Whatever happened to the Chinook HC 3s?
The C17 is a bit of a red herring with regard to the Chinook. We are able to get around QQ as we operate the ac in compliance with USAF regulations and SOPs, and, effectively, within the US RTS. In addition we look at USAF certification and see a rigour similar to ours.
Chinook is completely different. We operate our CH47s significantly differently to the US Army, and any release based on US Army clearances would be way too restrictive. There are also substantial differences between a UK and US Chinook in terms of avionics, comms and DAS so the C17 arguement doesn't stand up. Any future potential Chinook purchase would have to weigh up the pros of aligning with the US Army with the obvious loss of sovereignty over key capabilities.
The Mk3 fiasco was caused, in effect, by a fundementally flawed procurement decision. The decision to purchase Merlin (for overtly political reasons) distorted the Chinook buy. By the time the decision had been made to convert 8 of the ac to Mk3 standard, the Merlin programme was in danger of going way over budget and the MoD prioritised on the Merlin, arguing that the Chinook purchase should be straightforward as it was already in service. By the time it was realised that Mk3 was in trouble, the money ran out and we ended up with the hybrid cockpit - the rest is history.
Yes, buying MH-47Es then would seem a good idea but they were not available, think F-22. Sometimes our "special" relationship is just not special enough...
Chinook is completely different. We operate our CH47s significantly differently to the US Army, and any release based on US Army clearances would be way too restrictive. There are also substantial differences between a UK and US Chinook in terms of avionics, comms and DAS so the C17 arguement doesn't stand up. Any future potential Chinook purchase would have to weigh up the pros of aligning with the US Army with the obvious loss of sovereignty over key capabilities.
The Mk3 fiasco was caused, in effect, by a fundementally flawed procurement decision. The decision to purchase Merlin (for overtly political reasons) distorted the Chinook buy. By the time the decision had been made to convert 8 of the ac to Mk3 standard, the Merlin programme was in danger of going way over budget and the MoD prioritised on the Merlin, arguing that the Chinook purchase should be straightforward as it was already in service. By the time it was realised that Mk3 was in trouble, the money ran out and we ended up with the hybrid cockpit - the rest is history.
Yes, buying MH-47Es then would seem a good idea but they were not available, think F-22. Sometimes our "special" relationship is just not special enough...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Isn't there a more simple reason for keeping the dumbed-down Mk3's in the UK, such as that of commonality of aircraft being rotated through Afghanistan?
Whilst the 'dumbening' process is making the Mk3's almost the same as the Mk2/2a's they won't be exactly the same and restricting them to UK-based duties will free-up Mk2/2a's, which can then be added to the pool of aircraft rotated through Afghanistan, which will hopefully improve the serviceability of the whole fleet.
Whilst its easy get AATOB over this and start firing off letters to the Daily Wail decrying the MoD for wasting perfectly good new aircraft its probably quite important to bear in mind that the older Chinooks are the epitome of the 'Trigger's Brush' process. They may carry old serial numbers but I'd suggest there is very little left on them that was attached to those serial numbers straight out of the factory.
Whilst the 'dumbening' process is making the Mk3's almost the same as the Mk2/2a's they won't be exactly the same and restricting them to UK-based duties will free-up Mk2/2a's, which can then be added to the pool of aircraft rotated through Afghanistan, which will hopefully improve the serviceability of the whole fleet.
Whilst its easy get AATOB over this and start firing off letters to the Daily Wail decrying the MoD for wasting perfectly good new aircraft its probably quite important to bear in mind that the older Chinooks are the epitome of the 'Trigger's Brush' process. They may carry old serial numbers but I'd suggest there is very little left on them that was attached to those serial numbers straight out of the factory.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N51 09".94 W001 45".51
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old Boscombe bashing ! Doesnt seem to matter if MOD or QQ always the same uninformed rubbish. Whole lot of good work done there towards all your safety and UOR requirements. Lets not forget there are still a lot of forces there including TPs all have an input. So if you dont really know may as well just keep quiet. 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,540
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes
on
17 Posts
Isn't there a more simple reason for keeping the dumbed-down Mk3's in the UK, such as that of commonality of aircraft being rotated through Afghanistan?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wilts
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Self Hack!
