a flight director.

My guess is that 16 "lot 1" airframes will be retired and, in Tornado vernacular, RTP'd, as these Gs arrive. Hopefully, that will release ZA718 to her rightful permanent home at Hendon. I reckon we'll then buy 24 new build F Block 2s and, again, RTP the remaining lot 1 and 2 airframes. I would assume that the relatively new 14 Mk6s (CH-47F airframes) will simply have a refresh to bring them to the common Block 2 standard. That just leaves the 8 Mk5s - toss a coin whether you bin them as a savings option, update to the new baseline or buy an additional 8 frames to keep the fleet at the 60 aircraft mark.

[Lima Juliet]

Another rumour doing the rounds at the moment is that by 2025 then Odiham and maybe Benson will be moved to Boscombe Down! Apparently to be nearer the ‘customer’ and reduce the real-estate after Puma 2 goes.

[Coochycool]

Am I to presume that ZA718 is BN? She must have had quite a few adventures since 1982, especially in sandy places. What upgrades will she have had since then?

At the risk of opening a can of worms, last I heard was we had quite a few Chinooks in storage but couldnt get them certified post Mull of Kintyre.

But then again I've been out of the loop on this one for a while and am happy to be corrected. Anyone care to enlighten me on the outcome of that one? Hopefully without getting back into the enquiry debacle.

Cooch

[ORAC]

Coochycool,

As per post #4, they were the Mk3s, upgraded to Mk5s.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/29/chinook_mk3s_receive_mk5_update_16_yrs_late/

[Icare9]

Like helicopters, the price per unit seems to have risen since
Boeing delivered 48 CH-47Fs to the U.S. Army through August 2008; at that time Boeing announced a $4.8 billion contract with the Army for 191 Chinooks.

[tucumseh]

Icare9, your point partly answers Coochycool's question. In short, the US Army undertakes a lot of the work the UK asks Boeing/industry to do. One would expect their price to be very much lower. In 1992 the RAF Director of Flight Safety warned the Chief Engineer and ACAS of the effect of Boeing having no experience of being an 'offshore' Design Authority. Trying to contract Boeing in the same way we do (e.g.) Westland is a disaster waiting to happen. Hence, the root of many of the Mk3 problems.

Coochycool, your can is open. It was known immediately in 1994 that Mk2 was not airworthy and flying under a rogue RTS. This forced HQ, for once, to listen to Boscombe; who simply repeated what they'd said in 1987 after ZA721. If you keep on doing it this way, you can never get certification. Mk2 was first certified in January 1996, albeit with major limitations. By 1998 most of the biggies had been cleared.

[Kerosene Kraut]

How is this military stuff certified? Couldn't you take a stock US Army certified CH-47 and get it going in the UK right away? What does it take to recertify something existing? How did this work with the RAF RC-135W? I wonder about this for Germany too, we are set to get C-130J and possibly CH-47 as well - or new CH-53.

[Evalu8ter]

KK,
You can take a stock -47F pretty quickly. However, you would have to assure yourself that the US Army certification meets your own national, legal, requirements. You would also have to accept the aircraft ‘as is’ - in terms of mission equipment and workload, the current F lags behind the UK’s aircraft. If you make too many changes it is no longer recognised and covered by the US Army, and will therefore no longer be an FMS aircraft and you lose the pricing advantage of adding aircraft to a US Army block purchase. Write your requirements, agree your KURs then trade lesser requirements until you hit affordability. Start with the money first and you can very easily buy a dog that nobody wants.....

[tucumseh]

Note, Evalu8ter (correctly) didn't mention Boeing!

KK. Not everyone uses the same aircraft 'certification' system. The UK MoD has a 'limitations-based' one. Read across is seldom straight forward. For example, our Home Office dictates some quite important specifications and requirements, which a typical US standard would not (and do not) meet. (And if they claimed to, GCHQ and most of our designers would want to know how, as it's very difficult!). The anonymous and very lowly pleb in MoD who signs the concessions and production permits has a thankless job.

[Kerosene Kraut]

Interesting business it seems. Thanks for your replies.

[SASless]

For example, our Home Office dictates some quite important specifications and requirements, which a typical US standard would not (and do not) meet. (And if they claimed to, GCHQ and most of our designers would want to know how, as it's very difficult!).


Care to expound upon that statement?

