At last, some SH news...
Exrigger,
My comments were not meant to offend, and some (but only some) of what you say is true, but...
Reducing the number of groundcrew, as is planned, will definitely cause us problems
and
In this case, few of the contractor's few engineers will be ex-RAF Sea King engineers - I know this for a fact, having spoken over the last year or so to most of our groundcrew. Most of them, as experienced RAF engineers, will be sent elsewhere within the RAF: they can't just walk out one day as an RAF ginger and come back in the next day as a civilian (and some of them wouldn't want to anyway). Hence my concern about lack of experience, though I have been somewhat heartened to find out that there will be a couple of the current engineers who will be staying on under the new regime.
I can only speak with any certainty about the privatisation of SAR, as that's what I happen to know a bit about, but the impression I get is that things ain't too rosy on other fleets where civilian engineering has appeared - the Nimrod thread is only the most obvious example (see Jackonicko's post this afternoon about the chasm between what was promised from NISC and what is actually happening at Kinloss).
I don't mean for a moment that the engineers on the shop floor are at fault, whether civvy or military - from what I've seen, people work hard, and take pride in their jobs, whatever colour boiler suit they happen to wear. The fault belongs to those on high who, for the sake of penny-pinching, take away a working system and replace it with one which will be less good. Is my well-founded concern for the future really 'the ramblings of a childrens play group'?
My comments were not meant to offend, and some (but only some) of what you say is true, but...
Reducing the number of groundcrew, as is planned, will definitely cause us problems
and
In this case, few of the contractor's few engineers will be ex-RAF Sea King engineers - I know this for a fact, having spoken over the last year or so to most of our groundcrew. Most of them, as experienced RAF engineers, will be sent elsewhere within the RAF: they can't just walk out one day as an RAF ginger and come back in the next day as a civilian (and some of them wouldn't want to anyway). Hence my concern about lack of experience, though I have been somewhat heartened to find out that there will be a couple of the current engineers who will be staying on under the new regime.
I can only speak with any certainty about the privatisation of SAR, as that's what I happen to know a bit about, but the impression I get is that things ain't too rosy on other fleets where civilian engineering has appeared - the Nimrod thread is only the most obvious example (see Jackonicko's post this afternoon about the chasm between what was promised from NISC and what is actually happening at Kinloss).
I don't mean for a moment that the engineers on the shop floor are at fault, whether civvy or military - from what I've seen, people work hard, and take pride in their jobs, whatever colour boiler suit they happen to wear. The fault belongs to those on high who, for the sake of penny-pinching, take away a working system and replace it with one which will be less good. Is my well-founded concern for the future really 'the ramblings of a childrens play group'?
Torque,
Not wishing to split hairs, but SH comes out of the LAND budget, not the "Typhoons, JSF and More Typhoons" RAF budget!
It takes a bit more than DAS and NVG cockpits to turn Pingers and their Merlin 1 into viable SH. A lot of training for the aircrew (how do you spell "tac climb"?) and major mods to the airframe. We joke about the Merlin 3's slide, er, ramp, but at least it's better than trying to get in a door that is a fathom off the ground!
And anyway, you've just justifed a £1Bn pound Merlin 1 CSP (think how many CH47/Merlin HC3/ Pumas we could of got for THAT) so there MUST be some sort of ASW role for the aircraft, mustn't there????
No, for once 6 Danish Merlins is good news, of sorts. Probably 6 to provide 2 anywhere useful. The simple fact of life is that nobody is selling the right sort of Helos in the timescale - believe me, if anybody had been selling CH47s we would have bought those first!
Not wishing to split hairs, but SH comes out of the LAND budget, not the "Typhoons, JSF and More Typhoons" RAF budget!
It takes a bit more than DAS and NVG cockpits to turn Pingers and their Merlin 1 into viable SH. A lot of training for the aircrew (how do you spell "tac climb"?) and major mods to the airframe. We joke about the Merlin 3's slide, er, ramp, but at least it's better than trying to get in a door that is a fathom off the ground!
