Anyone know anything about BLUH?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why S-70 and not just plain Blackhawk? If you have just spent your last farthing buying, arguably, the world's best AH, why would you want to buy a very expensive support helicopter with AH pretensions? I quote from the company blurb:
"The major Battlehawk weapons feature is the 20mm GIAT THL 20 turreted gun. Past weapons integration on the Blackhawk using the External Stores/Weapons System (ESWS) have included Hellfire missiles, 2.75-inch Rockets, Stinger Missiles and various gun pods including 7.65 mm, 20mm and 30mm cannon. One current operational configuration has dual 30mm chain guns, dual 7.65mm machine guns and Hellfire missiles and rockets, more than doubling the firepower of existing attack helicopters."
I always thought SH were supposed to carry ordenance for other people to fire.
I also don't think that the concept of soldiers carrying soldiers to the front line, leaving the rear echelon load lifting to the RAF is a player. The full potential of AH requires the ability to operate from FARPs (Forward Arming and Refuelling Points) behind enemy lines. BLUH will never be able to support AH by itself. The US Army concept calls for a sqn of CH47 for every AH sqn. I think we could do it a lot better than that, but it is definitely a Chinook job.
Most infanteers that I have spoken to would also prefer to be delivered by the might Wokka. The lads have an understandable aversion to facing the enemy in small packages and like to fly towards the front line with at least 39 of their mates on board. The CH47 can carry at least 4 times as many troops as any likely BLUH contender but doesn't take up anything like 4 times as much room on the DZ which means that the planning staff can maximise the concentration of force on the first wave and bring in reinforcements and heavy USLs at the same time on subsequent waves.
Like it or not, the CH47 is almost always the choice of the front line customer. Light support helicopters are the choice of accountants and senior officer taxi-cab services.
"The major Battlehawk weapons feature is the 20mm GIAT THL 20 turreted gun. Past weapons integration on the Blackhawk using the External Stores/Weapons System (ESWS) have included Hellfire missiles, 2.75-inch Rockets, Stinger Missiles and various gun pods including 7.65 mm, 20mm and 30mm cannon. One current operational configuration has dual 30mm chain guns, dual 7.65mm machine guns and Hellfire missiles and rockets, more than doubling the firepower of existing attack helicopters."
I always thought SH were supposed to carry ordenance for other people to fire.
I also don't think that the concept of soldiers carrying soldiers to the front line, leaving the rear echelon load lifting to the RAF is a player. The full potential of AH requires the ability to operate from FARPs (Forward Arming and Refuelling Points) behind enemy lines. BLUH will never be able to support AH by itself. The US Army concept calls for a sqn of CH47 for every AH sqn. I think we could do it a lot better than that, but it is definitely a Chinook job.
Most infanteers that I have spoken to would also prefer to be delivered by the might Wokka. The lads have an understandable aversion to facing the enemy in small packages and like to fly towards the front line with at least 39 of their mates on board. The CH47 can carry at least 4 times as many troops as any likely BLUH contender but doesn't take up anything like 4 times as much room on the DZ which means that the planning staff can maximise the concentration of force on the first wave and bring in reinforcements and heavy USLs at the same time on subsequent waves.
Like it or not, the CH47 is almost always the choice of the front line customer. Light support helicopters are the choice of accountants and senior officer taxi-cab services.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 13 Mad Street, Reasons Edge, Colonia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Ah-Ha, at last I can log in. Internet access is dodgy at the best of times in the remote sh*thole I currently working in!)
Where do I start?
Firstly, POAA, S-70 is just plain old Blackhawk. The sepos just happened to call it UH-60(A-M). The one I'm familiar with is S-70A-9 (Basically Blackhawk with HIRSS, ESSS, Hoist and Seahawk AFCS). If AAC gets an S-70 it would probably be very similar to UH-60M (expensive option) or UH-60L (cheap older cheaper version). 'Battlehawk' will definately not be going to UK.
On the issue of crewing on the basis of emergencies, the Flight Manual for S-70A-9 says minimum crew is one pilot. Indeed I know of an MTP who frequently takes the old girl on MTFs single pilot. IMHO I would contest that you need two crew to deal with emergencies. Its always nice to have two crew but having gone through the emergency checklist I can find no emergency action which absolutely requires two pilots.
