£260m Chinooks are grounded turkeys, say MPs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Also reported by the Beeb, for those without a subscription to The Times: Blunders lead to helo shortage. No sign of the report on the NAO website yet.
I/C
I/C
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£260m SAS helicopters can't fly with a cloud in the sky
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 07/04/2004)
Eight special forces helicopters delivered to the Ministry of Defence in 2001 at a cost of nearly £260 million have not been used in Afghanistan or Iraq because they cannot fly if it is cloudy.
The first SAS team to enter Afghanistan was delayed by six days because of the problems with the Chinooks, which are allowed to fly above 500ft only in clear skies.
£127 million must be spent so the Chinook can carry out the missions they were bought for
The problems, disclosed today in a National Audit Office report, were the result of "one of the most incompetent procurements of all time", Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee said yesterday.
"Eight brand new Chinook HC3s costing £259 million were delivered in 2001 but will be sitting on the ground until 2007," he said. "Because of a massively botched job, they cannot be flown when there is a cloud in the sky. The MoD might as well have bought eight turkeys."
In what Mr Leigh described as "an atrocious oversight", the ministry had decided to cut costs by refusing to pay for a fully digital cockpit. The result was a compromise that did not match British defence safety standards.
The 500ft restriction means that the helicopters "cannot be used other than for limited flight trials", the report says.
It will take £127 million more to bring them up to British standards and enable them to carry out the tasks for which they are needed.
The helicopters were ordered from Boeing in 1995. They were tailored to the needs of the SAS and Special Boat Service, with satellite communications technology, extra fuel tanks and in-flight refuelling probes for long flights.
At the start of the war in Afghanistan, when there was no moon - in theory the best conditions for a special forces insertion - the SAS could not move because its Chinook pilots relied on light-enhancing night vision goggles.
As a result, the troops were unable to fly into Afghanistan until six days after their American counterparts.
The report is also critical of the ministry for the failure to provide enough helicopters to carry troops into action. It says: "There is an overall deficit of 38 per cent in helicopter lift. There is also an 87 per cent shortfall in ship-optimised helicopter lift."
The criticism coincides with proposals from MoD working groups to axe all RAF Puma and all Royal Navy Sea King helicopters as part of a drive to save £1.2 billion from this year's defence budget. But the Merlin helicopters that would take over responsibility for airlifting troops into operations are "restricted to essential flying" because of a suspected tail rotor fault.
The report recommends that the Royal Navy and the RAF follow the Army Air Corps in using senior NCOs to fly aircraft rather than confining the role to commissioned officers.
"one of the most incompetent procurements of all time"
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 07/04/2004)
Eight special forces helicopters delivered to the Ministry of Defence in 2001 at a cost of nearly £260 million have not been used in Afghanistan or Iraq because they cannot fly if it is cloudy.
The first SAS team to enter Afghanistan was delayed by six days because of the problems with the Chinooks, which are allowed to fly above 500ft only in clear skies.
£127 million must be spent so the Chinook can carry out the missions they were bought for
The problems, disclosed today in a National Audit Office report, were the result of "one of the most incompetent procurements of all time", Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee said yesterday.
"Eight brand new Chinook HC3s costing £259 million were delivered in 2001 but will be sitting on the ground until 2007," he said. "Because of a massively botched job, they cannot be flown when there is a cloud in the sky. The MoD might as well have bought eight turkeys."
In what Mr Leigh described as "an atrocious oversight", the ministry had decided to cut costs by refusing to pay for a fully digital cockpit. The result was a compromise that did not match British defence safety standards.
The 500ft restriction means that the helicopters "cannot be used other than for limited flight trials", the report says.
It will take £127 million more to bring them up to British standards and enable them to carry out the tasks for which they are needed.
The helicopters were ordered from Boeing in 1995. They were tailored to the needs of the SAS and Special Boat Service, with satellite communications technology, extra fuel tanks and in-flight refuelling probes for long flights.
At the start of the war in Afghanistan, when there was no moon - in theory the best conditions for a special forces insertion - the SAS could not move because its Chinook pilots relied on light-enhancing night vision goggles.
As a result, the troops were unable to fly into Afghanistan until six days after their American counterparts.
The report is also critical of the ministry for the failure to provide enough helicopters to carry troops into action. It says: "There is an overall deficit of 38 per cent in helicopter lift. There is also an 87 per cent shortfall in ship-optimised helicopter lift."