And anyway, you've just justifed a £1Bn pound Merlin 1 CSP (think how many CH47/Merlin HC3/ Pumas we could of got for THAT) so there MUST be some sort of ASW role for the aircraft, mustn't there????
No, for once 6 Danish Merlins is good news, of sorts. Probably 6 to provide 2 anywhere useful. The simple fact of life is that nobody is selling the right sort of Helos in the timescale - believe me, if anybody had been selling CH47s we would have bought those first!
TorqueOfTheDevil:
You are correct I was not aiming the 'the ramblings of a childrens play group' at you in particular, I am sorry, but I have seen so much of these types of comment throughout lots of peoples contributions that I have fallen into the similar trap of tarring all contributors with the same brush, though in fairness it was a build up over the last week of resisting and I was bored and finally decided to put forward my two pennorth worth.
I was aiming a general rebuttal to those who do continuously harp on about the civilianisation as being the pinnacle of the problem and those that seem to not have a mind/opinion of their own jump on the civvie bashing bandwagon.
I have experience, both within the RAF and out, of the process of civilianisation and you will find that a good number, certainly at St Athan virtually took their uniforms off Friday and started work as a civvie Monday carrying on where they left off, additonally an awful lot of ex service personnel register with an agency and when the likes of BAES/FRAS/Morsons/Bombardier/Huntings etc require aircraft technicians this is where they come from.
As I, you and many others have rightly said, the blame lies soley with the MOD and Government who are doing everything in their power to destroy everything that 'we' have known and are/have been proud to be part of.
So for those that do not civvie bash, blaming them for everything, and are concerned for the future of the services I will apologise for any offence, but I still stand by the rest of my comments.
You are correct I was not aiming the 'the ramblings of a childrens play group' at you in particular, I am sorry, but I have seen so much of these types of comment throughout lots of peoples contributions that I have fallen into the similar trap of tarring all contributors with the same brush, though in fairness it was a build up over the last week of resisting and I was bored and finally decided to put forward my two pennorth worth.
I was aiming a general rebuttal to those who do continuously harp on about the civilianisation as being the pinnacle of the problem and those that seem to not have a mind/opinion of their own jump on the civvie bashing bandwagon.
I have experience, both within the RAF and out, of the process of civilianisation and you will find that a good number, certainly at St Athan virtually took their uniforms off Friday and started work as a civvie Monday carrying on where they left off, additonally an awful lot of ex service personnel register with an agency and when the likes of BAES/FRAS/Morsons/Bombardier/Huntings etc require aircraft technicians this is where they come from.
As I, you and many others have rightly said, the blame lies soley with the MOD and Government who are doing everything in their power to destroy everything that 'we' have known and are/have been proud to be part of.
So for those that do not civvie bash, blaming them for everything, and are concerned for the future of the services I will apologise for any offence, but I still stand by the rest of my comments.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 60
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
I am surprised that there has been little comment on the fact that the Defence secretary said;
"This package will deliver 14 additional military helicopters into new operational roles".
I thought we were quite busy with the ones we have got thank you very much.
I am surprised that there has been little comment on the fact that the Defence secretary said;
"This package will deliver 14 additional military helicopters into new operational roles".
I thought we were quite busy with the ones we have got thank you very much.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Some-r-set
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason it is taking a little longer to get the Danish cabs over the North Sea is that the deal still has to go through Danish Parliment.
The Mk3a's are going to go into service with the BERP IV blades fitted.
The Mk3a's are going to go into service with the BERP IV blades fitted.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point take re SAR
Would a good stratagey now be then to start ordering next generation chinooks now I know it will be a few years before delivery but stary ordering a few aircraft each year to build a fleet gradually and plan for the retirement of the early Chinook airframes.....or is this to much common sense for the Mod?