Exactly what would prevent the US builders from meeting those specifications and requirements?

What are the specifications and requirements that are so "difficult" to meet by non-UK builders?

[tucumseh]

SASless

Care to expound upon that statement?
I kept it brief because any more is beyond TS.

Exactly what would prevent the US builders from meeting those specifications and requirements?
Not knowing what they are in the first place. The US have equivalents, but they are (sensibly) less stringent than the Home Office's, and that is borne out by past Chinook requirements issued internally by MoD.

What are the specifications and requirements that are so "difficult" to meet by non-UK builders?
See above. I had TS clearance and was not permitted to know. It happens I do know, give or take, because the silly rules do not extend to stopping me viewing the test results as I had to sign production permits; but there is no point me quoting the specs 'cos the actual figures are removed and made available separately.

I hope you appreciate I'm not being awkward. To me, the Chinook, as built, is perfectly adequate. It is a hole the HO dug for us. My main point, which is perhaps unclear, is that while many moan and groan about MoD's procurers allegedly changing requirements and faffing around with specs, in fact they have little or nothing to do with it. They have to work within legal obligations and political mandates. What the Service may actually want or need (seldom the same thing, and seldom stated) comes a poor third.

[SASless]

Thank you for the response....certainly do not want to give away the farm in an open forum......as we would not wish to be accused of acting like Hillary!

[Lynxman]

What has the Home Office got to do with Certification specifications? The default UK Cert spec is Def Stan 00-970 sponsored by the MAA, nothing to do with the Home Office. The US Army’s AMRDEC is mutually recognised by the MAA as suppling quality equivalent Certification artefacts, the UK Delivery Team then has to show equivalence of these artefacts to the Def Stan to gain UK Certification. RA 5810 Annex A refers and details the process.

[tartare]

Seeing that BV-347, always wondered if a stealthy Wokka exists.?
I know - contradiction in terms - but clearly there's a stealthy UH-60 - so why not try it with the big brother...?
On occasions when a singleton or pair of Chinooks can be spotted flying over Sydney, am always struck by how quiet they are compared to the UH-1Hs we had in NZ.
You could hear the blade slap for miles.

[SASless]

Six huge Rotor Blades, two big engine nacelles a big ol' fat cross section and the two Transmission Pylons would take some disguising.

Then the Thermal footprint of the engines, transmissions, and various coolers would also pose a small problem as well.

[tartare]

True.
But if you can make a Zumwalt look like a fishing boat...

[Chris Kebab]

Note, Evalu8ter (correctly) didn't mention Boeing!

KK. Not everyone uses the same aircraft 'certification' system. The UK MoD has a 'limitations-based' one. Read across is seldom straight forward. For example, our Home Office dictates some quite important specifications and requirements, which a typical US standard would not (and do not) meet. (And if they claimed to, GCHQ and most of our designers would want to know how, as it's very difficult!). The anonymous and very lowly pleb in MoD who signs the concessions and production permits has a thankless job.
You've lost me as well there Tuc, what has the Home Office got to do with UK Mil aircraft certification?

[ORAC]

I would suspect it involves the cyber security of all equipment including crypto data latency; sources of all components, Tempest requirements etc etc. Plus of course the security of the systems of all contractors and subcontractors. You only have to remember the reported theft of the data concerning the F-35 design etc.

[Asturias56]

I always understood that the Uk Home ministry handled internal security & the foreign ministry external security
.... so sounds like an internal rule???

[1771 DELETE]

He lost me when i found out GCHQ were part of the design authority.

[ORAC]

For example - the NCSC is a subordinate section of GCHQ.

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/test-lab/raf-waddington-tempest-test-team-cptas

[pr00ne]

ORAC,

And GCHQ is a subordinate section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[ORAC]

Because, theoretically, we are not allowed to spy on our citizens, ahem.

Of course GCHQ can monitor on American citizens communications and the NSA can monitor British communications - and they exchange data. So that’s all sorted then.....

[Strumble Head]

Because, theoretically, we are not allowed to spy on our citizens, ahem.

Of course GCHQ can monitor on American citizens communications and the NSA can monitor British communications - and they exchange data. So that’s all sorted then.....

No, no, that absolutely does not happen. This has been stated by both HMG and the US Government on many occasions. So it must be true.