Let's not forget that, about the time the RAF ordered its Mk 3s, the RNLAF ordered their CH 47D fleet. Their ac do not have the big tanks of the Mk 3, but otherwise they are very similar, with the same engines and FADEC, and an almost identical digital cockpit.
The Dutch Chinooks were delivered in 1995, entered service straight away, and have been operating around the world, in some very hostile theatres, since then.
The MOD cited uncertainties over FADEC and EFIS software as the main causes for holding the Mk 3s back from entering service. The RNLAF CH 47Ds, with the same FADEC software, and virtually identical EFIS, were not held back. I am not aware of any flight safety issues encountered in those 2 areas during their extensive and intensive useage.
The Chinook Mk 3 debacle is a very British problem!
The Dutch Chinooks were delivered in 1995, entered service straight away, and have been operating around the world, in some very hostile theatres, since then.
The MOD cited uncertainties over FADEC and EFIS software as the main causes for holding the Mk 3s back from entering service. The RNLAF CH 47Ds, with the same FADEC software, and virtually identical EFIS, were not held back. I am not aware of any flight safety issues encountered in those 2 areas during their extensive and intensive useage.
The Chinook Mk 3 debacle is a very British problem!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][Let's not forget that, about the time the RAF ordered its Mk 3s, the RNLAF ordered their CH 47D fleet. Their ac do not have the big tanks of the Mk 3, but otherwise they are very similar, with the same engines and FADEC, and an almost identical digital cockpit.
The Dutch Chinooks were delivered in 1995, entered service straight away, and have been operating around the world, in some very hostile theatres, since then.
The MOD cited uncertainties over FADEC and EFIS software as the main causes for holding the Mk 3s back from entering service. The RNLAF CH 47Ds, with the same FADEC software, and virtually identical EFIS, were not held back. I am not aware of any flight safety issues encountered in those 2 areas during their extensive and intensive useage.
The Chinook Mk 3 debacle is a very British problem!/QUOTE]
The Dutch Chinooks do NOT have the same cockpit, software, AFCS or indeed other bits and bobs. I can assure you that the Dutch Chinook evdicen was looked at in detail, but it could not be read across to the HC3.
The Dutch Chinooks were delivered in 1995, entered service straight away, and have been operating around the world, in some very hostile theatres, since then.
The MOD cited uncertainties over FADEC and EFIS software as the main causes for holding the Mk 3s back from entering service. The RNLAF CH 47Ds, with the same FADEC software, and virtually identical EFIS, were not held back. I am not aware of any flight safety issues encountered in those 2 areas during their extensive and intensive useage.
The Chinook Mk 3 debacle is a very British problem!/QUOTE]
The Dutch Chinooks do NOT have the same cockpit, software, AFCS or indeed other bits and bobs. I can assure you that the Dutch Chinook evdicen was looked at in detail, but it could not be read across to the HC3.
I imagine that the main difference between the Dutch and British experiences with the CH47D and Chinook Mk3 respectively, and pretty well every other military aircraft in their respective fleets, is that those charged with the duty of enforcing Airworthiness Regulations in the former did not renege on that duty and suborn the very system they were charged to defend.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning Chuggers!
BBC NEWS | UK | Chinook refit 'linked to crashes'
<A decision to add night vision equipment to RAF Chinook helicopters supporting special forces missions has been linked to two crashes, MPs say.>
BBC NEWS | UK | Chinook refit 'linked to crashes'
<A decision to add night vision equipment to RAF Chinook helicopters supporting special forces missions has been linked to two crashes, MPs say.>
People will recall that the PAC debated the NAO Chinook report last June. One of the reasons why their report (the one to be released today) has been delayed is because MoD claimed those responsible could not be identified. The PAC requested further information, which MoD undertook to provide. I wonder if this will be included? (A ludicrous situation. The Committee have previously criticised the “lack of management oversight” in MoD(PE). One simply has to look at the family tree of the day and you’re immediately down to a handful of people, all of whom served many years in post).
Against this background of MoD claiming not to know the individuals (i.e. not being able to read), I recall the responsible 2 Star telling me, face to face, that the conclusions of a report to PUS informing him that money was being knowingly wasted was “Of no concern to MoD(PE)”. He reinforced this view by ruling that attempting to implement the mandated regulations designed to avoid such waste, when instructed not to, was a disciplinary offence; subsequently upheld by CDP. It is rulings such as these which, in my opinion, set the minimum level at which the Committee should direct their attention. That is, not the Project Manager, or even Project Director (as he may have been otherwise occupied with Mull).