The criticism coincides with proposals from MoD working groups to axe all RAF Puma and all Royal Navy Sea King helicopters as part of a drive to save £1.2 billion from this year's defence budget. But the Merlin helicopters that would take over responsibility for airlifting troops into operations are "restricted to essential flying" because of a suspected tail rotor fault.
The report recommends that the Royal Navy and the RAF follow the Army Air Corps in using senior NCOs to fly aircraft rather than confining the role to commissioned officers.
"one of the most incompetent procurements of all time"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report recommends that the Royal Navy and the RAF follow the Army Air Corps in using senior NCOs to fly aircraft rather than confining the role to commissioned officers.
Perhaps,
But totally irrelevant to the topic. Yet again a cash strapped MoD has made a total bolleaux of a new aircraft project - but the government will seek to blame anyone other than themselves.
THe root cause is having people like Blar, Hoon and Gordon-the-greedy in power.
How much does the nation waste on paying econmic migrants with their ever outstretched hands? And how much do Trust-me-Tone's bring-a-bottle wars cost the nation?
And we can't even afford 8 helicopters! E I G H T !!
But I supose if the RAF can't even afford to buy its own basic trainers or ME training aeroplanes anymore, the fact that we can't afford a few helicopters shouldn't come as a huge surprise....
How did it ever get into such a state?
But totally irrelevant to the topic. Yet again a cash strapped MoD has made a total bolleaux of a new aircraft project - but the government will seek to blame anyone other than themselves.
THe root cause is having people like Blar, Hoon and Gordon-the-greedy in power.
How much does the nation waste on paying econmic migrants with their ever outstretched hands? And how much do Trust-me-Tone's bring-a-bottle wars cost the nation?
And we can't even afford 8 helicopters! E I G H T !!
But I supose if the RAF can't even afford to buy its own basic trainers or ME training aeroplanes anymore, the fact that we can't afford a few helicopters shouldn't come as a huge surprise....
How did it ever get into such a state?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Full Report (989K). Executive Summary (140K).
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Crossing Charlie
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHO ORDERED THE CHNOOKS?
Beags,
On Radio 4 interview with Minister for Def Procurement this morning as I drove to work he said that the contract was let in 1995. Therefore it was the Tory Band that were playing and not the Socialists.
What gets no mention at all, and maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here, is that the contract was changed/amended after it was let.
That would be another story and something which the uniformed members of the MOD are often guilty of.
Low Ball
On Radio 4 interview with Minister for Def Procurement this morning as I drove to work he said that the contract was let in 1995. Therefore it was the Tory Band that were playing and not the Socialists.
What gets no mention at all, and maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here, is that the contract was changed/amended after it was let.
That would be another story and something which the uniformed members of the MOD are often guilty of.
Low Ball
From the report:
Flawed procurement of eight Chinook HC3 helicopters means that, although they were delivered to specification by the contractor in December 2001, they cannot yet be used operationally, principally because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the avionics software meets United Kingdom Defence standards. This is primarily because the programme was not de-risked prior to investment decisions being taken; nor did the contract specify that the software should be analysed in accordance with United Kingdom Defence standards. Other user requirements categorised as essential have not been delivered because, for a variety of reasons, they too were not included in the contract. To bring the helicopters broadly up to the standard of the existing Chinook fleet would require approximately £127 million, over and above the £259 million originally estimated, and would mean the helicopter would enter service in mid-2007 - some nine years later than the original In-Service Date, although this latter was re-defined in March 1998 to June 2002.
The shortfall in battlefield helicopter capability will continue
Even if improvements to efficiency and effectiveness are made, there will still be a shortfall in helicopter capability. A recent Departmental study concluded that there is currently a 38 per cent shortfall in overall battlefield support helicopter lift, which includes an 87 per cent shortfall in ship-optimised support helicopter lift. Primarily, the latter deficit is a manifestation of a changed strategic environment over the past decade, which has generated a greater requirement to undertake littoral operations. According to the Department, the shortfall in ship-optimised lift will remain until 2018, while overall battlefield lift will remain inadequate until 2017.
In addition, the nature of the legacy fleet means that many platforms are not fully equipped to undertake missions in certain operational and environmental conditions, including those recently experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq. The helicopter force has a number of critical capability shortfalls, some of which can only be addressed by expensive modifications. Owing principally to a lack of resources, these capability shortfalls are often met by Urgent Operational Requirements. For example, part of the current Chinook fleet has acquired the necessary capabilities to meet operational demands. However, this process has often not only been costly but it is essentially short-term in nature.