[SASless]

Yeah Right.....ask Carter Page about our FBI and the DOJ FISA Court Process!:uhoh:

[Mechta]

Seeing that BV-347, always wondered if a stealthy Wokka exists.?
I know - contradiction in terms - but clearly there's a stealthy UH-60 - so why not try it with the big brother...?
On occasions when a singleton or pair of Chinooks can be spotted flying over Sydney, am always struck by how quiet they are compared to the UH-1Hs we had in NZ.
You could hear the blade slap for miles.

Living about seven miles from Odiham, with Chinooks passing over the house virtually every day, they definitely ain't stealthy. The internal doors in our house start resonating a good minute or two before the helicopter itself is audible. Maybe they need IBC* to cut the noise down? Would it work on a tandem rotor?

*IBC: Individual Blade Control (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b11a/37c57bb816fef7557ddd2e1666c9d079e269.pdf)

[BATCO]

Living about seven miles from Odiham, with Chinooks passing over the house virtually every day, they definitely ain't stealthy. The internal doors in our house start resonating a good minute or two before the helicopter itself is audible.......

...And yet down here in Area 2, Chinooks regularly 'sneak' past our village unnoticed by most. Ditto C130. However, Merlin and Wildcat (especially) seem to have a greater signature.

All are welcome.

Regards
Batco

[tartare]

I wonder if it has something to do with atmospheric pressure and temperature?
There were days in Christchurch when I were growing up as a nipper when you could hear an Iroquois coming into Wigram from absolutely bloody miles away.... and then others not so much.
Many years later when taking a ride in a kiwi UH-1H (in one of the side seats up against the transmission box facing outwards) with both doors slid back I was gobsmacked at how quiet it was.
Bit of main blade noise, but mostly gas turbine and slipstream.
Maybe the same is true of a Wokka...

[SASless]

The Huey can be flown in such a manner as to vibrate Wine Glasses of the Cocktail Tables in the VIP Pavillion at the Duxford Heli-Tech gathering......proudly guilty of that!

While flying Huey 509 when it first arrived in the UK, we got around to several such events and airshows.

Due to the CAA Regs we could not do Flight Demos thus the only flying done at those things was the arrival and exitl

With inclement weather approaching we decided to leave early and head back towards Blackpool.

The Tower Staff suggested we be prepared for the possibility of vectors for traffic upon departure.

Sure enough we were asked to remain closed circuit for traffic separation and we had to make two circuits before being allowed to leave the Circuit.

Later on....I was told of just how loud the old girl was barking as we made a steep descending turn and accelerating to Vne requiring a lot of up Collective (high angle of attack for the main rotor blades)

In the US there used to be a Program called "Fly Neighborly" that explained how to fly quietly.

A bit of reverse engineering and one can figure out exactly how to get the old girls to talking.

https://www.nap.edu/read/23609/chapter/15#71

(Scrolling will get you to all of the document.....tried to get the link to start at the cover page but had no luck with that)

[Training Risky]

Am I to presume that ZA718 is BN? She must have had quite a few adventures since 1982, especially in sandy places. What upgrades will she have had since then?

At the risk of opening a can of worms, last I heard was we had quite a few Chinooks in storage but couldnt get them certified post Mull of Kintyre.

But then again I've been out of the loop on this one for a while and am happy to be corrected. Anyone care to enlighten me on the outcome of that one? Hopefully without getting back into the enquiry debacle.

Cooch

it certainly is BN. I flew her to Cyprus and back on an overseas trainer and got my IRT done in 2002. The overseas trainer was a laugh. Ask 25(F) Sqn what happened to their cannon...!!

[tartare]

Thanks SAS - that's a really interesting read.
Interesting comments about impulse noise not generally being audible to crew in the machine,,. certainly the case in the Huey, although I was pretty sure I could hear increased blade slap in high G turns.
Is it the same in the Chinook?

[SASless]

The Huey is in a class of its own re Blade Noise.....and is one of the Icons of the Vietnam War.

In this video....about 5:20 or so....is our first arrival at Wesham with 509 after it arrived in the UK from the United States.

I was very happy for Phil as he had a long difficult road in getting the approvals to export the Aircraft from the USA.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdmG7eQXJEc&list=PLE73C4D7F58950775

[tartare]

Yes - that sound at 3.35 or so is exactly what I heard inside... very quiet ringing sound of the turbine.
And 5.24 - yep - that's what they sounded like from a distance.
The rest is pure comforting childhood memories for me.
And probably terrifying for a generation of young men who were fighting in Vietnam.