Although I think Chinook is the absolute DBs for air manoeuvre capabilty, I don't think the argument for it on the basis you can get loads of grunts in it is a water tight one. One lucky punter (bad side) with his SA-7,14,16,18 etc. could really ruin half a companies' day and perhaps ruin a mission. You have to weigh-off numbers on the ground in a 'wunner' (sic) vs force protection and redundancy, ie smaller packets in more acft into the LZ. (Plus, I can't think of a battlefield helicopter anywhere in the world that has the crash and battle damage surviveability of the Blackhawk. Within the last two months an S-70 crashed in training with 8 on board in an estimated 14G impact; all survived, with 6 only receiving minor injuries!)
I have always thought the concept of NCO aircrewman in the CPLT seat was a great idea; and why not in a future BLUH aircraft? Assuming the aircraft will not be fitted with any ISTAR or Weapon system (other than doorguns) all the crewman would have to do would be to assist in planning, map read, talk on the radios and assist with checks and emergency actions. How hard is that? I think a bigger manning issue would be the loadmasters/crew chiefs/doorgunners (whatever you want to call them). You may be able to fly S-70 single pilot (IMHO) but you really do need the guys in the back. Looking after errant grunts, loads internal and underslung, hoisting and firing self protection weapon systems needs dedicated aircrew and I don't know that this is something the AAC has thought about or catered for. (Sums: 12 acft per sqn; 2 loadies per acft plus one reserve = at least 36 loadies per squadron. Perhaps loadies could double hat as aircrewmen?).
Finally, however good or bad (Blackhawk or Lynx) the Army choice is, I 100% agree with what both Bill O'A and Per have said on the joint concept. Whatever happens, RN, Army and RAF can and always should expect to work together in any operation. Mission success will only be achieved with the right blend of tools. One just has to hope one has a nice box. (of tools that is
)
Bring on the 'purple'
Where do I start?
Firstly, POAA, S-70 is just plain old Blackhawk. The sepos just happened to call it UH-60(A-M). The one I'm familiar with is S-70A-9 (Basically Blackhawk with HIRSS, ESSS, Hoist and Seahawk AFCS). If AAC gets an S-70 it would probably be very similar to UH-60M (expensive option) or UH-60L (cheap older cheaper version). 'Battlehawk' will definately not be going to UK.
On the issue of crewing on the basis of emergencies, the Flight Manual for S-70A-9 says minimum crew is one pilot. Indeed I know of an MTP who frequently takes the old girl on MTFs single pilot. IMHO I would contest that you need two crew to deal with emergencies. Its always nice to have two crew but having gone through the emergency checklist I can find no emergency action which absolutely requires two pilots.
Although I think Chinook is the absolute DBs for air manoeuvre capabilty, I don't think the argument for it on the basis you can get loads of grunts in it is a water tight one. One lucky punter (bad side) with his SA-7,14,16,18 etc. could really ruin half a companies' day and perhaps ruin a mission. You have to weigh-off numbers on the ground in a 'wunner' (sic) vs force protection and redundancy, ie smaller packets in more acft into the LZ. (Plus, I can't think of a battlefield helicopter anywhere in the world that has the crash and battle damage surviveability of the Blackhawk. Within the last two months an S-70 crashed in training with 8 on board in an estimated 14G impact; all survived, with 6 only receiving minor injuries!)
I have always thought the concept of NCO aircrewman in the CPLT seat was a great idea; and why not in a future BLUH aircraft? Assuming the aircraft will not be fitted with any ISTAR or Weapon system (other than doorguns) all the crewman would have to do would be to assist in planning, map read, talk on the radios and assist with checks and emergency actions. How hard is that? I think a bigger manning issue would be the loadmasters/crew chiefs/doorgunners (whatever you want to call them). You may be able to fly S-70 single pilot (IMHO) but you really do need the guys in the back. Looking after errant grunts, loads internal and underslung, hoisting and firing self protection weapon systems needs dedicated aircrew and I don't know that this is something the AAC has thought about or catered for. (Sums: 12 acft per sqn; 2 loadies per acft plus one reserve = at least 36 loadies per squadron. Perhaps loadies could double hat as aircrewmen?).