Flawed procurement of eight Chinook HC3 helicopters means that, although they were delivered to specification by the contractor in December 2001, they cannot yet be used operationally, principally because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the avionics software meets United Kingdom Defence standards. This is primarily because the programme was not de-risked prior to investment decisions being taken; nor did the contract specify that the software should be analysed in accordance with United Kingdom Defence standards. Other user requirements categorised as essential have not been delivered because, for a variety of reasons, they too were not included in the contract. To bring the helicopters broadly up to the standard of the existing Chinook fleet would require approximately £127 million, over and above the £259 million originally estimated, and would mean the helicopter would enter service in mid-2007 - some nine years later than the original In-Service Date, although this latter was re-defined in March 1998 to June 2002.
The shortfall in battlefield helicopter capability will continue
Even if improvements to efficiency and effectiveness are made, there will still be a shortfall in helicopter capability. A recent Departmental study concluded that there is currently a 38 per cent shortfall in overall battlefield support helicopter lift, which includes an 87 per cent shortfall in ship-optimised support helicopter lift. Primarily, the latter deficit is a manifestation of a changed strategic environment over the past decade, which has generated a greater requirement to undertake littoral operations. According to the Department, the shortfall in ship-optimised lift will remain until 2018, while overall battlefield lift will remain inadequate until 2017.
In addition, the nature of the legacy fleet means that many platforms are not fully equipped to undertake missions in certain operational and environmental conditions, including those recently experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq. The helicopter force has a number of critical capability shortfalls, some of which can only be addressed by expensive modifications. Owing principally to a lack of resources, these capability shortfalls are often met by Urgent Operational Requirements. For example, part of the current Chinook fleet has acquired the necessary capabilities to meet operational demands. However, this process has often not only been costly but it is essentially short-term in nature.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were these the aircraft that were bought as "stocking fillers" - ie, late purchases to soak up an unexpected budget surplus? Did some blokes from OR and PE literally fly into Seattle waving cheque books? Did Boeing's sell any more aircraft to this standard to any other customers? If so, are they accepting the same operating restrictions, or are Boscombe and PE over-egging their standards? It would not be the first time THAT has happened. It was amazing during the "Malvinas Arse-kicking" who many radical mods and capabilities were cleared by Boscombe in short order because it was also a "PE Arse-kicking" exercise. 
Perhaps I'm missing something here? So the HC3 is limited to day/night VMC only. Isn't that what most of you do anyway? The 500' restriction seems strange, as you're looking out below that height anyway, so the lack of IF capability hardly seems relevant.
Surely the aircraft should be able to carry out most of the missions that the rest can do at present.
Surely the aircraft should be able to carry out most of the missions that the rest can do at present.
Was is not these airframes that the US bought back off us due to the US losses in Afghanistan?? I was lead to believe that they bought the Mk3's back from us with a promise of getting their upgraded model when it came from the factory??
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Grimweasel -
These were the aircraft we tried to foist-off onto the Yanks, who - so the story goes - took one look at them and promptly decided to order 16 'new' (well, reman'd) special ops wokkas instead, as part of the ICH upgrade. SOCOM is reported to have 'borrowed' regular CH-47s from the Army to meet its near-term needs until the G models start appearing later this year.
The original thread on this subject - Whatever happened to the Chinook HC 3s? - provides some background info.
I/C
These were the aircraft we tried to foist-off onto the Yanks, who - so the story goes - took one look at them and promptly decided to order 16 'new' (well, reman'd) special ops wokkas instead, as part of the ICH upgrade. SOCOM is reported to have 'borrowed' regular CH-47s from the Army to meet its near-term needs until the G models start appearing later this year.
The original thread on this subject - Whatever happened to the Chinook HC 3s? - provides some background info.
I/C
Now perhaps the Chinook IPT might understand why Def Stan 00-60 calls for Integrated Logistical Support (ILS) for Software.
It was decided by the Chinook IPT that this was not necessary before 1999, whilst the HC3 was still being built.
I believe this cock up is purely an in house one.
It was decided by the Chinook IPT that this was not necessary before 1999, whilst the HC3 was still being built.
I believe this cock up is purely an in house one.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, at least the Mk3 wasn't rushed into service, with poor Flight Reference Cards, spurious engine fail captions, unrequested engine shutdowns or various flight restrictions - making it less capable than the version it was supposed to be replacing.
Something, perhaps learnt as a result of the accident on the Mull.
That matter still goes on, nearly ten years after the accident!
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Something, perhaps learnt as a result of the accident on the Mull.