[melmothtw]

And probably terrifying for a generation of young men who were fighting in Vietnam.

I guess that depends on whether the Huey was taking them in or out of harm's way.

[tucumseh]

I would suspect it involves the cyber security of all equipment including crypto data latency; sources of all components, Tempest requirements etc etc. Plus of course the security of the systems of all contractors and subcontractors. You only have to remember the reported theft of the data concerning the F-35 design etc.

Correct. Home Office dictates TEMPEST spec. Much of MoD's aircraft secure comms kit was designed in the early 80s; if not late 70s. By GEC-Marconi Secure Systems in Basildon. The TEMPEST spec was difficult to achieve, but manageable. (Basically, dB crosstalk).

From memory, so a health warning....

Post-Falklands, permission was granted to make advance buys for Sea King HAS Mk5 (which morphed into Mk6), what became Lynx HAS Mk3/8, Merlin HM1, Nimrod MR2 and R1; and Sea Harrier (quickly deleted). Chinook was excluded. In design terms, Sea King HAS came first, then Merlin, then Lynx - all completed by early 1986. In 1990, AEW Mk2 and HC Mk4 were endorsed. The RN delayed the AEW Mk2 embodiment, as the AEW fleet was 8 a/c short and couldn't bear overlapping mod programmes. So it was AEW Mk7 that got it and the new comms passed bench testing in October 1998, and aircraft trials in January 2000. Nimrod was a parallel design, as there was little commonality at LRU level due to number of secure stations.

In about 1983, the Home Office increased the spec to something otherwordly. (TS, and cannot be stated, but the chief designer nearly fell over). As it was mandated upon MoD, it had no choice but to comply, but of course received no extra funding. The kit already produced went through an upgrade loop before being delivered. What was delivered was mostly lost by the RAF supply system some years later, as it had been allocated temporary Section/Ref numbers (10ZZ), which AMSO/AML stopped tracking in the early 90s. I know around 50 complete Sea King and Lynx shipped sets went missing. That includes multi-mode radios (£130k each), homers and aircraft mod sets, not just secure overlays. A million per set, at mid-80s prices? Not far off. AML was forced by the Centre to replace them in about 1997. They tried to get out of it by claiming GEC had stolen some of it. At least the RN laughed, despite their kit being AWOL. At this time, the RAF added C-130, but in one of the most hilarious howlers of all time, AML decided to buy the Sea King HAS Mk6 build standard; an aircraft which did odd things like hover in the dip and process ping and buoy audio. PE tried to correct them to no avail. The RN had given up in 1986, having failed to convince AMSO that a C-130 couldn't land (safely) on an Invincible Class carrier.

The first aircraft fitted, in about 1984, was Sea King AEW Mk2, which hadn't been in the Staff Requirement as it didn't exist (which provides a latest date); but by a Naval Service Mod which didn't work. (The kit worked perfectly if installed correctly, but they tried to make it Secure Lite fit, which was unworkable). At much the same time, Nimrod was deleted - after over £40M had been spent putting kit on the shelf. But the financial aspect resulted in the APs - and support in general - not being updated so, for example, 53 Class AA security mods relating the the HO's new spec were entirely missing from the crypto host; until this was uncovered during the pre-requisite work for the ASaC Mk7 programme in 1994. Throughout this period, LRUs at vastly different build standards and functionality could migrate between fleets, because all funding to control this had been withdrawn.

In summary, I'd say the ASaC Mk7 achieved the HO spec in 1997, but unavoidably regressed when the Mk4A helmet became a comms system LRU the following year, residing within the TEMPEST boundary. The others? The problem I describe meant they were very variable, and for many years compliance was probably claimed, not realising the wrong build standard was being used. (By 1993, there was no-one in the Services or PE charged with oversight of such things; the latter having fallen victim to the policy to rundown airworthiness management; the former to various political cuts such as Options for Change and the Hallifax Savings. Resolution was very much down to luck - if you had someone in the project team who remembered such things).