And did anyone notice the use of Americanisms? “Fender bending”. I wonder who the driving force behind that little gem was. Still, a small thing compared to the drip drip drip of the leaking MoD funding tap. Or should that be Faucet?
Against this background of MoD claiming not to know the individuals (i.e. not being able to read), I recall the responsible 2 Star telling me, face to face, that the conclusions of a report to PUS informing him that money was being knowingly wasted was “Of no concern to MoD(PE)”. He reinforced this view by ruling that attempting to implement the mandated regulations designed to avoid such waste, when instructed not to, was a disciplinary offence; subsequently upheld by CDP. It is rulings such as these which, in my opinion, set the minimum level at which the Committee should direct their attention. That is, not the Project Manager, or even Project Director (as he may have been otherwise occupied with Mull).
And did anyone notice the use of Americanisms? “Fender bending”. I wonder who the driving force behind that little gem was. Still, a small thing compared to the drip drip drip of the leaking MoD funding tap. Or should that be Faucet?
Al R:
And a high rotational rate whirling of 'kerchief and deep bow to you too, Sirrah!
Isn't it time that we all started to join up the dots? For those like me who have moved from incredulity through jaw dropping amazement to sickening acceptance of the deliberate bullying tactics of senior air officers to subvert and suborn the UK Military Airworthiness system as revealed by the likes of tucumseh, the HC3 farrago is merely par for the course. Thank God that it has only wasted money rather than lives as other airworthiness compromised accidents have. Ironic then that the very motivation was to save money; Penny Wise, Pound Foolish, eh your Airships? The military airworthiness scandal affects every military air fleet in the inventory. It will take decades to put behind us. The starting point must be to take responsibility for UK Military Airworthiness Provision out of the clutches of the MOD and into the hands of an independent Military Airworthiness Authority. Self Regulation is the British Disease. It never works!
Morning Chuggers!
Isn't it time that we all started to join up the dots? For those like me who have moved from incredulity through jaw dropping amazement to sickening acceptance of the deliberate bullying tactics of senior air officers to subvert and suborn the UK Military Airworthiness system as revealed by the likes of tucumseh, the HC3 farrago is merely par for the course. Thank God that it has only wasted money rather than lives as other airworthiness compromised accidents have. Ironic then that the very motivation was to save money; Penny Wise, Pound Foolish, eh your Airships? The military airworthiness scandal affects every military air fleet in the inventory. It will take decades to put behind us. The starting point must be to take responsibility for UK Military Airworthiness Provision out of the clutches of the MOD and into the hands of an independent Military Airworthiness Authority. Self Regulation is the British Disease. It never works!
BBC wrote
What was the HC.3 doing on Exercise Kush Dragon back in 2007?
Images going back to 2003 of HC.3 flying.
Airliners.net | Airplanes - Aviation - Aircraft- Aircraft Photos & News
TJ
But the aircraft have never been able to fly because the MoD failed to secure access to key software source code.
Images going back to 2003 of HC.3 flying.
Airliners.net | Airplanes - Aviation - Aircraft- Aircraft Photos & News
TJ
TEEJ,
The clue is in the captions and callsign. Aircraft that are on QinetiQ charge can hardly be said to be "in service". An amount of Mk3 flying has been conducted to gather data prior to the Mk3 Reversion programme, and to de-risk certain aspects of it. The aircraft are, of course, perfectly flyable - it is just craven inattention to detail, inexcusable project management and the usual under-investment in RW platforms that created this problem.
The clue is in the captions and callsign. Aircraft that are on QinetiQ charge can hardly be said to be "in service". An amount of Mk3 flying has been conducted to gather data prior to the Mk3 Reversion programme, and to de-risk certain aspects of it. The aircraft are, of course, perfectly flyable - it is just craven inattention to detail, inexcusable project management and the usual under-investment in RW platforms that created this problem.
Evalu8ter,
Thanks for the reply. I'm fully aware that the aircraft is not in service. I was referring to lazy journalism not providing the full story. The general reader of that article would come away with the interpretation that the type has never flown.
Thanks for the reply. I'm fully aware that the aircraft is not in service. I was referring to lazy journalism not providing the full story. The general reader of that article would come away with the interpretation that the type has never flown.