Finally, however good or bad (Blackhawk or Lynx) the Army choice is, I 100% agree with what both Bill O'A and Per have said on the joint concept. Whatever happens, RN, Army and RAF can and always should expect to work together in any operation. Mission success will only be achieved with the right blend of tools. One just has to hope one has a nice box. (of tools that is
)Bring on the 'purple'
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Thanks for clearing that up EmpireOne.
At the moment the only way that the AAC can provide gunners/loadies, is to 'borrow' the manpower from MT/Sigs/training wing.
Much like the 'CAA agreed passengers' of the UK police air support units, they do not officially constitute part of the crew.
I can only agree that there can only be the purple solution for manpower reasons if nothing else, and in regards to the last sentence, will this do?
(box of ammo I mean!!
At the moment the only way that the AAC can provide gunners/loadies, is to 'borrow' the manpower from MT/Sigs/training wing.
Much like the 'CAA agreed passengers' of the UK police air support units, they do not officially constitute part of the crew.
Whatever happens, RN, Army and RAF can and always should expect to work together in any operation. Mission success will only be achieved with the right blend of tools. One just has to hope one has a nice box.
(box of ammo I mean!!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Empire 1,
What's an MTP and MTF? Is this a battlefield role?
I agree with your comment about the Chinook. In fact a similar argument was running here in the 1970s, certainly well before that particular aircraft came into UK service. The concept of putting all your eggs in one basket or not was discussed in the context of whether the UK military should buy lots of cheaper, smaller helis (Hueys for example) or fewer, larger helicopters.
The purse string holders like big helicopters (and if possible only one pilot up front
). It's a cheap peacetime option but it suddenly becomes a very BAD idea when the first small arms burst brings the whole lot down in a heap because they shot the pilot.....
What's an MTP and MTF? Is this a battlefield role?
I agree with your comment about the Chinook. In fact a similar argument was running here in the 1970s, certainly well before that particular aircraft came into UK service. The concept of putting all your eggs in one basket or not was discussed in the context of whether the UK military should buy lots of cheaper, smaller helis (Hueys for example) or fewer, larger helicopters.
The purse string holders like big helicopters (and if possible only one pilot up front
). It's a cheap peacetime option but it suddenly becomes a very BAD idea when the first small arms burst brings the whole lot down in a heap because they shot the pilot.....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 13 Mad Street, Reasons Edge, Colonia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silsoe,
If I wrote a 100 posts I don't think I could ever beat that. Top show indeed old boy!
ST,
(U)MTP = Unit Maintenance Pilot; ergo MTF = Maintenance Test Flight. I'm not a UMTP because a can't spell manteenince very well.
EO
If I wrote a 100 posts I don't think I could ever beat that. Top show indeed old boy!
ST,
(U)MTP = Unit Maintenance Pilot; ergo MTF = Maintenance Test Flight. I'm not a UMTP because a can't spell manteenince very well.
EO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: home
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all very much for all your posts - v interesting. Great picture too.
I think that the Air Corps has come round to the idea of two pilot ops in all aircraft types. Also agree that CH-47 is a great platform, and the RAF, as much as I hate to admit it, are very good at using it. However, I still believe that the Air Corps, and indeed the forces in general, would benefit from a bigger and more capable BLUH.
SS - definately take the point about Aircrewmen being a good start for NCO pilots. Having just come through the APC pipeline I can safely say that some very good QHI's started a ACM. In addition, some of them say that they might not have passed the APC if they were not crewmen first, and these are very good pilots.
Even if we do not manage to get S-70, do most people think that we should formalise the rear crew training and try to make it a bit more comprehensive? As mentioned above, it's a great way to cream off NCO pilots. Also makes USL's a bit easier. Also accept the point about NVG's - I'm obviously just a bit crap at it. Very glad to hear that the crewmen fired the TOW / SS11. Having thought about it, no reason why not at all.
Any more news on what BLUH will be, or if the project has been canned, or will we go for a completely different "solution" altogether?
I think that the Air Corps has come round to the idea of two pilot ops in all aircraft types. Also agree that CH-47 is a great platform, and the RAF, as much as I hate to admit it, are very good at using it. However, I still believe that the Air Corps, and indeed the forces in general, would benefit from a bigger and more capable BLUH.