It was only in about 1999, give or take, that Chinook asked to come on board. Being RAF, they tried to nick the RN's kit procured for Sea King Mk4 and AEW Mk2, but the RN weren't too worried as the secure overlay design must complement the existing clear system. Hence, a Lynx fit is no use in a Sea King, which is no use in a Chinook, which.... although the individual LRUs are externally similar. That cunning plan would have delayed Chinook somewhat. But there was no telling the one man band that was Chinook Mk3 fiasco. I understand the penny dropped around his 22nd birthday, when he was already an old maid.

Not an unfamiliar story, and it might help explain a few things.

[pr00ne]

tucmseh,

It certainly goes a long way to explaining why we have such a large defence budget but seem to struggle to deliver equivalent VFM capability with it!

[Training Risky]

Thanks SAS - that's a really interesting read.
Interesting comments about impulse noise not generally being audible to crew in the machine,,. certainly the case in the Huey, although I was pretty sure I could hear increased blade slap in high G turns.
Is it the same in the Chinook?

I flew the Bell 412 (Griffin: twin-engine Huey) then the Chinook HC2. The blade slap in the Griffin was loud when pulling power in a turn at low-level. When flying around Shropshire there were so many horse stud-farms and noise complainers on the local avoids map. LL flight planning was like threading the eye of several needles. Same in the Chinook - heavy aircraft, lots of power in a turn = blade slap.

From my logbook, ZA718 BN was a HC2 in 2002. The 2 and 2As became HC4s.

[hoodie]

And then in turn HC6As with the introduction of a digital AFCS.

[alfred_the_great]

Tempest in the UK is owned by CESG and is the required standards are certainly not “TS”.

[tucumseh]

As I said, I had TS clearance and was (officially) not permitted to see them. When I wrote the ASaC Mk7 and Mk4 comms systems specs in 1994, I simply referenced the CESG specs. I had a high degree of confidence in the Design Authority, as I had assisted to a small degree the Lynx and Merlin design work in 1985/6.

Everyone knows there are odd anomalies. For example, ESM audio warning data had the same restrictions in that I couldn't list it in the system specs, but if you wanted to know what they were, you just checked the lower integration rig test schedule, which was merely 'Restricted'. Sometimes the way round it was to say 'select on test' the final component values that conditioned the signal, which kept CESG happy, while ensuring the design was correct. Hey, that's the way it was, but I accept you may have had different experiences when preparing your specs and trying to get the CESG tick in the box.

[ORAC]

An additional order for 14 or not?

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/u-s-wanting-to-buy-fewer-chinooks-sees-u-k-u-a-e-buying-more

Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. is close to selling 24 Chinook helicopters to the United Arab Emirates and the U.K., according to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, a move that may assuage U.S. lawmakers who have rejected his service’s plans to curtail its purchases of the aircraft. “I believe we will be the position here very shortly to take the next step for notification to Congress” of a proposed sale of 10 additional Chinooks to the U.A.E, with the U.K. likely to buy an additional 14, McCarthy said in an interview. “I’m personally involved with those efforts.”.........

The U.K. is “going through the process with us on the pricing,” McCarthy said, and he met with his British counterpart a few weeks ago. “They’ll be back here in the November time frame” to keep working on details, he said, and agreement may be reached on a formal “letter of acceptance” next spring, one of the last steps to a contract........

[Coochycool]

I thought Chinook was one of the few platforms we already had a decent amount of.

Is this in light of the carriers coming online?

Comments anyone?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I thought Chinook was one of the few platforms we already had a decent amount of.

Is this in light of the carriers coming online?

Comments anyone?

​​​​​​The first ones we bought in the early '80s are still flying with over 10,000 hours on the airframes. Possibly time for some replacements, not extras.... That statement certainly reads like the same original buy if they're talking about a contract that quickly - it's only a year since the original announcement and we all know how quick MOD procurement is!

[Rigga]

The original frames have been reconditioned, possibly twice so far, effectively zeroing the hours at each time and all the rotable components replaced as and when required...so why would you ‘retire’ an airframe?