Would a good stratagey now be then to start ordering next generation chinooks now I know it will be a few years before delivery but stary ordering a few aircraft each year to build a fleet gradually and plan for the retirement of the early Chinook airframes.....or is this to much common sense for the Mod?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all those people whinging about the length of time to get these new cabs into service, I have some sympathy. However, you cannot underestimate the difficulties in designing, manufacturing (some items have very long lead times and just won't be available at the drop of a hat), and testing. For instance, the BERP IV blades have only been flying for a short amount of time, and they have not been tested in hot and high conditions (for example). You cannot just stick new blades on a helicopter and put it straight into service. Getting the Dansih merlins into service by early next year is incredibely quick
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Planet Zob
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to reiterate my previous comments with regards to the Chinooks - what is he expecting to happen. You cannot easily (or at all) retrofit a Mk2 mechanical cockpit into the Mk3 digital variant technically, never mind the spares situation (ie, gettting some more old fashioned instruments, none). Somebody somewhere must have a plan - I hope.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I properly out of date with developments or.......
With the advanced section and planform blade (ASP) rather than BERP (no longer experimental rotor program) there is an increased forward speed, particularly at hieght however; I was under the impression that there was a reduction in performance at lower speeds and in the hover. Is this still the case or has it been overcome?
Does this affect Merlin or has it not been noted as to-date it hasn't operated at the higher altitudes of the Stan. I presume it is a factor in Lynx performance. Has it been quantified in the Carson blade performance?
If it is a factor has it been accepted when balanced against the increase in forward speed? One would assume that it is the hover performance that would be a more critical factor in the current Stan operational environment.
HEDP
With the advanced section and planform blade (ASP) rather than BERP (no longer experimental rotor program) there is an increased forward speed, particularly at hieght however; I was under the impression that there was a reduction in performance at lower speeds and in the hover. Is this still the case or has it been overcome?
Does this affect Merlin or has it not been noted as to-date it hasn't operated at the higher altitudes of the Stan. I presume it is a factor in Lynx performance. Has it been quantified in the Carson blade performance?
If it is a factor has it been accepted when balanced against the increase in forward speed? One would assume that it is the hover performance that would be a more critical factor in the current Stan operational environment.
HEDP
Vuctored,
Don't forget the Mk3s were constructed with analogue cockpits and then flown to Shreveport to have the Honeywell-hybrid fitted.....Now where did we put those cockpits.....?
We hit issues over obsolescence with the Mk2As, which already have slight cockpit differences. Make no mistake, the only way to get the Mk3s analogue in 2 years is to fit the identical cockpit. The irony is that this is a short term fudge, and the airframes will probably only last 3-5 years with analogue before they get "glassed" as part of the next MLU. This is a political/military sticking plaster to cover up under-investment in BH over the past decade (and the raiding of £1Bn from the FRC budget).
At least we get to fly them though......
Don't forget the Mk3s were constructed with analogue cockpits and then flown to Shreveport to have the Honeywell-hybrid fitted.....Now where did we put those cockpits.....?
We hit issues over obsolescence with the Mk2As, which already have slight cockpit differences. Make no mistake, the only way to get the Mk3s analogue in 2 years is to fit the identical cockpit. The irony is that this is a short term fudge, and the airframes will probably only last 3-5 years with analogue before they get "glassed" as part of the next MLU. This is a political/military sticking plaster to cover up under-investment in BH over the past decade (and the raiding of £1Bn from the FRC budget).
At least we get to fly them though......
And who will do the work on the Chinooks? Fleetlands? They are already maxed out with more aircraft than they can manage - hence delays of many months getting Sea Kings out of the door. Rumour has it the RAF Sea King servicing went there to make the Fleetlands order book look full ready to be sold off next year!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of questions here asking what is happening to the Mk3 Chinooks. I doubt there will be answers just yet, after all, the team have been working toward delivering aircraft post Fix to Field for the SF Heavy role for the last X years and now that they have a solution, Minister doesn't like it because it isn't sexy or quick enough to make headlines!
I very much doubt the IPT have a 'Plan B - Mk2'ish solution' up their sleeve! This talk of 'immediately starting work to convert the Mk3' is scary tosh. That means, 'chit, panic, lets get the fag packets out and work up a design that meets the altered requirement, and comes into the budget that we've been given (not worked up!), which incidentally is 1/3rd of what we thought we needed for F2F - and do it a year quicker - whilst sticking a broom up our ar$e and sweeping the hangar!'. Not to mention that Boeing might just give up on us for leading them astray for the last few years.