SS - definately take the point about Aircrewmen being a good start for NCO pilots. Having just come through the APC pipeline I can safely say that some very good QHI's started a ACM. In addition, some of them say that they might not have passed the APC if they were not crewmen first, and these are very good pilots.
Even if we do not manage to get S-70, do most people think that we should formalise the rear crew training and try to make it a bit more comprehensive? As mentioned above, it's a great way to cream off NCO pilots. Also makes USL's a bit easier. Also accept the point about NVG's - I'm obviously just a bit crap at it. Very glad to hear that the crewmen fired the TOW / SS11. Having thought about it, no reason why not at all.
Any more news on what BLUH will be, or if the project has been canned, or will we go for a completely different "solution" altogether?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Adelaide
Age: 52
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case anyone is interested we had a visit from the Lynx IPT not so long ago. There is only one contender for BLUH and that is the future Lynx, like it or lump it! However, it is not there to ferry troops around, although this is a secondary role. It's primary role is ISTAR, basically taking over from the Gazelle.
All of the usual arguments about lack of cabin space, blackhawk, etc were thrown at the team but ISTAR was the answer. Definitely no Blackhawk (except possibly 657 Sqn) and no lugging around troops. As an ISTAR platform it looks very good but it will mean a whole new state of mind for us Lynx jocks that will be left.
That said, the whole project could be binned anyway in favour of Puma replacements or the like. Time will tell. What is obvious is that jointery will take the fore, and rightly so in my opinion. How much longer must the chest beating go on between the services. With money as tight as it is I would suggest that we should stick together to fight the common enemy, Tony and his team!
And all this coming from an Army Lynx driver! Hey, I am out in 6 months because they won't let me continue to fly (just because it doesn't fit the Army career profile). Bring it on, more jointery, more lesbians, more PT, more health and safety at work and more Iip I reckon, I'll be long gone! But that's a different story................
All of the usual arguments about lack of cabin space, blackhawk, etc were thrown at the team but ISTAR was the answer. Definitely no Blackhawk (except possibly 657 Sqn) and no lugging around troops. As an ISTAR platform it looks very good but it will mean a whole new state of mind for us Lynx jocks that will be left.
That said, the whole project could be binned anyway in favour of Puma replacements or the like. Time will tell. What is obvious is that jointery will take the fore, and rightly so in my opinion. How much longer must the chest beating go on between the services. With money as tight as it is I would suggest that we should stick together to fight the common enemy, Tony and his team!
And all this coming from an Army Lynx driver! Hey, I am out in 6 months because they won't let me continue to fly (just because it doesn't fit the Army career profile). Bring it on, more jointery, more lesbians, more PT, more health and safety at work and more Iip I reckon, I'll be long gone! But that's a different story................
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Germaneee
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, think about the fact that the Army has just bought a rather large(ish) quantity of Cold War battle winners. Do you really think the Guardian readers AKA The Govn will be lulled into another large procurement of shiny 'Fred Astairs' (all singing, all dancing) just for the sake of Op effectiveness? Nah.........
I think we need to go cap in hand, begging bowl out and get what we are told to get, on the political level and be happy with our lot. This is regardless of what is Doctrinally pure. From what I can gather the doctrine will be written around what we can afford/told to buy.
The long and short of it is, I/we don’t give a hoot as long as it’s newer than what we have at present. And that’s not hard.
I don’t think S70/UH60 will be a runner due to cost and infrastructure, nothing to do with the semantics of crew composition. Lynx Bluh is where it will be as it keeps yet another British cottage industry buoyant for minimum outlay on their part and it’s also jobs for the boys! And we have the Lynx spares chain in situ(again, ish!).
Having seen the new effort from the countries third best garage door builders, it aint half bad for what it is. But what it is, is not what we need. Can’t have it all I suppose!
(BTW, if ABIW posts after this; you’re a throbber as you know nowt and just post for the attention on the internet because you don’t have any real friends and thrive on the responses as you know that you would get chinned in real life if you came out with the majority of the comments you come out with on here. I for one would love to meet you just to 'mill for 90 secs' to prove the point)
I think we need to go cap in hand, begging bowl out and get what we are told to get, on the political level and be happy with our lot. This is regardless of what is Doctrinally pure. From what I can gather the doctrine will be written around what we can afford/told to buy.