[JohnDixson]

Have a question that has interested me for quite awhile and is related to the issue raised by SAS. Well,it may be related-our friends from the UK can contribute.
Some time ago Sikorsky/UTC purchased a piece of Westland,and part of the overall agreement was that Westland would own the sales rights for the S-70 to the Persian Gulf Countries. There was an extended marketing flight demonstration in the area put on by Westland,with some small participation by a few SA personnel. Westland prepared a Westland version of the S-70,with RR engines, a Smiths ( as I recall) AFCS/autopilot, and a suite of UK avionics etc. When they presented this version of the S-70 to the Saudi Government ,it was priced higher than the Saudi’s expected, and the Saudi Government then applied for the standard US Army version,which at the time was $10-11M ( US ). ( The Westland aircraft price wassome $5-7M higher as I recall ). And that is what they bought.
I always thought that all of these changes were Westland’s idea, thus it was their fault that the rather large sale was lost. But after reading what has been written here re the CH-47 UK versions, it has made me wonder if similar “ additional UK requirements “ via the MOD and not Westland were the source of the difficulty??
NB: I did have a chance to fly the RR engines in the S-70 that we sold/rtransferred to Westland,with RR test pilot Ken Robertson. The the engine/airframe interface they had done was absolutely perfect, (both thoroughly and rigorously tested). At least they were able to get those engines in the UK AH-64.

[tucumseh]

John

When the US Army is involved, one can never compare the US with the UK. On Chinook, and for all I know other aircraft too, it is essentially the Design Authority - a major reason why, historically, Boeing could correctly plead ignorance when asked Chinook design questions. Little of this cost would be included in a Boeing quote. The nasty surprise might come later when you find you're tied to a design you no longer need.

Sikorsky is, or was, a slightly different situation. Much was made in the UK of the 'Sikorsky mark-up' due to the licensing agreement for Sea King. Few realised that it was MoD - not Westland - who insisted on the agreement, paid the annual fee and happily swallowed the price premium. It was only in 1999 that it was bought out, for a pittance. (A restructuring of MoD inadvertently dropped the decision level to someone who knew what he was talking about. Kudos).

The headline purchase price is reckoned to be <30% of the through-life cost; the latter is what the purchaser is more interested in. These variables between US and UK policies make assessing this very difficult, and it is far more likely that Saudi was persuaded by something else at a political level.

[Martin the Martian]

I thought Chinook was one of the few platforms we already had a decent amount of.



Presently sixty airframes on charge, a mixture of HC.5, HC.6 and HC.6A variants. Twenty of them are from the original ZA-serialled batch, originally delivered 1980-82.

[JohnDixson]

Thanks for your insight, Tecumseh. I was talking about the aircraft part of the quote,not the whole package divided by the number of airframes.

The Westland S-61 agreement happened before I signed in,but for some reason it came up in discussion when we had the S-67 at Middle Wallop during the 1972 tour. The man who handled marketing for the UK told us that SA CEO Lee Johnson had made that arrangement, which entailed a licensing payment back to SA for $10k ( US ) per airframe. There must have been more to it, right?

Curious about Boeing pleading ignorance with re to answering Chinook questions-are the Chinook purchases thru US Gov’t FMS ( Foreign Military Sales )?

[tucumseh]

John

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the S-61 agreement.

The historical problems I referred to are unconnected to FMS. Boeing were severely criticised after a series Chinook accidents, by both the RAF Director of Flight Safety and our Air Accidents Investigation Branch. So much so, in 1992 DFS reported the company were unfit to act as a Design Authority. The AAIB reported that there was a distinct lack of expertise at the company, particularly on equipment they did not actually manufacture. It is one thing to contract out (in that case) the manufacture of control actuators, but that does not mean you don't employ someone who understands what they do and how they integrate with the rest of the aircraft. Similarly, at the same time it had no-one who understood the operation of safety critical software, yet had certified the aircraft as safe.

That is not to say they never make good products. But the same mistakes are being repeated. I could be talking about 737 MAX!

[AnglianAV8R]

No, no, that absolutely does not happen. This has been stated by both HMG and the US Government on many occasions. So it must be true.

And Menwith Hill is a perfectly innocent communications relay station.

[JohnDixson]

Tecumseh, I’m not in a position to comment on Boeing’s accidents with the CH-47 in the period after they entered service in the UK. For after market add-ins,one has to be careful when it comes to parts of the basic lift, drive and control systems. All I'm saying is that some rotary wing design and operating environments are unique. We didn’t have any actuator issues with the Comanche FBW actuators, but initially did with the Canadian MHP tail rotor actuators, which were sourced from a company serving the fixed wing community.