Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

MoD to purchase more Chinooks - Rumour or Fact ?

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

MoD to purchase more Chinooks - Rumour or Fact ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 16th Jan 2007, 16:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SH-UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MoD to purchase more Chinooks - Rumour or Fact ?

Have heard recent whispers that we are buying another 18 chinooks on the hurry up, some from Boeing and some from the yanks ??

Anyone know any more or is this still in the rumour phase ???
Cmn2644 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2007, 18:41
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wherever will have me
Posts: 748
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last I'd heard, from the most highly paid solo Typhoon pilot, is that you couldn't buy a new wokka for love nor money. Everyone wants one. Apparently they're the new black!
whowhenwhy is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2007, 18:46
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,296
Received 519 Likes on 217 Posts
I thought you had eight setting surplus in a hangar somewhere cause the avionics were considered sub-standard....why not use them. No IFR flying required for air displays....that would free up one would it not?
SASless is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2007, 19:54
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Even if they did, I bet there wouldn't be many more on the line each morning...
ProfessionalStudent is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2007, 20:07
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 324
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Question

Originally Posted by ProfessionalStudent
Even if they did, I bet there wouldn't be many more on the line each morning...
Why might that be then?
insty66 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2007, 21:49
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cause if the rotorheads were allowed access, they would be stripped to keep the "full-flight-cleared" ones flying, that's why. 8 more front & rear gearbox/rotor heads, etc....
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2007, 22:11
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,296
Received 519 Likes on 217 Posts
What has happened to war time stocks of the big bits? One would think along with normal spares stockage there would have been "war stocks" purchased.

Cannibalization can mean too things....lack of spares because they do not exist because they were not purchased at all.... or someone in supply has failed to ensure a timely replacement of stockage consumed.
SASless is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2007, 22:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,226
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
“What has happened to war time stocks of the big bits?”

Long time since it was policy to keep war reserve serviceable. 1992 for avionics. It’s called (variously) “Just in Time” or “AP830 DM87”. Please tell me this has been rescinded!
tucumseh is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2007, 06:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
What has happened to war time stocks of the big bits? One would think along with normal spares stockage there would have been "war stocks" purchased.
Cannibalization can mean too things....lack of spares because they do not exist because they were not purchased at all.... or someone in supply has failed to ensure a timely replacement of stockage consumed.
Actually its a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B.

'Just In Time' was introduced against the wishes of a large portion of the logistics organisation because it was believed that the civil sector could just turn on the taps and produce more kit when required. Unfortunately someone seems to have forgotten to inform the civil manufacturing industry of their abilities and 'long lead times' are the bane of a beleaguered suppliers life.

On top of this is the fact that the people controlling the standing routine contracts are not (well don't seem to be) professionals in this role, with the result that quite often contracts for essential items are allowed to end with no new contract being placed. Desert boots before Telic 1 being one that springs to mind, the contract ran out and the manufacturing company went bust before anyone realised that boots weren't arriving at Bicester.

Of course rumour has it its just us suppliers being awkward sods. We've got tons of kit sat in our stores but we just love seeing the looks on your disappointed faces.
The Helpful Stacker is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2007, 09:05
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker

On top of this is the fact that the people controlling the standing routine contracts are not (well don't seem to be) professionals in this role, with the result that quite often contracts for essential items are allowed to end with no new contract being placed. Desert boots before Telic 1 being one that springs to mind, the contract ran out and the manufacturing company went bust before anyone realised that boots weren't arriving at Bicester.
Crap contract writers in the MoD? Who'd have thought it?

18 more chinnies would be good, but where would they put them and who would fly them?
ProfessionalStudent is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2007, 11:45
  #11 (permalink)  
Red On, Green On
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
18 more chinnies would be good, but where would they put them and who would fly them?
Marinise them and give them to the Junglies - you know it makes sense
airborne_artist is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2007, 13:23
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not sure if the Jungly force have either the Aircrew or technical support to be able to fly/maintain something as big and complex as the Chinook
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2007, 13:52
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 532
Received 178 Likes on 94 Posts
Originally Posted by Always_broken_in_wilts
Not sure if the Jungly force have either the Aircrew or technical support to be able to fly/maintain something as big and complex as the Chinook
There may be trouble ahead.......
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2007, 13:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 1,077
Received 18 Likes on 8 Posts
If you try to fly an RN pilot/obs/ACMN above 90 kts... he'll disintegrate into his constituent molecules due to G-force intolerance.

(And please don't bring up Navy Harriers in JFH - we all know they're RAF GR7/9s flown by RAF pilots who joined the RAF, and future-RAF pilots who may have joined the RN at some point in the past)
Training Risky is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2007, 15:54
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TR,

Top post fella almost pi@@ed myself until I realised you are probably right
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2007, 18:45
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by Training Risky
If you try to fly an RN pilot/obs/ACMN above 90 kts... he'll disintegrate into his constituent molecules due to G-force intolerance.
(And please don't bring up Navy Harriers in JFH - we all know they're RAF GR7/9s flown by RAF pilots who joined the RAF, and future-RAF pilots who may have joined the RN at some point in the past)
Oooo, the WAFU 'aint gonna like that one Guv.
The Helpful Stacker is online now  
Old 19th Jan 2007, 09:10
  #17 (permalink)  

Yes, Him
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think they'll be best pleased with todays on-line Torygraph either.
"See RAF rescue video".
Gainesy is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2007, 09:16
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Age: 53
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suppose both crews could have all been on exchange at Culdrose but I doubt it
Been There... is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2007, 10:00
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Too obvious to bite!! Typical of the media - if it flies it's the RAF, if it floats it's the navy, if it's on the ground it's the army! Despite the helos having ROYAL NAVY in big letters on the side (which is more than can be said for the Harriers of 800 NAS!).
WhiteOvies is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2007, 10:34
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Anywhere there's ships and aircraft available
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not to worry, at least BBC Ten O'Clock News got it right - makes a change.

Si Clik is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.