That matter still goes on, nearly ten years after the accident!
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Ian C ... Many thanks old chap. There was me hoping on behalf of the tax payer!!!
Isn't the solution just to base them abroad permanently thus avoiding the CAA rules?????
As has been said, if the Dutch ones are Ok then why not ours???
Isn't the solution just to base them abroad permanently thus avoiding the CAA rules?????
As has been said, if the Dutch ones are Ok then why not ours???
Flatus Veteranus:
No. And it'd be Philadelphia, anyway.
No.
No.
Grimweasel: These are not the same standard as the Dutch aircraft.
Did some blokes from OR and PE literally fly into Seattle waving cheque books?
Did Boeing's sell any more aircraft to this standard to any other customers?
or are Boscombe and PE over-egging their standards?
Grimweasel: These are not the same standard as the Dutch aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: TheDarkSide
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is more interesting about the report is the overall % reduction in operational capability, that this un-surprising, (bearing in mind MR4, ASTOR, AH - contract signed in 96, BOWMAN - 16 years behind ISD, Typhoon - now LOC 07!..the list goes on) episode underpins. UK SF are hardly crying in their bergans about the HC3's...they will be out buying something more cheap and cheerful (more likley capable as well..like UH60 or such).
If 1xChinook is roughly about 2% of the lift capability of the JHC, add this 16% to the 38% already quoted as diffy and we are less than half capable of moving ground forces by rotary means and unable to move Bootys at all if the math is correct (87% in the litterol + 16 = 103)..ah that's the reason why the Sea Kings are in the next round of cuts....they have already been sold! Its also beginning to look like the afore mentioned formation, is not able to meet its mission. Wasn't it formed to centrally control & command; planning, training,deployments, logistics and maint of all BH, to improve / rationalise practices - to enable MORE resources to support the Army / RM?
1 UK Div bailed out by the USMC AH on Telic. An Air Assault Bde that has never assaulted anything since it was formed - tabbed it into Basra (no MT/AFV available from 7 Armd) and with the distinct lack of lift capability, a much extolled "the way ahead" Air Manoeuvre doctrine in tatters, that looks like a non starter until after 2020!
So..looks like re-inventing the wheel and putting all rotary assets back to a single service, flown by SNCO's!, (the RAF can then justify keeping all those 1000's of Officer pilots for the very sophisticated Typhoon's...well after 2008ish anyway), save the 127 Million needed to put the HC3's to right s by buying shed loads of UH1N's and if defence cuts are needed..the IPT's look hot favourites.
All the above, only my opinion..to generate healthy debate..of course!!
If 1xChinook is roughly about 2% of the lift capability of the JHC, add this 16% to the 38% already quoted as diffy and we are less than half capable of moving ground forces by rotary means and unable to move Bootys at all if the math is correct (87% in the litterol + 16 = 103)..ah that's the reason why the Sea Kings are in the next round of cuts....they have already been sold! Its also beginning to look like the afore mentioned formation, is not able to meet its mission. Wasn't it formed to centrally control & command; planning, training,deployments, logistics and maint of all BH, to improve / rationalise practices - to enable MORE resources to support the Army / RM?
1 UK Div bailed out by the USMC AH on Telic. An Air Assault Bde that has never assaulted anything since it was formed - tabbed it into Basra (no MT/AFV available from 7 Armd) and with the distinct lack of lift capability, a much extolled "the way ahead" Air Manoeuvre doctrine in tatters, that looks like a non starter until after 2020!
So..looks like re-inventing the wheel and putting all rotary assets back to a single service, flown by SNCO's!, (the RAF can then justify keeping all those 1000's of Officer pilots for the very sophisticated Typhoon's...well after 2008ish anyway), save the 127 Million needed to put the HC3's to right s by buying shed loads of UH1N's and if defence cuts are needed..the IPT's look hot favourites.
All the above, only my opinion..to generate healthy debate..of course!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grimweasel
The CAA has no say in military aircraft. If you register them as civil, a la Tutor,(I know, they are civil but you know what I mean), then the civil rules apply in full and you cannot decide to service them, or equip them to service rules. Back to the Tutor again, Not below 500' , Bulldog 250' low level nav.
Mike W
The CAA has no say in military aircraft. If you register them as civil, a la Tutor,(I know, they are civil but you know what I mean), then the civil rules apply in full and you cannot decide to service them, or equip them to service rules. Back to the Tutor again, Not below 500' , Bulldog 250' low level nav.
Mike W