The long and short of it is, I/we don’t give a hoot as long as it’s newer than what we have at present. And that’s not hard.
I don’t think S70/UH60 will be a runner due to cost and infrastructure, nothing to do with the semantics of crew composition. Lynx Bluh is where it will be as it keeps yet another British cottage industry buoyant for minimum outlay on their part and it’s also jobs for the boys! And we have the Lynx spares chain in situ(again, ish!).
Having seen the new effort from the countries third best garage door builders, it aint half bad for what it is. But what it is, is not what we need. Can’t have it all I suppose!
(BTW, if ABIW posts after this; you’re a throbber as you know nowt and just post for the attention on the internet because you don’t have any real friends and thrive on the responses as you know that you would get chinned in real life if you came out with the majority of the comments you come out with on here. I for one would love to meet you just to 'mill for 90 secs' to prove the point)
I prefer "GS's" at dawn so pm me for a time and date..........along with the title and address of your second
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow.
Age: 80
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BO,
You appear to be at your most offensive when you post in the wee hours.Wonder why that is ?
Anyway,this so called "banter" is now becoming more like loutish behaviour and has just crossed the threshold of acceptability.I think most of us recognise this as a personal vendetta on your part and it should stop now. It just aint funny no more.
E5.
You appear to be at your most offensive when you post in the wee hours.Wonder why that is ?
Anyway,this so called "banter" is now becoming more like loutish behaviour and has just crossed the threshold of acceptability.I think most of us recognise this as a personal vendetta on your part and it should stop now. It just aint funny no more.
E5.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: home
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, what's not funny anymore is us still having to put up with childish, unnecessary, uninformed and boring comments from ABIW and his "friends".
You bring nothing to the thread, so why bother posting? Why? Are you really that sad that you have to? This thread is going fine without your input. You are so boring and predictable its painful.
A thread was started all for you but you still keep coming back.
Why?
Everyone else thank you for your posts - v interesting, keep it coming. Anything concrete on BLUH yet?
You bring nothing to the thread, so why bother posting? Why? Are you really that sad that you have to? This thread is going fine without your input. You are so boring and predictable its painful.
A thread was started all for you but you still keep coming back.
Why?
Everyone else thank you for your posts - v interesting, keep it coming. Anything concrete on BLUH yet?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Bearing in mind this is a public forum and the general public, journalists et al have full and free access, I am appalled that what was meant to be (I think) a reasonable debate has quickly degenerated into this stupidity. 
Goodbye, not interested in participating any further.
Goodbye, not interested in participating any further.
thought this was developing well as a thread!
pprune in the old days was either good banter, or professional opinion. the question about BLUH is an important one, this weeks american tome 'aviation week' reckons the MOD have a watching brief on a similar american program.
so, like some other pprune watchers. i'm fed-up that this thread developed into an interservice slagging between 2 aviators.
ABIW - use your noddle and learn from fellow herc mates how to banter....not p**s off so many people.
Bill O'A - your last 'milling' reply has no place on this website, civvys must despair of us - until then i was with you all the way.
moderator - moderate.
sad thing is, i'm ex-aac, very proud of the people i had the privilege to work with, i'm ex-loady........and very proud of the people i had the privilege to work with, suppose it's time to try the navy.......least the banter is sharp!
pprune in the old days was either good banter, or professional opinion. the question about BLUH is an important one, this weeks american tome 'aviation week' reckons the MOD have a watching brief on a similar american program.
so, like some other pprune watchers. i'm fed-up that this thread developed into an interservice slagging between 2 aviators.
ABIW - use your noddle and learn from fellow herc mates how to banter....not p**s off so many people.
Bill O'A - your last 'milling' reply has no place on this website, civvys must despair of us - until then i was with you all the way.
moderator - moderate.
sad thing is, i'm ex-aac, very proud of the people i had the privilege to work with, i'm ex-loady........and very proud of the people i had the privilege to work with, suppose it's time to try the navy.......least the banter is sharp!