I weep for the future
. Perhaps Minister would like to single handedly run the project because he knows best? or perhaps he would single handedly like to solve the Typhoon issues?? After all, his background really is the ideal CV for Military Aviation
I very much doubt the IPT have a 'Plan B - Mk2'ish solution' up their sleeve! This talk of 'immediately starting work to convert the Mk3' is scary tosh. That means, 'chit, panic, lets get the fag packets out and work up a design that meets the altered requirement, and comes into the budget that we've been given (not worked up!), which incidentally is 1/3rd of what we thought we needed for F2F - and do it a year quicker - whilst sticking a broom up our ar$e and sweeping the hangar!'. Not to mention that Boeing might just give up on us for leading them astray for the last few years.
I weep for the future
. Perhaps Minister would like to single handedly run the project because he knows best? or perhaps he would single handedly like to solve the Typhoon issues?? After all, his background really is the ideal CV for Military Aviation
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Planet Zob
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am appalled at the thought that the minister makes an announcement without a credible plan from the IPT. Who does he think he is! We have lots of people who's job it is to consider and plan these things to the nth degree. He must have some sort of plan otherwise he could not say its going to cost 50 to 60m. It might only cost 10m!!
Never mind the cockpit wot about the new airframe and fuel system, etc they need addressing as well.
It will be interesting to see how these Mk2Bs pan out.
Never mind the cockpit wot about the new airframe and fuel system, etc they need addressing as well.
It will be interesting to see how these Mk2Bs pan out.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: heathcliff
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8ter,
Surely of more interest is what are they going to keep from the Mk 3 upgrade? Inflight refuelling, fat tanks, radar/nose, flir ? Refitting the original cockpit will be fun, if they can find them, but some of the goodies would be useful if retained.
Surely of more interest is what are they going to keep from the Mk 3 upgrade? Inflight refuelling, fat tanks, radar/nose, flir ? Refitting the original cockpit will be fun, if they can find them, but some of the goodies would be useful if retained.
Sheep,
Sadly I find it very doubtful that much of the Mk3's "special" stuff will survive, indeed some of it has probably already been "traded" in an attempt to make the "fix-to-field" affordable. I predict that the radar will go (no screen to show it on) and the AAR will not be retained (no donor ac) though the fat tanks will stay as it is probably too expensive to revert to "svelte tanks"! Some of the F2F programme will have to be retained, and those elements are not for discussion on a public forum. A large chunk of money will have to be spent to bring them up to Mk2/2A standard, let alone all of the UORs....Still, nice to know we seem to have the money to update the Puma & Sea King but not F2F the Mk3 Chinook, it's all politics and presentation..
Sadly I find it very doubtful that much of the Mk3's "special" stuff will survive, indeed some of it has probably already been "traded" in an attempt to make the "fix-to-field" affordable. I predict that the radar will go (no screen to show it on) and the AAR will not be retained (no donor ac) though the fat tanks will stay as it is probably too expensive to revert to "svelte tanks"! Some of the F2F programme will have to be retained, and those elements are not for discussion on a public forum. A large chunk of money will have to be spent to bring them up to Mk2/2A standard, let alone all of the UORs....Still, nice to know we seem to have the money to update the Puma & Sea King but not F2F the Mk3 Chinook, it's all politics and presentation..
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Planet Zob
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that the dust has presumably settled does anyone have a clue as to what or how or who are going to make them into some sort of Mk2/A/B? They (MoD) have probably already spent enough money (our money) in their pontificating (sorry aquiring the best equipment for the most affordable price) to have converted at least one aircraft by now (to F2F)!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Uk( well sometimes)
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I BIT !!!!
maybe cos the Sea queens cant lift jack **** in the hot desert !! hence the reason they never went into 'The Stan' in the first place off Ocean!!!!
maybe cos the Sea queens cant lift jack **** in the hot desert !! hence the reason they never went into 'The Stan' in the first place off Ocean!!!!